Let's just assume that Alix Rosethal, a candidate for S.F. Supervisor, actually is the "First Burner Political Candidate" -- as she was described here for a fund-raiser:
sanfrancisco.tribe.net/event/...9820a20
What I'm wondering in this: Is a "Burner Political Candidate" an Inevitability or an Oxymoron?
A burner politician could be considered "inevitable" simply because the event continues to grow and a significant portion of the community is of an age to have paid enough dues to be credited as a "serious candidate," whatever that means, and so, yeah, it's inevitable that some local candidate for something would raise a hand and say, Oh, yeah... I've been a couple times.
I'm not sure that's the way Alix would use the word "inevitable" in this context. I suspect Alix might be willing to say that political activism - of a particular ideological stripe - is an "inevitable" product of the event and its ethos. But I'm not the least bit sure that's true. In fact, I think a strong claim could be made for the view that Burner Politican is an oxymoron.
I fully embrace the idea that there is a Burning Man culture, even if it still awaits its definitive enthrography.... Burners generally share an ethos, an aesthetic, a ritualized economy, a central totem, blah, blah, blah ... But does any of that mean that there is a convincing method of figuring out the "Burner Position" on any particular politcal question?
For Example: An artist who proposes a big interactive, explosive, suitably ironic and slightly absurd sculpture for the playa must Swear to Larry that there will be burn platforms, MOOP patrols and a firm guarantee of LNT. No problem, says the artist -- I'm the King of LNT. Except the studio where the piece was built is a frikkin fire hazard. What will this artist think about a new "disposal license fee" that requires an occupant -- whether tenant or owner -- to pay trash fees based on how toxic the waste they generate is? Clean world of happy healthies? good. Dumpster full of welding rods and computer monitors left from Playa project? Oops....
Or: What do we know of that artist's opinion on draining the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, an issue that apparently no one can figure out??
So, kids -- what do you think about this -- Does committed participation in an event that disclaims an ideology, that has a totem without any recognized meaning, actually reveal anything about a person's politics?
sanfrancisco.tribe.net/event/...9820a20
What I'm wondering in this: Is a "Burner Political Candidate" an Inevitability or an Oxymoron?
A burner politician could be considered "inevitable" simply because the event continues to grow and a significant portion of the community is of an age to have paid enough dues to be credited as a "serious candidate," whatever that means, and so, yeah, it's inevitable that some local candidate for something would raise a hand and say, Oh, yeah... I've been a couple times.
I'm not sure that's the way Alix would use the word "inevitable" in this context. I suspect Alix might be willing to say that political activism - of a particular ideological stripe - is an "inevitable" product of the event and its ethos. But I'm not the least bit sure that's true. In fact, I think a strong claim could be made for the view that Burner Politican is an oxymoron.
I fully embrace the idea that there is a Burning Man culture, even if it still awaits its definitive enthrography.... Burners generally share an ethos, an aesthetic, a ritualized economy, a central totem, blah, blah, blah ... But does any of that mean that there is a convincing method of figuring out the "Burner Position" on any particular politcal question?
For Example: An artist who proposes a big interactive, explosive, suitably ironic and slightly absurd sculpture for the playa must Swear to Larry that there will be burn platforms, MOOP patrols and a firm guarantee of LNT. No problem, says the artist -- I'm the King of LNT. Except the studio where the piece was built is a frikkin fire hazard. What will this artist think about a new "disposal license fee" that requires an occupant -- whether tenant or owner -- to pay trash fees based on how toxic the waste they generate is? Clean world of happy healthies? good. Dumpster full of welding rods and computer monitors left from Playa project? Oops....
Or: What do we know of that artist's opinion on draining the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, an issue that apparently no one can figure out??
So, kids -- what do you think about this -- Does committed participation in an event that disclaims an ideology, that has a totem without any recognized meaning, actually reveal anything about a person's politics?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Sun, July 23, 2006 - 9:54 PMDoes committed participation in an event that disclaims an ideology, that has a totem without any recognized meaning, actually reveal anything about a person's politics?
- No, it certainly doesn’t.
The interesting question is: what does she take the Burner position to be? Unfortunately, from her post all we learn about her is that she seems to like freaks and respect diversity. Respecting diversity is good. Accepting the rights of others to be different from you is a good thing, assuming it conforms to a certain agreed minimum commonality. For example, in general I believe we each have a right in this country to religious freedom. However, I believe most of us would not tolerate a religion in modern-day America that involved human sacrifice.
But what else? You can reduce a political platform to one position - e.g. equal rights, one side or another of the abortion issue, whether we should be involved in a war, etc. But it’s not so easy to reduce a politician to a single issue. As you suggest, there are multiple layers to many issues (from an artist’s right to express to what happens to the by-product trash of their art).
Do I think someone who has been to Burning Man will more likely take positions similar to mine than the “average” politician? Yeah, probably. But the burden on her is to show it. A tent full of Playa dust and a secret Burning Man decoder ring is not enough.
