Is the Book Title Fitting? Possible Sensationalism?

In this week’s readings, the authors endorse political activity as an advocacy strategy. Though I appreciate the perceived connection between political sponsorship and enhanced program capacity, we must ask ourselves if it is in our collective interest to encourage more participation in our traditional political process. The authors cite the need to compromise and concede a bit, though not to go so far as to “sell oneself.” However, is there a clear boundary between integrity and political toxicity? Is more political activity just what we need, as the remedy to our concerns, or rather does it exacerbate problems? Perhaps participation in our current political forum deters change, where concessions are necessary to gain some semblance of success amongst the adversarial muck, thus perpetuating the failing system of “selling out” for quarreling (capital) interests.

With the urgency of now, we really need advancement. Otherwise, the Middle-East uprisings will not appear so foreign. Does Gov. Walker’s recent prank telephone conversation not help our confidence in the political system? It is yet another example to add to the mounting heap of ugliness.

I, too, would like to revisit The Heritage Foundation this week. Building on Kate’s prior post, through deliberately advocating for outdated and prejudiced values, the time and attention heeded to such arguments depletes our joint opportunity to focus on more pressing issues. This stunts and complicates progress, as it will become that much more difficult and socially deleterious to maintain antiquated positions in our rapidly evolving world. Though I do not advocate quelling certain speech, I am nonetheless under the impression that the purpose of public service is to advance the collective interest. Obstinately advocating habitual and discriminatory positions, amid growing support in their opposition, is irresponsible given that we would otherwise apply our resources to more urgent foreign and domestic issues. A case embodying such change is the federal government’s recent policy change regarding the institution of marriage:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

Simply stated, debating some issues is wasteful and a hindrance to advancement. I would not define such activity as emanating from a “force for good.” Also in the second chapter, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant stress the importance of appealing to the political center, rather than advancing polarizing positions. I perceive the book’s dissonance. I suppose the authors cover themselves by stating that high-impact nonprofits are messy at times. So what do we derive from the book? That we can be messy, highly controversial, political animals and still gain praise? That we may make integrity a lower priority?