Smith and Other Events
One of my favorite fiction books is Smith and Other Events. Author Paul St. Pierre takes us to the Chilcotin Valley in the interior of British Columbia and its cowboy culture of 1960. These cowboys are more cowboy than the cowboys of the American plains. The Chilcotin was a rough place to live and work: mountains, trees, bad roads, broken-down trucks, bears, cold winters, towns and cities far away. St. Pierre brought us Chilcotin cowboy culture in a collection of short, humorous stories. I read this book three times. Many laughs.
One of these stories was about a politician from this region. He had to appeal to cowboy voters by travelling to the widely disbursed hamlets and villages to get those votes. St. Pierre gives many great insights into political campaigning of the 1950s, and many of these axioms are still valid today. I first read this book before I became politically active. After I left politics, a re-read gave me appreciation of this writer’s understanding of politics. He eventually did serve as Member of Parliament for this region.
One of these axioms was about choosing the right political venue. A venue too small would mean the event is too crowded. This causes supporter frustration and a reduction in political energy for the future. A venue too big means many empty seats, giving the impression that the public support is low. St. Pierre gives great importance to finding the right size of venue to maintain campaign momentum.
I attended many political rallies from 1986 to 1992. I helped organize a few of them. Yet we never really discussed the size of the venue. It seems we instinctually knew the right size — or adjusted our efforts to ensure the venue was reasonably full.
It is September 2024. Mr. Trump seems be losing control of the size of his venues. They are too big, and his critics like pointing to the empty seats. In contrast, Ms. Harris seems to be holding two rallies at the same time, using modern technology to put her in both places. And both places are full.
Last May, I gave the Republicans a 10% chance of winning the election legitimately.
Based on the venue choices of the two parties, I will now reduce this chance to 1%.
The Rally
I’m not sure why, but I watched far too much of the DNC convention. Maybe six hours in all; I gave the R’s only a half hour before my channel got changed. Here are my observations.
The convention was a well-staged event. Lots of sets, lights, cables, and control panels. Everything must work properly to generate the right psychological effect. I kind of doubt the convention managers and workers are such loyal volunteers of the Democratic Party to work for free. Rather they are experienced professionals who have developed the skills to organize and keep shows like this going. These skills are not in abundant supply; the Party cannot risk the convention being run by amateurs. Would you vote for a party that had a stage light flickering?
Most likely, the party hired several competent professional firms to deliver the package. These firms were paid well, who then paid their employees. I estimate the managers earned a salary that could be worked out to at least $200,000 annually. Workers (carpenters, electricians, caterers, camera operators, security, etc.) were paid $75,000 (annually prorated) for their time. All these people were not paid by thin air: this money came from donations to the Democratic Party.
A grocery store worker who donates $100 to the Democratic Party is essentially giving eight hours of working to the party. These eight hours of putting food on shelves should also be considered as political energy. That contribution helped ensure the lights did not flicker.
The delegates are another drain on political energy. They were likely not paid. Maybe their travel expenses were reimbursed; I don’t know. But they gave up four or five days of their life to attend the convention. Yet this time is small compared to the time they invested to be elected as delegate. They likely put in many volunteer hours at their local Democratic association to earn the opportunity to be delegates. They spent hundreds of hours beforehand to spend four or five days at the convention and partake in the show.
The speakers were also another drain. The convention seemed to be a Rolodex of speakers. I recognized a few, but I’m too far away from American politics to know the Democrats in middle management trying to get a higher position. Regardless, all of these speakers also spent their time beforehand to earn the opportunity to be on the main stage. All of them were great speakers as well as loyal Democrats. They have had practice — and practice takes up hours and hours of free time — beforehand.
I watched the conventions mostly through PBS. So no commercials! But the PBS people in front of the cameras and the PBS people behind the cameras can be translated into many hours of political energy blown away by gusts of wind.
Then there is the TV audience. If we TV viewers were paid minimum wage to watch the convention, that gives the magnitude of that political energy we volunteered into the system.
All in all, the Democrat convention cost the USA millions of hours. These political hours could have been channeled into other volunteer directions.
Yeah, but Dave . . .
You will likely say that all these millions of hours were worth it, given the direction the other party wants to take the USA. I would have to agree: the USA is not in normal times these days. Maybe these hours are a worthy investment.
I am bringing up these millions of hours because many people have told me:
“Dave, no one has the time to build your alternative democracy.”
or
“Dave, we really have no time. We are busy people.”
Yep. Yet the Democratic party has sure found a way to convince a lot of people to give up a lot of their free time.
So, to me, it’s not about “we don’t have the time.” It’s more about “where do we spend our free time?”
And here’s the irony
Chapter 6 of my book tells how early TDG builders can replace their 19th century democracy with a 21st century democracy.
I recommend early builders have one meeting every two weeks. In this meeting, they will be writing their local TDG constitution, discussing the wording that should go into that constitution.
One person of that group should be designated as the “writer.” The writer takes notes of the consensus and summarizes it into quasi-legal text. The writer sends this text by email to other TDG builders in their group. There should be some email discussion with this draft. Nearly all Medium writers have the skills to take on the role of “writer.”
The email discussion helps form the agenda for the next in-person meeting. The wording of draft clauses is refined. The meeting then moves into writing new clauses. This cycle continues until the local TDG constitution is written. I estimate three to six months of bi-weekly meetings.
I estimate that the writer will be spending about 10 hours a month building this new democracy. The other members will be spending less time.
The irony is that thousands of people are willing to invest millions of hours with the DNC convention — and other political actions — for a system that allowed people like Donald Trump to be a political force, yet they cannot spend 10 hours a month on a system that will sideline such a politician.
This does not make sense, does it?
Let me put this in other words: The delegates at the DNC injected a lot more time into American democracy than they could ever spend in the TDG. Yet their work for the Democratic Party did not prevent the rise of Donald Trump, who might just “win” again.
If November 5th does put Donald Trump aside, a similar leader like Donald is possible. Then the USA gets to do the last eight years all over again.
In contrast, if some of these Democrats put a smaller amount of time into the TDG, that time will uplift the USA and the rest of the world.
But it’s doubtful that these Democrats are going to change their life priorities. They are too addicted to their politics.
That means someone else will have to build the TDG. Any ideas?
What 10 hours a month means
It means forgoing three movies.
Or it means forgoing three sporting events.
Or it means 10 fewer hours on social media, including Medium.
The TDG does not ask you to quit your job, forego family activities, or sacrifice your hobbies and recreation.
You will only need to juggle a little time — to build this new democracy.
And the TDG is not asking you to invade the beaches of Normandy or the Oblast of Kursk.
It’s not a matter of free time. It’s a matter of setting priorities for actually building a better world.
Published on Medium 2004
A Psychopath, an Alzheimer's, a Kleptocrat, and an Ideologue Walk into a Bar
Addendum
Well, Donald Trump did win the election. All the money and time invested in the Democratic Party went for nothing. Are you now ready to put some time into the TDG?
