Is Public Talk Necessary?

Eliasoph argues in Avoiding Politics that “in group meetings, volunteers never drew connections between their everyday acts of charity and public issues” (p24). For her, this is a huge negative. I wonder, however, if in certain volunteer groups talking publically is somewhat unnecessary. Yes, people might not draw connections out loud in group meetings, but if they do so in private isn’t that nearly as good (or at least better than doing nothing at all)? If for example, Eliasoph’s Parent League decided it had to raise money because the school did not have enough funds; wouldn’t its members be likely to vote for someone willing to increase public school spending? Voting even ties in to their idea that they only volunteer for selfish reasons which could mean they should vote for self-serving reasons too. Yes, the members might have to read about the candidates’ policies on their own since they aren’t discussed in meetings. But, at least the meetings might pique the members’ interest enough to actually look into issues. It certainly seemed that there were some well informed people in these volunteer groups who obviously received their information from outside sources. All they may have needed was a push to start researching.

Another example, is working in a soup kitchen. Volunteering for a soup kitchen may “do nothing to address broader problems of homelessness and poverty…[which] need government” (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 238). Yet because one sees the suffering of the homeless, this could increase sympathy for issues involving homelessness. If there is a proposition to vote on that increases the number of homeless shelters, perhaps those who have had direct involvement would be more likely to get out and vote for it despite not publically talking about it. Or even if volunteering does not increase the number of voters necessarily, those who do vote will be more sympathetic towards issues involving homelessness.

Also on a side note, I disagreed with Theiss-Morse and Hibbing on their point that “reinforcing the message that consensus and harmony are good whereas conflict and disagreements are bad undermines what democracy is about” (237). Yes, democracy does have conflict, yet learning about others and how to get along with people who are different from you is not a bad thing. I think that perhaps people would be better able to compromise if they were not demonizing the other side. I believe that compromise is an inherent part of politics in the US (especially if one side does not have a large majority). If Republicans and Democrats can come together to work in a soup kitchen, perhaps they will see that there are other things they can work together on.