I posted this basic comment in another thread but realized I don’t want to help continue that thread so I’ll just post it here.
I’m in agreement with the following line I noticed from Marcus:
” I am of the belief that activism causes more problems than it solves. ”
This reminds me of a perspective I read in Business Week the other day. The author pointed out that “activists” are “lobbyists”. That hadn’t occured to me before but it’s basically true. Each one brings different images to my mind (e.g. one more formal than the other perhaps), but their purpose is often fundamentally the same – to influence policy one way or the other.
This is what I found at dictionary.com – Though they don’t crystallize the different connotations these words have, they seem to be reasonable definitions to accept:
Activist
an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.
Lobbyist
a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest; a member of a lobby.
So now as I look at these definitions, the lobbyist seems likely to be a bit more goal oriented – a good thing. The activist seems like they might have more heart into what they are doing though – another good thing. The lobbyist stereotype in my mind is more likely to be paid though. Does that mean they are smarter or that they hate their career? *grin*. In terms of their GENERAL purpose though, the seem to be about the same to me.
I realize this would have to be taken on a case by case basis, but I am sincerely interested in thoughts behind this – without the personal attacks if that’s possible. My guess is that conservatives will dislike the word “activist” more than the other. Likewise, I’m guessing the liberals will dislike the word “lobbyist” more than the other.
Popularity: 9%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ll bite. I think you short shrift the motive behind the advocacy which belies the significance in the distinction. An activist is one personally motivated to advocate for a cause is personally committed it to it and typically involves some sort of self sacrifice for a larger purpose. They believe in it, usually with all their heart and soul.
A lobbyist is a person who advocates for specific legislation, or executive decision making, for money. Usually the cause they advocate for is a special interest seeking favor for just themselves or other like minded groups, usually against the good of the group, but not always. They tend to be very good at advocacy which is why they get paid the big bucks. I think activists often become lobbyists but not often the other way round. One recent example is the co-founder of Greenpeace who now shills for the nuclear industry against them.
I wouldn’t sell activists short like Marcus does. Christ, Ghandi, Thoreau, MLK, Mandela, and Mother Teresa were all activists.
Good article Bluernote and good response Sisyphus. I have always viewed activists (such as those mentioned in Sisyphus’s response) as being the push to get things going, usually not paid, simply believing strongly in their cause. The lobbyist is more of the end result or final push of the work the activist initiated. Or at least, that’s my view.
Wikipedia describes the following definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activist
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
Both are needed wherever change is needed.
I agree with Sisyphus. A good analogy would be to war. Both soldiers and mercenaries fight in wars, but there is a huge difference between them. I’d suggest that soldiers are more honorable.
Likewise, activists are devoted to their cause for more than just money, and usually can’t be bought by the highest bidder.
(Would it start a battle if I suggested that Obama’s campaign seems to be driven by activists – not necessarily paid campaign staff – while McCain’s seems to be driven by lobbyists?)
I’d also say that we are all activists in one way or another. We all advocate for our own interests. When we say ‘activist,’ though, we usually mean someone who works for a specific cause that is not necessarily directly related to his personal best interest. In fact, activists often forsake their own personal interests to devote time to their cause. Also, what separates activism on the individual level and the true activist is that activists tend to work together in groups.
“An activist is one personally motivated to advocate for a cause is personally committed it to it and typically involves some sort of self sacrifice for a larger purpose. They believe in it, usually with all their heart and soul.
A lobbyist is a person who advocates for specific legislation, or executive decision making, for money. Usually the cause they advocate for is a special interest seeking favor for just themselves or other like minded groups, usually against the good of the group, but not always. They tend to be very good at advocacy which is why they get paid the big bucks. I think activists often become lobbyists but not often the other way round. One recent example is the co-founder of Greenpeace who now shills for the nuclear industry against them.”
Ditto, that’s my understanding. Can’t say that they are fundamentally the same, though I can say that I’m not particularly fond of either group.
I like hoagies explanation in comment #3. That’s about how I see it as well.
Thanks, CR67. We have our differences at times, but I also find myself agreeing with you on many occasions.
However, I find it hard to believe that you agree with the parenthetical portion of my comment. Did you agreement include that, too? Seriously, I thought it would start a big comment war. Maybe everyone’s a little tired from the Great Special Olympics Battle.
I don’t dislike either activist or lobbyist. I agree with Sisyphus’ definition in #1, and I think there is room (and a need) for both kinds of activities.
However, when a politician surrounds himself with more lobbyists (paid to promote a particular position) than with activists (usually unpaid, just passionate about a particular position) then I tend to be a little skeptical about who will get his ear when a particular bill is up for passage.
Yes, I did agree with that comment as well. Although I’m inclined to believe that if Obama gets elected he’ll be driven more and more by lobbyist & special interest groups as opposed to ‘activists” in order to get certain bills passed. On the same token that’s the way our government has been run for years anyways, no matter which political party is in power. Wouldn’t you agree?
But I’ll be the first to admit I’m not as “politically savvy” as you so I could be way off here.
And yes, I’m tired of the “special olympic debacle” and was hoping we could keep this one civil.
Well said, CR67. And I also think that Obama is more of a normal politician than his image would portray. He panders, he compromises, and he’ll be influenced by lobbyists. But probably less than either Bush or McCain.
I agree.