The Insiders
-
Jan
22
Disconnected sundry thoughts
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 22, 2008 | 13 Comments
VFM Hasn’t Failed
Last year we (the VFMs, collectively) created a discourse around issues in the election, and there was a meaningful campaign for the first time in a long while. This year has been less successful, but the media are still influencing how candidates comport themselves and, heck, we even convinced a joke candidate to “go serious.”
Voter turnout shouldn’t be the end goal, nor should it be the yardstick by which VFM success is measured. Voters will only vote when they care; people only care when the people around them care. The VFM project is about building an information base and enlarging the AMS’ critical mass. Even though, last year, the same number of people cast votes as in previous, I’d wager that they were more informed than the year before. At a minimum, it’s creating a new class of informed students. And I’d want to see four years’ worth of results before judging it a failure.
Knoll Slate
My first rule of student politics: never underestimate the left at UBC. No matter the electoral system, there will always be a viable “left-wing” element at UBC. (I hate the term but I use it because people know what I mean.) Since the SPAN days it has been given life by The Knoll which, last year, ran a de facto slate. This year the slate is less pronounced, but still there.
The reason the left can never be discounted is because they have a powerful built-in voter base. First, there will always be a activist core on campuses, and they’re politically engaged. Second, there will be students who, because they’re young, gravitate to the left-wingers because it feels right and appeals to their sensibilities. No matter the merits of the candidates, they’ll get those votes. And that can be enough.
That leads me to two conclusions about this year. First, they’re getting better at abandoning the revolutionary zeal during election time. Check out Nate Crompton’s web page. It’s not only slick and worth of Students for Students at its finest, but it’s downright educational. And a very interesting read. And only uses the word “capitalism” once. And, most importantly, it’s good. (That’s not meant as a backhanded compliment. It’s really very good and insightful.) Second, watch out for Rodrigo. In a year with two Presidential candidates with broad appeal, and a third “wild card” with an interesting cross-section of elite and popular support, that solid voter base might be enough for Rodrigo to win. Especially since I suspect that voter turnout might hit a new low, he could easily get enough support to win.
“Hacks”
What’s wrong with being a “hack”? I’m pretty sure it’s a pejorative term, isn’t it? Of course that’s the very question – how to define “hack”? Often people tend to use it as a synonym for someone who’s hyper-involved, likes to fancy themselves on the “inside.” I have a hard time seeing that as necessarily negative. Just because someone gets involved in student politics and devotes their energies to boosting the campus doesn’t make them a “hack.”
See being a “hack” use to be unequivocally a bad thing. Then, during the halcyon days Wahid, McKechnie, Keys et al., the term was appropriate. Reclaimed, if you will, to mean something more positive.
I always resisted it, as I see the term far more negative implications. I see a hack as someone who’s in politics for ambition’s sake, who derives pleasure from being close to power, from the illusion that they themselves have any whatsoever. It’s someone whose self-esteem is riding on their election result, and for whom the pursuit of power, and the attention it entails, is just as important as eventually getting it. And that’s bad. There are people who fit this description in the AMS, and there are a great many involved people who don’t. Don’t confuse them.
(For a good example of hackery, see the comment on the post below signed by “#96.” That’s Spencer Keys, feeling the need to remind the world that he was the 96th AMS President. Although I’m sure Spencer has enough self-awareness that the irony was intentional. Or was it?)
Endorsements
Since when did it become a pissing contest about endorsements? From my understanding, it’s become an issue that some candidates have more/better endorsements than others. All the lack of endorsements proves is that the candidate didn’t solicit them from someone – it doesn’t prove that nobody supports his/her campaign. Think logically – the absence of something doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist.
Moreover, an endorsement can come from many places. From a “I think they’re the best” to a sense of duty to a personality clash with an opponent. They’re really worth nothing more than face value, and it bothers me to see people making any noise about them beyond that.
(Also, kudos to the Devil’s Advocate. Dis-endorsing is probably one of the most brilliant ideas ever.)
“Insiders”
Finally, I can’t help but notice that this little blog has started a bit of a trend. I find it entertaining that “insider” has become a part of the discourse in a funny new way – people trying to define themselves negatively vis-a-vis us. The Thunderbird’s blog is entitled “UBC Outsiders,” the Devil’s Advocate prides themselves on being “Insider-free.”
Yet their controlling minds read our site daily. This amuses me.
True story: Gina and I came up with the name on the couch one afternoon last January. “We need something like UBC Insiders, only better.” And lo, it was born.
(Edited to add a shout-out to VPF candidate Andrew, who wants to “make everyone a UBC Insider”!)
Comments
13 Comments so far
Re: Hacks
One of the most enjoyable uses of the phrase that I’ve seen was at UofA when a group christened themselves “Hack Club 7”. It involved a group of long-time councillors with wide-ranging beliefs about how their student union should look but roughly equivalent amounts of passion for it and their university. “Hack” at UofA was (though now, maybe less) definitely an empowered term. True, all were insiders and long involved, but HC7 formed a core group of Council that greatly enhanced the professionalism of that body.
And to answer your question, Tim, I knew that signing off a comment in such a wanky way would definitively prove which Spencer I was. I assume many of the readers of this blog know me, and know that only the real Spencer could be *that* douchey ;)
Thanks, “Hack from UBC.”
