I ran for state rep in 2018 and I corroborate every single word. I still deep canvass a couple of times a month, and I still see the world as more complex and beautiful than ever. I see the community in doors (always brings to mind the Pixar movie Monsters, Inc.). These flat screaming matches would have nowhere to land if people had the experience of standing on welcome mat after welcome mat, glimpsing into worlds and the vast influences that shape them and inform the perspective of those looking back at you and giving you time out of their day to share some thoughts of importance.
The details—smells of cooking, messes, pride taken in simple flower pots, the dogs and lawn ornaments and signs and hopeful chairs set out for lazy Sunday sitting, all of it is very poignant.
Thanks for stepping up! I too see a lot I recognize in this story. I ran for City Council, myself. Knocked every door in my district that wasn't physically inaccessible, most of them multiple times. (And for the folks in apartment buildings where I couldn't get in, I at least tried to phone them up, and got maybe ~10% of them on the line.) Got to ~45% of the vote, which given I was a first-time candidate against a multi-term incumbent feels pretty respectable, though not good enough.
This is the best essay about politics I’ve read in a long time. It somehow makes me feel better about where we are right now, or at least it makes me think there are ways to get past the animosity and division all around us these days.
I’m curious, did you encounter folks who disagreed with you on principle, just because of your party affiliation? How did those encounters go?
My biggest challenge is figuring out how to respond to people who seem to live in a completely different reality, and not because of personal or community experience. I’d love to hear from folks who’ve managed to penetrate the outer shell of absolute tribalism.
This is a deep, deep blue district, so it was very rare. In general a willingness to listen and a friendly acknowledgement of difference goes a long way in keeping things interpersonally friendly, although I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I won any votes that way.
I was able to do this in a handful of cases, though in only one of the three I can recall now did a person change his vote. I was canvassing for Antonio Delgado, who is black, in NY-19, which is something like 95% white. One Republican man was surprised I was willing to listen to what he had to say at all. We sat down and talked for a little bit, and I found an area or two of common ground. (I let him know where I disagreed with him, too.) As I left, he said, “Tell your candidate that if I vote for him, it will be because of you.” He had “crossed the aisle” to vote for a D once before, so this wasn’t necessarily an idle claim, but in this case, when I did a final knock, he had decided against. In another case, a woman I met at the door was very hot on immigration, and was fine with families being separated at the border. I engaged her respectfully, though letting her know I disagreed and why. She was also Republican and wasn’t willing to vote for Delgado. But after the election, which Delgado won, she saw me at the post office and came up to me specifically to congratulate me on Delgado’s win. How worthwhile it was to spend time on these two encounters is questionable vis-a-vis the specific election, but it was interesting to see that respectful listening and responding seemed to build at least a small degree of trust.
Thanks for your advocacy and activism, Will, and congratulations not just for putting your money where your big loud mouth is (🙂) campaigning for office, but for sharing these thoughtful reflections. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do next!
Honestly, needing more police officers is not outside the realm of accountability measures. I think if it helps to create an atmosphere where officers can do their jobs better, it helps EVERYONE. To me, hiring more competent and community-centered officers is part of police reform, not another side of the coin. So, yes, this needs to be included in our conversations about police reform - it's not a "new perspective" as referenced in the piece - at least not for me. It's all a part of the cumulative effort that is necessary to achieve the outcome of better policing.
Matt Yglesias has been beating the drum for a while on the idea that getting a law enforcement system that provides good public safety results, without abuse, will cost _more_ money and require more recruiting, not less. Even if some of the people you're recruiting are mental health specialists or whatever, and you don't _call_ them "police", the principle stands.
"If I were to do it again, there are a handful of tactical choices I’d make differently—pursuing more endorsements from elected leaders, spending more on text blasts, pushing back more aggressively against attacks." I hope you will run again. It's hard not to have the endorsement of the incumbent and still win. The odds in that case are not in your favor as you discovered. But, you ran a good race, had a good percentage of the votes and obviously a lot of well-earned support.
