by Dave Berman, 10-21-03

Discuss this in our online forums

I watched General Wesley Clark speak on C-Span the other night. One of the things he said was that across America he has been observing an outpouring of patriotism in the form of public service. He noted that service need not be running for office, but could be a part-time or even volunteer role.

To me it sounded like reinforcement and validation of a principle I've been calling "the least you can do."

When politics first pushed me to activism, I was very uncomfortable about what I could do, or should do, or even what I would do. Actions weren't obvious to me and the direction feebly pointed by the organizers I had found didn't seem to be leading anywhere.

In my own time, I came to realize that almost anything could constitute activism. Before I knew it, I had discussed ballot initiatives and candidates with several of my neighbors, started an online newsgroup, and written several letters to politicians and the media. I had found my own words and voice as a means to activate. Much more was still to come, but I had discovered a standard for myself, and a challenge to others: “identify the least you can do, and commit to doing at least that much.”

On the campaign trail, General Clark is using his presidential candidacy to call out the Bush administration for some of the same things I have railed against. When it’s me, it’s activism. When it’s the General, it’s public service. At least that’s what I thought at first.

I couldn’t help wondering if it was reasonable to interpret Clark’s patriotism comments as support for “the least you can do.” My wife was surprised by my uncertainty. Of course they’re the same, she insisted. She asked me whether the websites I’ve created, the events I’ve hosted, or the projects I’ve proposed constitute public service?

Big goals are seldom achieved in one giant leap. I prefer smaller, tangible steps moving forward in the direction of a larger goal. The key navigation question is always "what would be better?" Any answer to that question can become one of these small steps. Provided that the self-sabotage trap can be avoided (I have learned to guard against the human nature tendency to make trouble for myself), this is a blueprint for the textbook definition of “progress.”

With encouragement, I was led to accept that my pursuit of progress, by leading debates about the definition of “better,” must surely be worthy of designation as “public service.” But so what? Does it really matter whether I perceive myself as an activist or public servant? Again I didn’t assume that right away and again my better half re-framed my perspective.

It sure seems like public servant is a term endowed with legitimacy, authority, and--relative to activism--power. Activism suggests weak, underdog, outsider. That’s coming from the activist’s point of view. I realize activism is a four letter word in some places and activists a lesser form of life. Under such conditions it is not surprising that marginalized, disrespected citizens are finding it difficult to affect change.

No topic has been of greater interest to me over the past two years than how activists can better define and more successfully pursue their goals. We don’t have such a great track record. I don’t dwell on failure or assign blame. Instead, “what would be better” guides me to look for changes we can make in our approach. Given the inherent societal obstacles, the lesson inspired by General Clark’s speech is that I can strengthen my hand merely by the way I portray myself. Duh. I never tried to get a white-collar job in a t-shirt and ripped jeans! (Wouldn’t that be sabotage?)

So many of life’s revelations come along as reminders of things we already knew, but thought of differently. That’s why the least I could do right now is issue this reminder.

As an activist, I have sided with the environment over corporate welfare; advocated genuine diplomacy in pursuit of peace rather than lies and scare tactics in pursuit of self-interest and war; and supported competition in the free marketplace of ideas via the more accurate form of democracy that would be borne of instant runoff voting and proportional representation. As I’ve tilted at these particular windmills, I’ve found myself aligned with others who consider themselves activists. Our collective sense of self must hereby change.

If my positions were judged like a politician’s, I’d be considered a populist. On every issue, my aims match the best interests of the public at large rather than the more narrow interests of industry and political machinery. By pursuing these causes under the banner of activism, I have arrived at the interview in my underwear. This sabotage will stop now.

I am asking others to join me in recognizing that our efforts reflect PUBLIC SERVICE.

If society wants to view activists as “troublemakers” (or “radicals”), we should respond pointing to those who pollute for profit, lie to the public (or fail to out others who do), or limit our political options to the lesser of two evils.

In more accurately portraying our work we strengthen our case. Change will come as our opponents realize our objectives still take good care of them and that their interests need not conflict with the greater good. These same opponents will more easily come to this point of view when they see us as public servants, a view, image, and responsibility in action that we must first project ourselves. Putting patriotism in this form is “the least you can do” and it’s “what would be better.”

**

Before concluding, I want to make clear that nothing in this essay constitutes an endorsement of General Clark’s bid for the White House.

© Dave Berman 10/11/03