I don't disagree with you about the benefits of direct democracy, but I think that to say that "'the system' is inherently disenfranchising" is pretty vague. 

I gave an argument above explaining the details of how and why the system is disenfranchising, though my argument could also use a bit more development.  I don't believe that representative government is "inherently" or "necessarily" disenfranchising, or in other words I think we could have a representative government and a far more empowered and engaged citizenry.  The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The problem with the system is that it is closed off to the majority of people.  Participation requires knowledge and experience that most of us simply don't have.  I'll offer an example:

A fellow I met recently at a party explained to me how the city's design review committee works (they have an open seat, and he was trying to convince me to apply).  We had just been talking about the squabbling, interpersonal grudges, power plays, and general absurdity that seem to dominate politics.  I said I wanted little to do with it all.  I'd rather organize and run other people for office and encourage other people for the appointed positions. 

He grinned and told me that I'd be just the right person to apply.  The design review committee, he said, was made up primarily of old timers with little creativity or vision, and who are resistant to change.  He said the way to influence them is to know the codes well, to be able to cite city code when making an argument.  The codes apparently are vague enough to support a broad spectrum of arguments.

But I think it must be a little more complex even than this.  You've got to know the codes, and you have to know the personalities.  In any committee, you've got to know the culture, what will sway people, where there opinions sit, and what is important to them.  But the codes alone are a heck of a lot of information to absorb.

What is true of the design review committee is also true of most every other appointed committee in every jurisdiction in the county.  And it is especially true of the county Democratic Party.

Newcomers, particularly newcomers who are very passionate about particular issues, are usually shunted to "citizen advisory" committees that have little to no power or influence and represent only the basest kind of tokenism.  They are patted on the back and congratulated, but then are offered little support and their views are generally ignored.

Newcomers to the political process ought to get the shit trained out of them.  They should be trained on how the system works, the details of city and county code, the current political priorities, and introduced to the key players in the system.  Then they should be trained on how to organize their neighborhoods and communities, how to run effective petitions, to doorbell and stump, to recruit and manage volunteers, to engage people.

The Canaanite's Call

My comment got eaten by the spam filter.  Let me try again. 

The Canaanite's Call

Sometimes all people have is one another, and a road to block.

Wow, that's poetic. And it might make for a pretty slogan, but it is wildly imprecise.

There are situations that can leave people with only two options: to use direct action or to do nothing. These are the situations that lead to such a predicament: when elected officials refuse to listen to the overwhelming majority of voters (like Brian Baird on the Iraq War); when the majority of people are prevented from voting (Jim Crow); and when the minority of voters are faced with a majority that is flat morally wrong (eg widespread homophobia).

Even in these situations, the options between direct action and inaction are merely the only short term options. In the first situation, voters can work on mobilizing to elect a different candidate. It is possible to groom an effective opponent to Brian Baird. In the second situation a combination of lobbying, litigation, and dialogue can be used (and were very successfully used as a compliment to direct action in the civil rights campaign). In the third situation, mass education over the long term can make a difference. All of these are long term options, and are not mutually exclusive with a well planned and circumspect use of direct action.

Here's the problem with vague sloganeering: It does often offer a direction for action, but usually not for the right kind of action.

Local activists have become so incredibly myopic that they are often uable to effectively gauge the results of their actions. If they totally piss off the whole community, it becomes evidence that they are making a difference. If the government doesn't do what they want, it becomes evidence that government itself must be entirely rejected... even if every possible action to sway the government has not been used.

The belief that government is a monolithic, top-down, heirarchical, inaccessible, patriarchal oligarchy of the powerful in which "the common person will never be taken into account" leads activists to give up lobbying, voter mobilization, and litigation as real tools for change. Worse than that, the law of incrementalism (which says that tactics should start with the most cooperative and move slowly to the most confrontational) seems to be getting lost in all the sloganeering about "The Man". This alienates the broadest possible base of support, solidifies the opposition, and leaves activists marginalized and disempowered. It's gotta change.

Lastly, while the Paris Commune was a beautiful thing in its own right, it has little to do with present day circumstances. The Paris Commune sprang up to overthrow an absolute monarchy, not a democratic republic.

If the establishment has a responsibility to generate an active citizenry, we activist citizens have a responsibility to be shrewd and circumspect. In other words, we ought to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

The Canaanite's Call

But the most recent election isn't but the smallest part of that.  Meta did well given her circumstances, and I've got little to be angry about (aside from the Olympian's smearing).

I'm bitter that the minority report failed to pass, and that the sidewalk ordinance failed to be defeated.  I'm bitter that the HOME Consortium (elected officials) has butted heads for the last year with the Housing Task Force (service providers).  I'm bitter that poverty is grinding down so many people in our region, but that it isn't a priority for local dollars.  I'm bitter that local (and particularly downtown) development will primarily benefit (imported) Microsoft employees commuting to Seattle rather than the people who are already part of the community here.  I'm bitter that we can't seem to get a year-round shelter for homeless families in operation.  I'm bitter that the peace movement is marginal in a nation where the majority opposes the war, and is all but despised in a city that is nearly unified in opposition to the war.  And I'm bitter that none of us, whether we are activist or establishment or both, can seem to get our act together to really change anything.

There.  I've vented. 

The Canaanite's Call