Reminding one of JFK's remarks to the NY Liberal Party, and signed by one of his crew, we have another profession of liberal faith* ... underlining the importance first principles in a time when they are deemed almost treasonous:
Reason is indispensable to democratic self-government. This self-evident truth was a fundamental commitment of our Founding Fathers, who believed it was entirely compatible with every American's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. When debating policy in the public square, our government should base its laws on grounds that can be accepted by people regardless of their religious beliefs...
This leads to one thought that many share, which wonders what the average person can do to affect public policy, since they are just one ordinary voice with a vote that is deemed ultimately trivial at best. I am sympathetic to this concern and know people who share its theme. Many activists reply that there are important things each one of us can do, including protest, writing/contacting members of Congress, voting, spreading the message, and so forth. The response to the cynic (realist?) is to point out what has happened all the same in the last few years. And, small victories (and some seen rather paltry) do not convince them otherwise.
I guess the best path here is to take the long view ... I'm old enough for this to merit some optimism though surely it works both ways. Thus, in the early 1990s, I noted that equality for homosexuals -- including marriage -- was a pretty common sense view to take. We now have a few states (toss in Connecticut here with their civil union law) in which some form of true marriage equality is a reality, many more localities (including my own city) having limited equality via domestic partnerships. OTOH, I also wrote about (in an early bulletin board) the discrimination of gays in the military. We still have this regime. Likewise, I thought the Electoral College and presidential impeachments were sort of obsolete. But, the wave might just be going the other direction now.
As to the value of the ordinary voter, on a personal level -- not being much of an activist sort myself -- we can look at things in various ways. One thought is inspired by the book Tipping Point, which in part notes that there are various people who are particularly important in bringing about change. Such people obviously have a significant role in public policy and special influence to many politicians. Such people themselves are influenced by many other period -- think of a chain all the way down to each one of us. The value of various online means to reach these people is promising. Thus, we have key people -- let's say attorneys in major lawsuits -- that have blogs or contribute to things like the Huffington Post etc. where there are opportunities for comments.
But, that is only one means of influence. We are a constitutional republic in which the people ["the people" repeatedly mentioned in the Constitution] vote for their representatives but have other ways to influence them. And, not only them directly. The First Amendment secures freedoms not limited to discussion of political campaigns, but matters that address each one of us. This includes matters of personal religious faith, highlighting that "the public" by definition implies that there is a "private" as well. And, as we privately and publicly act, it has real effects. Like ripples when one tosses a stone in a pond. Our acts matter in any number of ways, even if the ultimate effect in some respects might not seem to be enough.
This I believe.
---
* Various points are raised by the essay ... one issue that was highlighted given the excesses was the use of recess appointments. Thus, we have this piece: "Ignoring Senate, Bush Taps Mine Exec to be Safety Chief." Vote the executive, vote the appointer ... but the idea is that we have a Senate to confirm the top tier of officials. Not to wait until a handy "recess" (of a few weeks or whatever) long after the nomination to dispose of troubling sorts.
The fact this guy actually worked as a miner before being an executive suggests he might be somewhat less troubling (read the piece to get some background), but the practice also gave us the likes of Bolton and two controversial conservative appellate judges.