It has been said that liberals are very broadminded. They are always willing to give careful consideration to all sides of the same side.
In the wake of the ongoing discussion on campus activism in these pages, I cannot help but see some truth in that statement. The demeanor with which student activists conduct their activities is often headstrong and self-righteous. This style not only undermines the activists' efforts to foster discussion and debate, but also erodes the credibility of political liberalism in general.
It could be argued that activism is selfish by nature. In vigorously agitating for change, activists inconvenience others for personal gain. However small the inconvenience may be -- a flooded inbox or a table of nagging people in Novack Cafe -- that is exactly the definition of selfishness.
Buy that or not, what is certain is that student activists' demeanor does not help matters. On April 14, Sustainable Dartmouth sent out a campus-wide e-mail advertising its Earth Day activities. The e-mail began, "It's dirty ... it's smelly ... it surrounds us everywhere and everyday ... and Dartmouth produces as much of it as the entire country of South Africa .... IT'S TRASH!!!" It is possible that I have no sense of humor, but to me that last claim does not appear to be a joke. I was confused -- knowledgeable environmentalists were reporting that Dartmouth College produces as much trash as a nation of 50 million.
I replied to the blitz. "Dear Sustainable Dartmouth, I applaud your efforts, but I do not appreciate invented statistics. I agree that trash is dirty, smelly and ubiquitous. But could you please cite a credible source for your claim that Dartmouth 'produces as much of it as the entire country of South Africa?'" I elaborated: "Unsourced, outlandish statements like that are a large part of the reason the sustainability movement at Dartmouth and in American society at large is viewed with such skepticism. It's hard to take such claims seriously." I haven't gotten a response.
Ethnic and sexual "pride" organizations exhibit another aspect of the bothersome activist style. Campaigning for social justice is admirable; organizing for the expressed purpose of proclaiming pride is quite another. Although for certain groups the existence of pride organizations has become a sacred cow, viewed objectively it is laughable. What would be the response if I founded an organization devoted to promoting Brunette Pride?
Perhaps most troubling of all is when activists blame their listeners for apathy. That does not make sense. It is the self-appointed job of the activist to raise people from apathy. If people are apathetic in the face of activism, the fault lies entirely with the activist! Of course it may be that Dartmouth students are simply a tough audience. Activists are justified in lamenting that all they like. But it is ridiculous to blame listeners for failing to be convinced by one's own arguments. (If you wanted an easy audience, activists, you should have gone to Brown.)
There is even a vocabulary of activism. The word "community" is used wherever possible. "Native American community," "LGBT community," "Virginia Tech community." "Diversity" is another key word. Link anything to "diversity"-- not necessarily the concept, just the word -- and it's an immediate success in the activist community. The conservative argument is always "fundamentally flawed," and it always "displays the ignorance" of its proponents. (I undoubtedly display my ignorance on a great many issues in this piece.) It would help to find language that isn't so trite. Better language would be much more powerful and would roll many fewer eyes.
Since most activists associate themselves with political liberalism, these tasteless demeanors give liberalism a bad name. This is entirely unnecessary, because most of the hot-button activist issues are not inherently associated with any particular left-right position. At heart, modern liberalism is simply a political and economic philosophy emphasizing pragmatic utilitarianism with an eye towards aiding the struggling. That says little about protecting the environment, ending war, helping suffering foreigners or changing cultural norms. But thanks to irritating activism, liberalism is associated with heaps of special interest baggage which, for better or worse, turns people off. Most people just don't appreciate terms like homoflexywomynism or antiheteronormosexitivity.
We could build a better left. I envision a left that is not a collection of arbitrary interest groups. It would be a charismatic left, a united left with a coherent economic vision. That would be a strong left. In its pursuit, activists should set their fiery passions aside. Activists who alienate cause no change but headaches.
