A sobering thought: Even in this exhilarating, exciting, and most expensive of all political campaigns ever, less than 1/3 (29%) of adults in the U.S. voted for the winning presidential candidate.
The math:
- There are approximately 3 million people in the U.S.
- Of these, approximately 3/4 (225,000,000) are over 18.
- Of which a bit less than 3/4 (72% or 168,750,000) are registered to vote.
- Of these, again a bit less than 3/4 (73.11% or 123,373,000) voted in the presidential election.
- 53% (65,388,000) of those that voted did so for Obama.
- That is 29% of adults in the U.S.
First, the Bad News Analysis:
At many local elections the percent of the population that votes for the winning candidate may be as low as 10%. Ten percent of the adults in a given jurisdiction may determine who wins Mayor, City Council, or any other of these critical offices. That means that in a City or Congressional district of 50,000 you can get elected with a constituency of 5,000. Given that most voting households have at least two voting adults, you can get elected by responding to 2,500 family units.
Traditionally, it is these people that vote that the politicians remain most accountable to. It is they who get the favors; it is they that get listened to; it is they who get the politician re-elected over and over and over again.
Sure, the elected official must reach out to those that did not vote for him or her to ensure enough ‘pro voters’ are replaced with ‘new voters’. But, in the game of politics, this is most often a very calculated outreach. Once in office, all too often the question becomes: What is the least number of new people I need to convince to get re-elected?
The above analysis is not an indictment or a negative statement of the political process or elected officials. Rather, it is the blunt reality of how government all too often works.
In the world of community engagement, on the other hand, we are about reaching out across the political and socio-economic spectrum to ensure all have a voice at the table of public discourse and decision making. We want the disenfranchised at the table: Among many – at times 90% of our neighbors! – this includes the ones who did not vote; the ones who could not vote; the ones who could not leave work to go to the public hearing; the ones who did not answer the door; the forgotten renter; the transient; the undocumented; the ones who speak another language… and many many more.
So, it is not difficult to see why there will also be an uneasy, healthy friction between the world of politics and the world of community engagement.
Political expediency oftentimes mandates a process that listens to those most able to speak, which more often than not means listening to those who already have a voice… It is most often a tried-and-true, prescribed process.
Community engagement most often requires time, effort, and outreach to those less likely to speak and therefore is seldom if ever expedient… It is most often a messy, rambling, lengthy process; seldom expedient.
Proceed With Caution
Wherever there are efforts to collaborate and partner with government in community engagement efforts there should be a big sign saying: Proceed with Caution. All too often the political listening process is truly an ‘illusion of inclusion’: Go through the motions of a public hearing; get written comments; ‘engage’ the citizenry… Seldom is there an attempt – or a reason – to legitimately reach out at the soccer fields; at the apartment complex; in the waiting hall of social service agencies; at the basketball courts.
Thus, when we speak of ‘community engagement’ to elected officials (or political appointees) we should understand that their inherent bias is to filter the information through their lenses: How can this ‘engagement’ help me connect to potential voters? While this might be an obvious observation, it is all too often the ‘elephant in the room’.
The outcome of a successful community engagement process is not always necessarily aligned with the interests of a successful political process.
So, does this mean that joining forces with the government to pursue community engagement should not be done? No! Quite the contrary.
The New School of Thought
As we move forward in this post-partisan world, it is not only possible to join forces with government to pursue community engagement efforts, it is indispensable.
Recently I was fortunate enough to attend the National League of Cities (NCL) conference. While attending small sessions, a large plenary, walking the hallways, and sitting at the bar, it became increasingly apparent to me how much these elected officials are ‘just like us’.
There were over 7,000 elected officials and political appointees at the conference. Many of them were from small towns and cities. There seemed to be a good cross section of full-time (life-long) politicians and part-time politicians who are also businesswomen, shop-owners, and non-profit managers.
In so many ways, many of these folks seemed very similar to the folks that attend our NeighborWorks America Community Leadership Institutes (CLI): Regular folks that for varied reasons have a personal interest in making things better in their neighborhood and/or community – and are willing to invest personal time and energy in leading the charge… Some choose to pursue the elected route (the NLC crowd); others choose to be key volunteers (the CLI crowd)… But ultimately, they are us and we are them.
I came back from the conference with a renewed and reaffirmed sense of excitement that the world of politics and community engagement can – and should – work together. Healthy tensions will remain – and that is a good thing. Each has different expectations. But, both can find common ground in improving techniques, sharing tools, and joining forces to reach out to the political constituency and maximize community engagement.
Postscript
As a very hopeful sign of things to come, I was extremely pleased to see that the incoming administration is asking supporters to hold “Change is Coming” neighborhood discussions the weekend of December 13th and 14th. What caught my attention was the request to be inclusive in these sessions. The notice said: “Please invite those who might not have been involved in the campaign, even those who might have supported our opponent.”
In my own neighborhood (Silver Spring, MD) we’ve already begun this process. On November 15th, we convened a ‘call to action’, inviting folks to join us in discussing how the energy given to the presidential elections could be channeled to local efforts. We expected 30 people to show up. Over 80 did. Watch a video capturing the energy in the church basement at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8334800488825004233&hl=en
NOTE: The video footage was taken with a camera phone and then spliced together ‘amateurishly’ (i.e.: much more a ‘labor of love’ than a professional production.)
Posts