I like many people I have met on and off the Playa who call themselves Burners; however, some I don’t like. Some I don’t know well enough to be aware of our differences on certain matters. Some I have mild differences of opinion with. Others I couldn’t make it through a meal with. Just because someone appreciates or participates in the community or culture of Burning Man doesn’t mean any one of us should assume that individual holds all of our opinions on social or economic policies. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, July 24, 2006 - 9:14 AMThis brings us back to some of the interesting issues at the heart of The Org's "outreach" policy. In a general sense, I think it's a good thing that we interact and integrate with "normal" society. It lowers their fear of weird freaks (especially nice right now when it seems like the zeitgeist is swinging hard toward Inquisition and Witch Trials) and gives opportunities for this art in The World.
On the other hand, I'm a sexual conservative and don't have any particular plan to "expand" that boundary yet many "Burners" I've met act like there's some kind of Inner Circle of Burneriness that mandates partner-swapping and homosexuality. You go, girls, but I'm gonna sit over here and build something with my spare time....
I'll scoff at "Burner" positions...what the hell is that? Maybe we can all agree on some basics (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?) but probably no more or less than society at large in any meaningful sense. Even most of your gap-toothed yokels in Alabama would nod once in a while to a reading of the Constitution..... -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, July 24, 2006 - 2:54 PMwhat would you guys think of a burner who happened to go into politics using the network that has developed around burning man to mobilize a base of supporters?
one doesn't have to harp on what is the "burner platform" or distill some sort of essential burner political ideology to mobilize a group of people out of the pool of humanity that is burning man.
the idea of politics and burning man mixing is interesting to me. particularly because a lot of politics and a lot of voting seems to me to be based around ideas of community and community identity rather than any particular issue. particular issues get talked about and argued about but what drives people to vote for a candidate and what causes them to put their trust in that candidate is often a feeling of community identity with that person. i'm thinking of christianity in american politics here. they may talk about gay marriage or abortion or family values but in the end they just want someone who they identity as being "of them" in charge. and i don't necessarily think that that's entirely a bad thing from the point of view of voting intelligently. at least relative to the other options given to us within our system. i think that in general cultural markers identifying one as part of a group are probably better predictors of behavior than campaign slogans. i personally would feel on some level that a politican who i knew was a burner would be more aligned with my interests and needs than not. and i think that that feeling identification would probably motivate a lot of burners to vote for that person. especially as burning man continues to change and grow. of course its hard to see how as a constituency we would be very effective outside of bay area and maybe la local politics.
but still. in 10 years a gay burner mayor of san francisco would be a pretty fabulous thing. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, July 24, 2006 - 3:02 PM<in 10 years a gay burner mayor of san francisco would be a pretty fabulous thing.>
That depends entirely on his drag skills. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, July 24, 2006 - 3:03 PMheh, what being elected or being fabulous?
"That depends entirely on his drag skills"
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, July 24, 2006 - 3:02 PMbut to answer the question yeah i think it probably does.
i think that there are a lot of social issues that are logically related to one other, free speech, sexual freedom, privacy, secularism, humanism, freedom to question, etc. that get acted out at burning man. i think that burning man can be thought of as an expression of these ideas. i think that people talk about these ideas a lot at burning man and express them through their actions. i think that on some level these ideas are related to one another and may for a suite that for the most part comes together. i think that loving and being attracted to the experience of burning man implies a love for these ideas. perhaps not on the level of a particular policy but on the level of general ideas i think there is definately a core burning man position. i don't think that that core has to be absolutely homogenous to form a real world-view that i think could certainly translate itself into politics.
-
-
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Tue, August 1, 2006 - 2:48 PMDid you know that current CA Assembly Woman Loni Hancock (legislator representing the East Bay) met her husband out at Burning Man ten years ago.
I used to work in the capitol (as of last week) and when I found this out I almost flipped my playa wig. A politican who is open to disclosing their BM roots!
WOW!
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Tue, August 1, 2006 - 3:06 PMI find it very hard to believe that Loni and Tom only met 10 years ago. They've both been area politics much longer than that. I'd assume they go back to the 70s.
I suppose I could write Joe Hancock's current wife (a former neighbor) and ask for the skinny, but maybe I'll just catch up on neighborhood scuttlebut.
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Tue, August 1, 2006 - 3:45 PMI think Kinky Friedman, an anti-politics musician turned Texas governor hopeful has a decent chance of winning. We need more diversity in politics. Bring it on. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Tue, August 1, 2006 - 3:49 PMYou forgot his mystery writing career.
And having written that song about Whitman may have killed any possible political career. Just a thought.
I'd certainly prefer him to others, but, I'm trying to be realistic. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Tue, August 1, 2006 - 9:39 PMi think my friend liam shy will be the first gay burner president of the united states. he's destined to be mayor of san francisco at least. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Fri, August 4, 2006 - 10:20 PMPerhaps I was a little overenthusiastic by calling myself the "first" Burner political candidate. In fact, several "out" Burners ran for Supervisor in 2004 in District 5. But what makes my campaign different is that we're working on actually bringing Burner values to City Hall. Mr. Harvey just signed on as an endorser - and I'm thrilled to have his support.
