I realize that this is a very broad discussion, because it addresses multiple types of causes. I often hear people say things like this:
“I’m an atheist, but I think abrasive and extreme atheists like Richard Dawkins drive people away and hurt our cause”
“I support gay rights, but those gay pride parades with their flying colors and shit really alienate people.” (also, see Onion line “Gay Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back Fifty Years”)
“I support the environment, but all those people who say that we should give up cars or never eat meat are just being unrealistic.”
I recognize two caveats:
These issues are different, so tactics that make sense in one area might not in another.
There are subtle differences in the arguments made along these lines, including subtle differences in the forms of the above three statements.
With this said, do you think that the above variety of “moderate” criticism is really valid or right most of the time? I am supportive of gay rights, environmentalism, and atheism, and I have never felt that Richard Dawkins or deep ecologists or gay priders hurt their causes.
It can work the other way. Having extremists on the outside of your position can make you look *more *reasonable and moderate, not less. Political candidates know that when they welcome and support their party’s winger actitivsts as fellow candidates in the primaries (i.e. Kucinich, Huckabee).
Strident activists generally help unless they go so far that they make the position seem insane or ridiculous. Being abrasive and outspoken is a good thing for the cause. Even if you piss people off, you force them to pay attention to you. And that provides space for the more moderate voices to work within.
So Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore … I’d argue all these guys have done a good job of being advocates for their causes.
The danger comes when you go so far out that you come off as a raving loon. I think Glenn Beck is running that danger right now, and some of the PETA protesters have done similar damage to their cause.
Extreme, or merely loony, stances taken as if they were normal can move the debate in their direction.
Witness the claims that Reagan lowered taxes (when he raised them on most Americans) raised government revenues (though they went down relative to the size of the economy) cut government spending (actually it went up) & boosted the American economy (even as families lost their farms & working-class purchasing power stagnated) with a “rising tide to lift all boats.” Reagan was wrong, & kind of a fraud. But he seemed nice, so people accepted him as the new normal, & his rhetoric as both moderate & successful.
On the other hand, extremism, or mere lunacy, which is recognizable as such tends to hurt those who espouse it & can blow back on their allies.
Michele Bachmann is a wonderful tool to the Democratic Party, so much so that some of us expect she’s a put-on. A pro-lifer murdering George Tiller–who specialized in medically indicated abortions of the kind I myself supported when I was a rabid pro-lifer–just makes me more angry at the pro-life movement for its simplistic rhetoric, & as I was already tending neutral/uninvolved, I’m feeling myself drawn to a sort of pro-choice activism that I wasn’t interested in before.
Well then, what about causes you don’t support? Do extreme or provocative stances from “the other side” make you more, or less, sympathetic to those points of view?
Ideally, you want to keep your radical fringe behind the scenes donating money and doing volunteer work but not showing up on TV. But you want your oppoent’s radical fringe on the forefront of the media, so it can drive away all the moderates and make you look sane by comparison.
Fred Phelps is a good argument for gay rights. And Osama Bin Laden is a good argument for secularism.
Terrorists in the Middle East aren’t exactly making people in North America and Europe warm up to Muslims and Arabs.
PETA: The most extreme vegetarian organization is also the most vocal. I know Dopers tend to be open-minded and all, but seriously, how many of you have had unfortunate run-ins with preachy vegetarians and thought that was really the norm for the crowd? Don’t deny you’ve experienced selection bias with vegetarians.
For some reason, it seems like those on the far left tend to give liberals a bad name more so than wingnuts on the right. Right-wing pundits often portray left-wing nuttery as the norm, while those on the left acknowledge that right-wing crazies are the exception.
I don’t think Critical Mass is exactly helping the cause of cyclist activism.
Want to spread an ideology? Here’s a plan. Form militant sects on college campuses. Disrupt classes, hold violent masked rallies, invade the dean’s office, crap on the desk. Maybe you can recruit a biker or prison gang or two, for muscle. Make people fear you. Don’t be afraid of a punch-up or two. And make demands: a captive fawning department for every college or university, abolition of your intellectual enemies, the sky’s the limit. Create some change. Be an activist. Kick some ass.
Too radical? Hurting your cause? You know what? This is exactly what the left-wing sects of the '60s, did to take over the American educational system. It was pure, naked, rampant thuggery, using as much violence as necessary and with the promise of more. If guns were needed, they used guns. If fists sufficed, they sufficed. And it worked.
Not to ad-hom athelas, but he (it’s a reasonable assumption he’s a he) last month, basically decried anyone winning the Nobel Peace Prize for activism.
Guess it’s a different ball game if your activism is based in thuggery. That at least is in accordance with natural law, not some namby-pamby idealism that makes even God wanna puke.
The naked incompetence of Sarah Palin helped push people towards Obama. So yeah, these things do work. All the town hall distruptors threatening to overthrow the government and assassinate politicans helps drive a wedge between them and everyone else too.
I’m guessing you were being sarcastic with this post, because that kind of behavior empowered conservatives like Nixon and Reagan.