Though I disagree with the conclusion—I think Will demonstrates exactly how so much of politics is local, in fact—this is a superb and thoughtful article on the undersung importance of canvassing. While I did not run for office, I have done intensive canvassing. It was a life-changing experience to learn the thoughts and concerns of my neighbors in a purple to red-leaning district. What you’re taught is to get the candidate’s message out, but what ends up as key is active listening, to find a point of connection that might lead to common ground. Allied to this, an important takeaway for me is Will’s observation, “But once you get to know the people in the district better, you become more keenly aware what you’re asking of them: to be their representative.” This concept, and, if elected, its close relative, genuine constituency service, is almost a lost art, yet to my mind it is the lifeblood of community and democracy. Our candidates and electeds sorely need to get—and stay—much closer to the ground.
This was such a great piece! I really appreciate that the process gave you more respect for the notion of being a representative. I think it’s hard to keep track of that as a voter, too: we vote for people to represent not just us, but our neighbors, and that requires compromise and a wide breadth of knowledge of issues.
I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness, so I’ve knocked on tens of thousands of doors, if not millions. And one of many shameful things about that is how little I learned about any of the communities I preached in! Because it wasn’t about helping people, it was about converting them. So the fact that you could go through a community and have a real sense of their values shows a huge difference between earnestly campaigning and proselytizing.
Your conclusion seems wrong. What if you had won? Would all of the work you did as a representative have been national? You also suggest that you lost because the incumbent endorsed someone else. That’s certainly not a national issue. Your “all politics is national” conclusion makes no sense to me in this context. Your door knocking seems to prove all politics are personal and relational, or in other words, local. Local politics may have a national narrative laid over them by various types of analysts, but the foundation feels local.
I noticed that contradiction too, Mr. Noser, but I interpreted it differently in light of the theme of the post. I think the point is that more than ever before politics at the local legislative level is being shaped by perspectives developed at and projected by parties at the national level, treating voters as two-dimensional actors and swamping the nuance of local issues that individuals seem actually to care more about (which you learn only on the micro-, door-knocking level).
I think the perspective is valid but I'm not sure this is anything new. I've never been a candidate, but I knocked on thousands of doors in three states in 1968, when the Vietnam War seemed an overriding issue to many of us, and was constantly surprised by the particularism of the questions I was asked. Surprisingly few people wanted to talk about the war. I was campaigning for a national candidate (Eugene McCarthy), but many people wanted to tell me about what was wrong in their town and ask what my candidate's stand was. "What's his position on slow time in Kokomo?" (who could forget that question?--Indiana municipalities could opt in or out of DST in those days). National politics was in a phase about as polarized as now, even without social media, but lots of people just wanted to live their lives. I suppose Mr. Stancil may be right in the sense that in those days state and political machines made sure that local issues captured adequate practical attention to solidify voter support (at least in urban areas), and with those machines generally gone voters are attracted by the general national party brand. (Of course, in Stancil's case the competition was within one brand.)
Your point about elections being about managing relationships is spot on, especially in small local elections. Trust seems to be the single most important trait for local politicians here (not that they're all seen as angels)
The last time he ran for reelection as Mayor for Hawaii County, I voted for Harry Kim. Not merely because he did a great job before, but because I trusted him due to his previous relationships with the community. He was a steady and reassuring hand as Director of Hawaii County Civil Defense. That trust was more important to me than any single issue, though I largely agreed with him on those too
How interesting that your conclusion and opinions were discounted and disapproved. Walk a mile in my shoes? I enjoyed your hard work inspired thoughtful comments and perspective.
This was really good. I've never run, but do knock on doors for candidates. It only really connects, though, when I can say that I personally know the candidate. Otherwise, only the candidate can connect. This makes recruiting volunteers especially important, which is also a side effect of getting endorsements: they're both about leveraging networks, which a candidate should have at least skeletally in place before deciding to run.
Elsewhere Will had a great breakdown on how expensive it is to run a state legislator campaign especially when evaluated on a "per constituent basis". In other words, donate to tight state legislator races!
I agree 100%. It baffles me that even thought we (democrats) are in the majority we still manage to loose elections. I have been asked to canvass but have explained that I cannot because I will get in arguments with people who clearly vote against their best interests. I admire and applaud those who are willing and patient enough to do so. So instead I fund raise, organize, and distribute yard signs, and write editorials to help our cause.
