Empowered and excluded by social networks
It is hard to get inclusion right when we are taking care of our own.
I have deep connections in this small town, so, I don't need to read reviews of HVAC service providers. I just ask a couple people who have been around a long time who they use and why. They may say that Abe's heating and cooling is run by a fellow who is just starting out and we need to support them. They may say that Panther HVAC is run by a strange guy but he knows what he is doing and will troubleshoot over the phone with you.
It is a helluva lot more trustworthy than a five-stars-or-nothing review on a Google Map entry.
While not exclusive to a small community, this nuanced review system is dominant here. It is how I know to get things done.
I suppose it is also how it can be hard to break into business in a small town if the incumbent enjoys the support of the scions and tastemakers of the place. Same is true of politics. I heard a newcomer refer to the city council of our town as nepotistic. I had not thought of it that way before, but he was right; for a time, the mayor's wife was an elected city councilor. One could certainly shake the nepotism stick at that.
I wanted to say "well, we are resistant to carpet baggers, if that's what you mean." When we deal with community issues, the people we collaborate with are people we have had the luxury of building trust with. But why was I defending it? He felt locked out and unwelcome. I wish that I had been more empathetic and thought more about what his experience is.
A social network _is_ nepotistic. It is a subjective tool that strengthens the value of internal sources and weakens the value of external sources. We are tribal. A recent article in the Atlantic1 called out that tribalism is largely good things. Strong identification with your group powers you to live their values.
It is easier to see that when you are in the tribe, the tribe is taking care of you. The tribe is telling you where to take your car for body work. The tribe is recommending you for jobs.
In an unusual move, the Democratic Governor of Oregon endorsed in the May 2024 primary for the House of Representatives for Congressional District 5 (CD5). The sprawling district was created when the Governor was the speaker of the state House. It includes addresses in the largest city in the state (Portland), and small towns three hours drive away. It crosses the mountains, serving different economies and different cultures. To me, it seems pretty clearly designed to disable the rural vote, which the Democratic party rightly identifies as conservative and hard for them to win.
However, in its inaugural election in 2024 the Republican won the seat in a close election.
An awkward oddity about house seats — that in my opinion should be fixed — is that you do not need to live in the district to run for the seat. I understand that none of the three contenders do in fact live in CD5, although they all live quite close to the borders.
The Republican incumbent and the Governor-endorsed Democrat live on the Westerly border, close to Portland.
The other Democratic candidate lives on the easterly border in a rural community.
I do not know why the governor endorsed in the primary. It is unusual because should her chosen candidate not win it ought to be her party commitment to support the person she said should not be the candidate. A party wants to avoid that friction in the general election when running against the other coalition.
The urban Democratic candidate she endorsed had attempted to become Speaker of the House when the Governor left that position, which is not what the Governor wanted. It is possible that this endorsement is the result of a deal those two struck at that time, or some social currency being exchanged as a “favor.”
In addition to the endorsement, a large amount of national Democratic organization money and expertise was provided to the urban candidate. Several other urban organizations and political people endorsed her. She won the primary, so the district will be represented by someone from the west side of the mountain. If the Democrat wins, she will be closely tied to the dominant people of the Democratic establishment in the Portland area that helped her win the primary.
We have these social networks because we spend time together. It is the natural, powerful tendency of humans to build trust with each other. Because local candidates are known in the community, we can ask our friends, neighbors, barbers, vendors, and customers about the character of a candidate before casting our votes or going to a business. The network can certainly contribute to keeping the status quo in power. And someone who does not get access to power because of those bonds will rightly see it as nepotism.
But I would not critique it without first pausing and considering what your own community's social network is keeping out of power, and why.
Sorry to be so harsh this week. It is my first season completely voting in my rural district and I find the experience hard to stomach.
“The Myth of Tribalism: Beware of the false notion that group solidarity leads inevitably to conflict” January 2022 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/tribalism-myth-group-solidarity-prejudice-conflict/621008/