And by "Burner values" I mean (1) keeping san francisco weird by making sure that we aren't losing our diversity through a lack of affordable housing, (2) promoting arts and culture by protecting street fairs and other outdoor events, and by bringing more public art to our existing neighborhoods, and (3) implementing policies that lead to a cleaner, healthier environment.
I don't know if you all have been following this, but my opponent, Bevan Dufty, announced last week that he wanted to cancel Halloween in the Castro. This is a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons, but most important, I think that it is emblematic of what the Bay Guardian has called the Death of Fun.
www.sfbg.com/entry.php
City officials have been trying to put a stop to street fairs in the last few years. They cancelled Reggae in the Park, they tried to pull the liquor license of the North Beach Jazz Festival, and they quadrupled the police fees on the How Weird Street Fair. I can't imagine a San Francisco without outdoor events - our city would be a much less fun, less interesting, and less tolerant place to live.
For more on my campaign, please check out my website: www.votealix.com
I welcome your feedback on how I'm doing.
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Sat, August 5, 2006 - 12:07 PMAlix -- Thanks for stopping by .... I hope you know that this thread certainly isn't meant as any kind of attack, and I assume a lot of people looking in here will share your share your politics. And, I don't want to distract you from stuff that's probably more important ... But ............
I think it's probably correct that Burners share a core of values that include a commitment to keeping San Francisco weird and supporting street fairs. But I wonder whether "Burner values" actually compel the adoption of particular political views.
For example: I think the idea that Prop H would require them to stop in Marin County to pick their handguns on the way to the desert would strike a significant number of long-time, deeply committed Burners as a direct attack on every value they hold dear. I think there are a lot people who were in the desert in 1996, or 2005, who would say that anyone who actively supported Prop H just doesn't understand any of what BM is actually about.
I'm not making that claim, and again, I certainly don' t mean this an attack, Alix, but I do think it is a legitimate view.
I think a strong claim could be made for the idea that San Francisco liberalism is the antithesis of "Burner values, and that the essential politcal expression of "Burner values" is Libertarianism. I certainly don't think of myself as a Libertarian, but I could definitely understand a view that the politics that necessarily flow from Principles of Radical Self-Reliance, Radical Self-Expression and the creation of Temporary Autonomous Zones are libertarian.
This also begs another question -- if the overwhelming number of Burners do embrace San Francisco liberalism, which is probably true, what does that say about Burning Man's culture?
-
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Sun, August 6, 2006 - 7:13 PMthat it is diverse and engaged in an ongoing conversation about a number of values that may not be arranged into identical patterns but nonetheless i believe are logically related and drawn from a basic pool of moral alignment that one could call "burner". to me libertarianism and liberalism diverge more in the method they believe is effective for realizing values than in values themselves. that method, total governmental non-interference, is based on an value but the other values that libertarians would realize through that non-interference are basically akin to those pursued by liberalism. liberals basically focus on economic and social freedom based upon government regulation of power disparities. freedom is still the goal. as a liberal i would say that libertarians are more concerned with their own freedom than creating a general situation where freedom can be had by as many people as possible. simply legislating "freedom" through laws like gun control etc. just ignores the economic and historical causes of the inequities that really limit freedom. and both ideas view the government as basically dangerous, though i admit there is a danger of liberalism getting carried away with itself and veering toward utilitarianism. anyways, i think they're intimately related ideas and are both completely linked to the experience of burning man and the meaning of the social relaxation and connection that occurs there. and while the hard core gun toting burners of ages past and the liberal majority of what burning man is now may disagree on some fundamental points i still think they converse within a mutual context of basically complementary concepts.
and would 97.89% agree with the points put forward by alix by the way. which i think are very cool alix. good luck defeating that guy. -
-
Re: "The First Burner Politician"
Mon, August 7, 2006 - 11:13 AMFirst, let me admit a pair of biases: I'm Alix's boyfriend, and in the writing that I've done about Burning Man for the Bay Guardian in recent years, I've long been looking for ways that the burner culture can influence the outside world. I understand the barriers to that, mostly centered around the fact that burners are ideologically diverse and fiercely independent. But I think that even that barrier represents a shared value, one of many that we have that need to be better articulated in the mainstream political dialogue. That's one reason that I'm happy Alix has taken on this very difficult and all-consuming challenge. We need someone to voice the perspective that San Francisco has to stop apologizing for being San Francisco, that it's OK to be a freak and party or make weird art (even if just of oneself), that freedom and tolerance aren't always easy but that they're extremely important, that the people in general and not just a few NIMBY neighbors own our streets and parks, that truly affordable housing requires city government participation, and that if city policies don't actively and aggressively encourage the sort of urban, diverse, burner values that we hold, then they'll be squeezed out by the political power of the wealthy minority of city residents. And most of all, I believe that if we can't make San Francisco a model city for our values, then we can't do it anywhere.
-
-
-
-
-
-
