There are three great pieces waiting to be written from that second-to-last paragraph alone:
1. "Modern movements also tend to eschew centralized leadership and hierarchy..."
-This is perhaps the biggest failure of modern activism. Without effective leadership, nothing gets done, no one goes to institutions of power to negotiate change. Added to this, I suspect many who would do a good job in leading modern activist movements are smart enough to know that they will fail at maintaining the impossible standards of moral perfection that would be expected of them because they are human beings who will say whatever the new wrong word or phrase might be on any given day. They may also know that participation in the eventual arduous struggle sessions for their wrong-speak isn't worth their time, no apology would ever suffice and the "error" would be held over their heads until they left the movement.
2. "They became decentralized mass movements that descended from noble causes into cudgels for the vengeful and unwell."
-Yes. I'd add more, but I don't have anything useful to say beyond that this is worth exploring further.
3. "For many activists in the present era, activism is less about the cause itself and more about serving as a kind of replacement for religion, community, or psychological help."
- I'd also add that it serves as a new kind of self-promotion for individuals who wish to advertise their liberal or conservative bona fides to their friends and the public at large on social media. It's less about the cause and more about being seen as one who is associated with a noble cause, and by extension as a noble person of good merit, irrespective of how successful you are at representing that cause.
Great summary of how activists on both sides are going astray by being performative and alienating mainstream voters and politicians. I’m hopeful that this will not change and both democrats and republicans can reject the extremist clowns 🤡
I feel that this piece is a bit disingenuous. When we look back in history, we tend to forget the amount of time that passes between specific events. The author lists a couple of different activist victories and then complains about a 25-year time period witth no major activist accomplishment.
Let's look at the times that separate the victories that the author mentioned. Slavery was won in 1864 with the end of the civil war. Women's right to vote 1920, labor laws 1935 to 1938, civil rights 1968, and the end of the war in Vietnam 1975. I'm going to add in abortion in 1979. The environmental laws were 1986 disabilities act 1990 and then gay marriage was in 2015.
If we average out the years between major victories, we can see that in general there's, on average, a 18-year Time Gap in between activist victories.
I think what we are really seeing is that there was a 22 year period with a lot of success but in reality, true fundamental change is something that needs to be worked towards.
All of these movements were decades in the making. For example, the environmental movement started in 1962 with the publishing of the book "silent spring," ended in 1990.
Finally, what we are missing are the strong leaders willing to make real sacrifices. Each of the movements that we have discussed have had leaders who have made significant sacrifices. We need a new generation of leaders and we as a public can separate the issue from the individual.
It may be easier in the modern day to recognize what is wrong with the world around us. It doesn't mean that effort doesn't need to be made for those of us who want change.
Your critique is assuming that the handful of examples I chose to highlight, plus a couple of your own, constitutes all there is. There were many activist victories (good and bad) that occurred between each of those.
That is fair but let's also consider the amount of effort put into each major victory.
It was 28 years in between the "beginning" of the environmental movement and the 1990 passing of legislature.
How about the ending of slavery... Decades, centuries... Millennia? Saying activism fixed this when we fought a Civil War?
Women's rights / equality.... Since the advent of farming. They were able to organize an 11,000 person rally in 1913 without modern forms of mass communication just grass roots organization.
Activists need to take a leadership role and find a cause that can connect universally.
You may mean the disability rights movement? The Environmentalism movement won relatively fast victories in the early '70s.
I believe I wrote that activism "helped build the pressure" to abolish slavery, which is a perfectly fair and accurate statement.
As to your broader point, yes, the largest causes usually require time. More so in the past than today, due to slower information flows, but sure. That doesn't negate any arguments made in the piece though. You could argue that maybe modern activist movements would be effective if only they had more time to cook, but 1) they cannot sustain themselves that long owing to the problems enumerated in the piece, and 2) their poor methods and lack of structure/discipline render cook times largely irrelevant.
> "not a single major activist movement in the 21st century has won anything worth a damn".
Why wouldn't the Affordable Care Act be considered worth a damn? Many activists fought for decades to get that passed, and it has saved lives. Why wouldn't climate activism -- which has improved environments nationally and globally (albeit not at the rates I'd like) -- not be worth a damn? I appreciate the nonstop efforts of all of these activists, and I consider their efforts to be worth more than a damn.
>"the pro-Palestine movement, far from stopping the war in Gaza, has managed only to demolish any distinction there once was between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism while partially instigating an authoritarian government crackdown on higher education"
I've seen no evidence that the lack of distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is due to the pro-Plaestine movement. Rather, it is due to people outside the pro-Palestine movement erasing that distinction.
Authoritarian governments instigate crackdowns, not the pro-Palestine movement. Let's keep the blame where it belongs: with the authoritarians.
> "anti-vaxxers changed no policies — they simply raised their own mortality rates"
We have a very prominent anti-vaxxer at the head of government, and he is altering policies. Mortality rates have increased for everyone -- not just for anti-vaxxers -- due to anti-vaxx efforts.
> "anti-trans activism has succeeded merely in further radicalizing the political left."
Anti-trans activism has led to a surge in anti-trans violence, legislation across the nation, and a migration of trans folks from dangerous states to safer states. It has been very effective, and has led to much more than "merely further radicalizing the political left".
There's also lobbying. If something is unpopular with lobbies, like healthcare reform, no matter now popular it is with the public, is never going to pass in congress. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, truly destroyed democracy and turned it into an olygarchy.
Very much agreed. Although I can think of one activist group that is making gains and is a lot closer to their goals than they've ever been: anti-abortion activists. Left wing groups could learn something from these people about playing the long game.