I ran for state rep in 2018 and I corroborate every single word. I still deep canvass a couple of times a month, and I still see the world as more complex and beautiful than ever. I see the community in doors (always brings to mind the Pixar movie Monsters, Inc.). These flat screaming matches would have nowhere to land if people had the experience of standing on welcome mat after welcome mat, glimpsing into worlds and the vast influences that shape them and inform the perspective of those looking back at you and giving you time out of their day to share some thoughts of importance.
The details—smells of cooking, messes, pride taken in simple flower pots, the dogs and lawn ornaments and signs and hopeful chairs set out for lazy Sunday sitting, all of it is very poignant.
Thanks for stepping up! I too see a lot I recognize in this story. I ran for City Council, myself. Knocked every door in my district that wasn't physically inaccessible, most of them multiple times. (And for the folks in apartment buildings where I couldn't get in, I at least tried to phone them up, and got maybe ~10% of them on the line.) Got to ~45% of the vote, which given I was a first-time candidate against a multi-term incumbent feels pretty respectable, though not good enough.
This is the best essay about politics I’ve read in a long time. It somehow makes me feel better about where we are right now, or at least it makes me think there are ways to get past the animosity and division all around us these days.
I’m curious, did you encounter folks who disagreed with you on principle, just because of your party affiliation? How did those encounters go?
My biggest challenge is figuring out how to respond to people who seem to live in a completely different reality, and not because of personal or community experience. I’d love to hear from folks who’ve managed to penetrate the outer shell of absolute tribalism.
This is a deep, deep blue district, so it was very rare. In general a willingness to listen and a friendly acknowledgement of difference goes a long way in keeping things interpersonally friendly, although I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I won any votes that way.
I was able to do this in a handful of cases, though in only one of the three I can recall now did a person change his vote. I was canvassing for Antonio Delgado, who is black, in NY-19, which is something like 95% white. One Republican man was surprised I was willing to listen to what he had to say at all. We sat down and talked for a little bit, and I found an area or two of common ground. (I let him know where I disagreed with him, too.) As I left, he said, “Tell your candidate that if I vote for him, it will be because of you.” He had “crossed the aisle” to vote for a D once before, so this wasn’t necessarily an idle claim, but in this case, when I did a final knock, he had decided against. In another case, a woman I met at the door was very hot on immigration, and was fine with families being separated at the border. I engaged her respectfully, though letting her know I disagreed and why. She was also Republican and wasn’t willing to vote for Delgado. But after the election, which Delgado won, she saw me at the post office and came up to me specifically to congratulate me on Delgado’s win. How worthwhile it was to spend time on these two encounters is questionable vis-a-vis the specific election, but it was interesting to see that respectful listening and responding seemed to build at least a small degree of trust.
Thanks for your advocacy and activism, Will, and congratulations not just for putting your money where your big loud mouth is (🙂) campaigning for office, but for sharing these thoughtful reflections. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do next!
Honestly, needing more police officers is not outside the realm of accountability measures. I think if it helps to create an atmosphere where officers can do their jobs better, it helps EVERYONE. To me, hiring more competent and community-centered officers is part of police reform, not another side of the coin. So, yes, this needs to be included in our conversations about police reform - it's not a "new perspective" as referenced in the piece - at least not for me. It's all a part of the cumulative effort that is necessary to achieve the outcome of better policing.
Matt Yglesias has been beating the drum for a while on the idea that getting a law enforcement system that provides good public safety results, without abuse, will cost _more_ money and require more recruiting, not less. Even if some of the people you're recruiting are mental health specialists or whatever, and you don't _call_ them "police", the principle stands.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/defund-police-is-a-bad-idea-not-a
"If I were to do it again, there are a handful of tactical choices I’d make differently—pursuing more endorsements from elected leaders, spending more on text blasts, pushing back more aggressively against attacks." I hope you will run again. It's hard not to have the endorsement of the incumbent and still win. The odds in that case are not in your favor as you discovered. But, you ran a good race, had a good percentage of the votes and obviously a lot of well-earned support.
