The Myth of Powerlessness

[bcholmes]

I've been reading Linda McQuaig's 1998 book, The Cult of Impotence. Here's the overleaf synopsis:

In the past four years, the Chrétien government has slashed our cherished social programs more deeply than Brian Mulroney's Tories ever dared. We were told that Canada's deficit problems left no alternatives; international financial markets would cut us off if we didn't start slashing. [...]

The popular belief is that we can't have these things because of factors beyond out control -- because globalization and technology have left us powerless to achieve them.

I've also recently watched the movie, Super-Size Me. One of the interesting comments that was made relates to "number of messages". A media researcher commented that children see 10,000 messages a year about food (fast-food, candy, etc.) before they're adults. Even if a parent spends every meal with a child, and tried to encourage the child about the values of good nutrition during that time, that's still just over 1000 messages a day. This is meme-warfare.

I notice this message again and again when dealing with organizations: "we have no control over that." "That's just our policy." "Those decisions get made by head office; we can't do anything about it."

On the day of our last election, I was pestering people in the office to go and vote. We've got a cool office -- most people already planned to do so. But a few brought out that same, tired excuse: it doesn't matter how I vote. It's not going to make a difference. Voters are powerless to change the system because all the important decisions (like, say, who really gets to run as a viable candidate) have been made by a small group of people.

Sometimes the people who said such things wanted to support a certain political party (like, say, the Greens), but knew that they had no chance to win.

I wish I had thought of it then, but I should have made more noise about proportional financing. Even if not a single Green party member got into office, the Green Party gets money for every vote that it receives. The vast majority of discussion about elections in Canada seems to centre on who will win. (On election day itself, there was a fair amount of commentary about the popular vote, and the fact that the Liberals lost it big time and the NDP picked it up). That may be an important result of elections, but it's not the only result.

This finance reform was the result of Bill C-24 of the 37th parliament, which states:

The bill provides for an annual allowance to registered parties in the amount of $1.75 per vote received by the party in the previous general election, provided the party has received in the last election either 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the ridings where the party ran candidates (proposed section 435). The figure of $1.75 was raised by the House of Commons at Report Stage from $1.50 and is now also to be adjusted for inflation.

In the last election, the Green Party won no seats, but achieved 4.31% of the popular vote nationally. With voter turnout at the lowest (60.5%, or about 13.5 million votes) the Green Party received $1,018,000 per year in funding. For a million dollars a year, even without any traditional political contributions, I want to believe that the Green Party can have an effect on public policy. I suspect that the Green Party has never been so well-funded before in its life. Another 5% voter turn-out could have netted them another $84K.

But people don't see that. Sure, the newspapers reported it. But it hasn't clicked. People aren't making the connection. Their vote can have a direct effect on the viability of a political party, in concrete terms. It is easier to believe the message of disempowerment.

Comments

[tormenta.livejournal.com]

We (halfwitted and I) were directly pumping the proportional financing legislation as an argument for voting with you heart, and not strategically. He made the connection, and pumped it!


Even in our immediate social circles, though, we still had strategic liberal voters. Arrgh.

Can't...stop...supersizing...

[(Anonymous)]

But doesn't Super Size Me totally play into the cult of impotence? I MUST eat this Big Mac!!! I have no control over not stuffing myself with 6 pounds of beef-fat soaked french fries!!! Because... because McDonald's told me to!!! The Big Bad Corporation is all powerful and I have no will of my own!

Ok, if you choose to scarf down nothing but Big Macs and french fries and coke every day, you're going to become a gigantic lard-ass. If you choose not to, well, there are still plenty of ways to become a gigantic lard-ass, but you've got a better chance of avoiding it.

Liz