How’s that for an esoteric reference?
“UBC Outsider” (note the singular noun) is not The Thunderbird’s blog, per se, but mine. To be completely honest it just came to me, and isn’t meant at all to denigrate the UBC Insiders or define myself negatively vis-a-vis you. It was a name I came up with that was short, sweet, easy to remember and my editor liked it. Simple as that. I’ve no complaints about the UBC Insiders.
how ’bout a balanced political debate timmy.
lets mention the influence of the political right or whatever those sauder school types wipe their asses with. (fyi, i’m not upset…i really dont know what they read)
Of course we read your blog, Tim (and Maayan et al.). We need to know who to vote for too!
I happen to notice that the things you are critically examining are the same that the Devil’s Advocate chooses to parody (AMS insiders/hacks and voter apathy, endorsements, and VFM itself). I know I’m tooting my own horn but I like that we’ve encouraged serious discussion (among VFM and candidates, if you’d seen the debates) of these issues.
1. Many “Sauder types” read much the same things the rest of you do. Some of us just understand it better.
2. I disagree with Tim’s point on voter turnout. Having a 10% well informed electorate is not democracy. That’s an oligarchy, any way you slice it. If VFM’s goal is to exclusively educate those that are already more or less in the know (the 10%), then, well, it’s something that I don’t agree with.
I think that VFM’s goal should be to get voter turnout higher. Once that turnout is at anything approaching a respectable level, then we can focus on educating and digging deep.
God help us all if Rodrigo is elected. He has been uceasingly negative toward everyone else, irrational, and opaque during this campaign. I used to think he was a benign “loose cannon” (as Patillo called him in his charmingly populist VFM entry) but I now see that it’s far worse than that. Just witness his slow-motion train wreck in the comment threads here on the blog. Having an involved network outside the AMS core is wonderufl, but that doesn’t substitute for an understanding of the organization you propose to lead, and a respect for the work of others. Rodrigo is in the negative values on both those points. I have lots of comments, but that’s my most important one.
In response to Peter’s comment, I think there is room for diversity within the goals of the VFM. I think it’s awesome that we have VFM like Plain Title: Awesome Content (Ian Patillo), the Underground (if presumably they have an elections issue) that tries to reach out to the 90% who don’t vote. I also think it’s great that we have VFM like the Insiders, which provides a thoughtful analysis and regular updates meant for reading by those students who really want in-depth information. And it’s also good to have sites like Eat Cake to remind us that the candidates should be mocked occasionally.
Tim, thanks for reminding us of the looming communist threat that pervades the UBC campus. The communists have gotten really clever lately, haven’t they? Students covertly slipping Knolls into their backpacks, and avoiding all public events for fear of alerting us to their true numbers.
Nate Crompton’s original website, and I’m in a position to know, was going to heavily feature Lenin and cartoons of Nate leading the oppressed student masses in a violent revolt against the capitalist puppet masters of UBC, Properties Trust.
And where would we be if you weren’t there to alert us that Rodrigo was all but assured victory?
Of course the real threat is that once UBC falls to the communists, the rest of BC will follow, AND THE WORLD!
We should offer our sincere thanks to Tim “McCarthy” Louman-Gardiner for bringing these pressing concerns to our attention!
But seriously, when has The Knoll ever managed to get someone elected who wasn’t the consensus insider pick anyways? If you’d listened to us we’d have Joel as outgoing VP External. Our reasons against Naylor were *gasp* validated by history. That was the one battle where we went against general consensus, and we lost. Oh, and Tristan Markle for BoG. We sure flexed our muscles there didn’t we? The year before our picks were entirely uncontroversial; the only controversy was that we made them at all.
Although on reflection I guess we didn’t pick you for BoG… hmm… :-)
oh yeah..
“1. Many “Sauder types” read much the same things the rest of you do. Some of us just understand it better.”
Do you ever reflexively choke and laugh at the same time? I do..
I do so unceasingly.
On a serious note though, I don’t mean that there isn’t a place for something like UBC Insider. Personally, I think it’s great and Maayan, Tim, Gina, etc’s efforts are wonderful to see and their commentary is great to read.
However, I am someone who goes to AMS meetings for kicks. Thus, I am not a representative sample.
Sure, UBC Insiders plays a role, but I think that the focus of VFM in general should not be on blogs such as thins. It should be on media that inform and reach a much greater sample of the population.
This blog has 400-odd unique visitors? 1% of the campus population?
I just shudder to call VFM a success when it is reaching so few students. The commentary is invaluable, yes, but the reach is greatly lacking.
That is why VFM this year has failed.
Maayan, I’ve been Rodrigo’s friend for many years, and I think you are being too harsh. It would be great for this university if he wins.
He had a flu and a fever this past week and disappointed that he was never taken seriously, so he had some fun spamming your ultra-conservative blog with discussions. I cooked him some soup because he has done so much for me, especially with academic stuff. he bought me beer and revised my entire paper, and I got an A!
He has a comic vein that I appreciate, and I saw him today in the debate shaking hands and talking to Duncan. BTW, where were you?
ps: I went to many council meetings upon his request to give him an unbiased opinion, and the lack of seriousness I found there was staggering; and his platform is not only clear, but his Bands League idea is nothing short of brilliant.