Though I disagree with the conclusion—I think Will demonstrates exactly how so much of politics is local, in fact—this is a superb and thoughtful article on the undersung importance of canvassing. While I did not run for office, I have done intensive canvassing. It was a life-changing experience to learn the thoughts and concerns of my neighbors in a purple to red-leaning district. What you’re taught is to get the candidate’s message out, but what ends up as key is active listening, to find a point of connection that might lead to common ground. Allied to this, an important takeaway for me is Will’s observation, “But once you get to know the people in the district better, you become more keenly aware what you’re asking of them: to be their representative.” This concept, and, if elected, its close relative, genuine constituency service, is almost a lost art, yet to my mind it is the lifeblood of community and democracy. Our candidates and electeds sorely need to get—and stay—much closer to the ground.
This was such a great piece! I really appreciate that the process gave you more respect for the notion of being a representative. I think it’s hard to keep track of that as a voter, too: we vote for people to represent not just us, but our neighbors, and that requires compromise and a wide breadth of knowledge of issues.
I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness, so I’ve knocked on tens of thousands of doors, if not millions. And one of many shameful things about that is how little I learned about any of the communities I preached in! Because it wasn’t about helping people, it was about converting them. So the fact that you could go through a community and have a real sense of their values shows a huge difference between earnestly campaigning and proselytizing.
The world is made by the people who show up for the job. - Lois McMaster Bujold
Your conclusion seems wrong. What if you had won? Would all of the work you did as a representative have been national? You also suggest that you lost because the incumbent endorsed someone else. That’s certainly not a national issue. Your “all politics is national” conclusion makes no sense to me in this context. Your door knocking seems to prove all politics are personal and relational, or in other words, local. Local politics may have a national narrative laid over them by various types of analysts, but the foundation feels local.
I noticed that contradiction too, Mr. Noser, but I interpreted it differently in light of the theme of the post. I think the point is that more than ever before politics at the local legislative level is being shaped by perspectives developed at and projected by parties at the national level, treating voters as two-dimensional actors and swamping the nuance of local issues that individuals seem actually to care more about (which you learn only on the micro-, door-knocking level).
I think the perspective is valid but I'm not sure this is anything new. I've never been a candidate, but I knocked on thousands of doors in three states in 1968, when the Vietnam War seemed an overriding issue to many of us, and was constantly surprised by the particularism of the questions I was asked. Surprisingly few people wanted to talk about the war. I was campaigning for a national candidate (Eugene McCarthy), but many people wanted to tell me about what was wrong in their town and ask what my candidate's stand was. "What's his position on slow time in Kokomo?" (who could forget that question?--Indiana municipalities could opt in or out of DST in those days). National politics was in a phase about as polarized as now, even without social media, but lots of people just wanted to live their lives. I suppose Mr. Stancil may be right in the sense that in those days state and political machines made sure that local issues captured adequate practical attention to solidify voter support (at least in urban areas), and with those machines generally gone voters are attracted by the general national party brand. (Of course, in Stancil's case the competition was within one brand.)
Your point about elections being about managing relationships is spot on, especially in small local elections. Trust seems to be the single most important trait for local politicians here (not that they're all seen as angels)
The last time he ran for reelection as Mayor for Hawaii County, I voted for Harry Kim. Not merely because he did a great job before, but because I trusted him due to his previous relationships with the community. He was a steady and reassuring hand as Director of Hawaii County Civil Defense. That trust was more important to me than any single issue, though I largely agreed with him on those too
How interesting that your conclusion and opinions were discounted and disapproved. Walk a mile in my shoes? I enjoyed your hard work inspired thoughtful comments and perspective.
Why would anyone listen to the guy who spent twice as much as his opponents, lost by double digits and has cried about it ever since?
This was really good. I've never run, but do knock on doors for candidates. It only really connects, though, when I can say that I personally know the candidate. Otherwise, only the candidate can connect. This makes recruiting volunteers especially important, which is also a side effect of getting endorsements: they're both about leveraging networks, which a candidate should have at least skeletally in place before deciding to run.
You should run again.
Elsewhere Will had a great breakdown on how expensive it is to run a state legislator campaign especially when evaluated on a "per constituent basis". In other words, donate to tight state legislator races!
I agree 100%. It baffles me that even thought we (democrats) are in the majority we still manage to loose elections. I have been asked to canvass but have explained that I cannot because I will get in arguments with people who clearly vote against their best interests. I admire and applaud those who are willing and patient enough to do so. So instead I fund raise, organize, and distribute yard signs, and write editorials to help our cause.
Tim