March 11, 2008
Political silence speaks despite what some say
Yesterday, I was pleased to discover that yet another war is being carried out with the intent of “bettering” Missoula, a so-called “War on Apathy.” What bothers me about this is not so much the appropriation of the violent imagery of war against yet another abstract noun as it is the way this ideal marginalizes those who don’t conform. The apathy I will refer to throughout is political “apathy,” or non-participation in politics.
Apathy is as legitimate a viewpoint as being an active Democrat, Republican, libertarian, green or whatever else, although there are those out there who would have one believe otherwise, using pretty phrases like “civic engagement” and lauding the merits of being active in democracy.
The misconception that apathy is a threat to democracy comes from the idea that apathetics don’t speak up, and that it is speaking up that makes democracy run. But this misses a key point: silence speaks.
Saying the burden is on the masses to speak up, to see who can yell the loudest over the others to catch a politician’s ear is a cop-out on the responsibility of the politician to listen. Good listening requires more than just hearing the loudest voices, it requires listening to as many voices, the silent included, as possible.
It is wrong to assume that apathetics are apathetic because they simply are not informed on “the issues.” The truth is many apathetics are more well-informed than many who vote, and it is in this informed state that they choose not to engage in politics. Dissatisfaction with the current electoral or representative structures, the current party system, the slow usurping of Congress’ power by the presidency or even more fundamental objections to the status quo are all solid bases on which to build “apathy,” or not being “civically engaged.”
Constantly deciding on the lesser of two evils is never going to bring about the change that many of us see as necessary, the same way taking a step forward for every three steps backward is never going to get one to move forward. Our system only allows a person to vote for a candidate, but voting for no one can be the equivalent of voting against everyone. What would happen if politicians started considering that the people who stayed home from the polls were voting against them?
I would encourage any groups considering declaring “war” on something the implications of doing so, and reflect for a moment on what happens when someone in some assumed position of power (in this case, the “civically engaged” assuming apathy is a negative, and anyone practicing apathy is of a lower order and needs to be converted) decides that the others need to be acculturated, brought up to standard. Remember, there is more to giving a shit than going to meetings, listening to debates and sporting bumper stickers.
– Lee Mickelson,
sophomore, creative writing
