What does it mean to "support" something

In my last post, I talked about police reforms I might support. In the post before that, I chided anti-racist activists for not broadening their appeal. I used police reform as an example:

Perhaps if activists widened their argument, if they built a bigger tent, maybe more of us would join in, at least on some issues and in some circumstances.

The question is, what counts as "joining in"? Or put another way, what does it mean--what might it mean--to say I "support" something like police reform?

Talk is cheap. I can say I support X, but if I don't really do anything to advance X, saying I support it doesn't matter much. I can imagine circumstances where it might matter more than others. But simply uttering something doesn't usually do much by itself. It's not nothing, but it's not much. That's especially true when I do it pseudonymously.

So, when I say I "support" police reform--or anything else--I should consider what I could do and what I would do to support it.

What I probably won't do

• March in a protest or demonstration.
• Phone banking.
• Canvass voters at their homes. 
• Pass leaflets to induce people to do some sort of action.
  
• Place a slogan-sign in my window (or on my lawn, if I had one). 
• Sign a statement when that statement has at least one point I disagree with. In other words, any open statement I have ever seen.
  

What I might do

• Write a blog post
• Write a letter to my congressperson, alderman, mayor, senator, etc.
• Donate a modest sum to a cause I support
• Sign a petition or statement, or place a sign in my window, expressing my support for  substantive cause. An example would be to show my support for or opposition to a bill or ordinance that the legislature.
  

Disclosures

Disclosure: I'm much more likely not to do the things I say I "probably won't do" than I am to do the things I say I "might do." You can chalk that off to the aphorism that it's easier to do nothing than to do something. 

Another disclosure: I've had plenty of opportunity to do the things I've said I "might do" and I've almost never done them. For example, last August (or so), my alderman announced that he would support some arrangement where the federal government would send soldiers into Big City to keep order after the then latest round of riots. I thought about writing a letter explaining to him why I thought it was a bad idea to do that (hint: it's not because I think riots are good). But I didn't. 

Yet another disclosure: I fully realize that writing a blog post does almost nothing. It is basically the equivalent of talk, which I said above is "cheap." In my case it's doubly cheap because I blog under a pseudonym and evade (I hope) professional consequences for speaking my  mind. (At the same time, I always aspire to keep aware that I may be doxxed at any point, so I try--despite repeated failures--to ensure that what I say is civil and well-reasoned.) Even so, A series of blog posts, especially those in conversation with others, can at least plant the seeds of discussion. Weak tea, yes. But tea, nonetheless.

A final disclosure: I have done many of the things (e.g., read this post at Ordinary-Times) under the section of things "I probably won't do." I've gotten a taste for what those entail. I may explain in a later post, but for now I'll say those tactics tend to be blunt instruments, almost never necessary, and usually ineffective in the short term.

Send off

If talk is cheap, then speculating on what I might do isn't much dearer. I suppose the key is to act. I realize that. I certainly should have acted when my alderman said what he said, even if it had been only a lonely letter.