Similar to same-sex marriage, both rely on court rulings (though same-sex marriage has been somewhat shored up by the Respect for Marriage Act and the United States v. Windsor decision). Last I checked, most states, including some red ones, that put abortion rights to ballot initiative votes saw pro-choice outcomes.
Really worth emphasizing that the Respect for Marriage Act was a very direct response to the overruling of Roe v Wade. SCOTUS stepping aside to leave the policy-making to elected representatives has had a moderating effect on our representatives.
I think most of the electorate is in favor of abortion being an option even if they don't like it overall. So I'm not entirely sure why politicians and activists keep pushing it.
> "[same-sex marriage and anti-abortion activists] both rely on court rulings"
Anti-abortion activists have been extremely successful in shutting down access to women's healthcare for decades through violence. They have absolutely not achieved those victories by waiting for, or relying on, court rulings. It seems only the pro-choice side relies on court rulings.
There are three great pieces waiting to be written from that second-to-last paragraph alone:
1. "Modern movements also tend to eschew centralized leadership and hierarchy..."
-This is perhaps the biggest failure of modern activism. Without effective leadership, nothing gets done, no one goes to institutions of power to negotiate change. Added to this, I suspect many who would do a good job in leading modern activist movements are smart enough to know that they will fail at maintaining the impossible standards of moral perfection that would be expected of them because they are human beings who will say whatever the new wrong word or phrase might be on any given day. They may also know that participation in the eventual arduous struggle sessions for their wrong-speak isn't worth their time, no apology would ever suffice and the "error" would be held over their heads until they left the movement.
2. "They became decentralized mass movements that descended from noble causes into cudgels for the vengeful and unwell."
-Yes. I'd add more, but I don't have anything useful to say beyond that this is worth exploring further.
3. "For many activists in the present era, activism is less about the cause itself and more about serving as a kind of replacement for religion, community, or psychological help."
- I'd also add that it serves as a new kind of self-promotion for individuals who wish to advertise their liberal or conservative bona fides to their friends and the public at large on social media. It's less about the cause and more about being seen as one who is associated with a noble cause, and by extension as a noble person of good merit, irrespective of how successful you are at representing that cause.
Jamie Paul is one of my favorite writers. Really hit a nerve with this one.
Great summary of how activists on both sides are going astray by being performative and alienating mainstream voters and politicians. I’m hopeful that this will not change and both democrats and republicans can reject the extremist clowns 🤡
I feel that this piece is a bit disingenuous. When we look back in history, we tend to forget the amount of time that passes between specific events. The author lists a couple of different activist victories and then complains about a 25-year time period witth no major activist accomplishment.
Let's look at the times that separate the victories that the author mentioned. Slavery was won in 1864 with the end of the civil war. Women's right to vote 1920, labor laws 1935 to 1938, civil rights 1968, and the end of the war in Vietnam 1975. I'm going to add in abortion in 1979. The environmental laws were 1986 disabilities act 1990 and then gay marriage was in 2015.
If we average out the years between major victories, we can see that in general there's, on average, a 18-year Time Gap in between activist victories.
I think what we are really seeing is that there was a 22 year period with a lot of success but in reality, true fundamental change is something that needs to be worked towards.
All of these movements were decades in the making. For example, the environmental movement started in 1962 with the publishing of the book "silent spring," ended in 1990.
Finally, what we are missing are the strong leaders willing to make real sacrifices. Each of the movements that we have discussed have had leaders who have made significant sacrifices. We need a new generation of leaders and we as a public can separate the issue from the individual.
It may be easier in the modern day to recognize what is wrong with the world around us. It doesn't mean that effort doesn't need to be made for those of us who want change.
Your critique is assuming that the handful of examples I chose to highlight, plus a couple of your own, constitutes all there is. There were many activist victories (good and bad) that occurred between each of those.
That is fair but let's also consider the amount of effort put into each major victory.
It was 28 years in between the "beginning" of the environmental movement and the 1990 passing of legislature.
How about the ending of slavery... Decades, centuries... Millennia? Saying activism fixed this when we fought a Civil War?
Women's rights / equality.... Since the advent of farming. They were able to organize an 11,000 person rally in 1913 without modern forms of mass communication just grass roots organization.
Activists need to take a leadership role and find a cause that can connect universally.
You may mean the disability rights movement? The Environmentalism movement won relatively fast victories in the early '70s.
I believe I wrote that activism "helped build the pressure" to abolish slavery, which is a perfectly fair and accurate statement.
As to your broader point, yes, the largest causes usually require time. More so in the past than today, due to slower information flows, but sure. That doesn't negate any arguments made in the piece though. You could argue that maybe modern activist movements would be effective if only they had more time to cook, but 1) they cannot sustain themselves that long owing to the problems enumerated in the piece, and 2) their poor methods and lack of structure/discipline render cook times largely irrelevant.
> "not a single major activist movement in the 21st century has won anything worth a damn".
Why wouldn't the Affordable Care Act be considered worth a damn? Many activists fought for decades to get that passed, and it has saved lives. Why wouldn't climate activism -- which has improved environments nationally and globally (albeit not at the rates I'd like) -- not be worth a damn? I appreciate the nonstop efforts of all of these activists, and I consider their efforts to be worth more than a damn.
>"the pro-Palestine movement, far from stopping the war in Gaza, has managed only to demolish any distinction there once was between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism while partially instigating an authoritarian government crackdown on higher education"
I've seen no evidence that the lack of distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is due to the pro-Plaestine movement. Rather, it is due to people outside the pro-Palestine movement erasing that distinction.
Authoritarian governments instigate crackdowns, not the pro-Palestine movement. Let's keep the blame where it belongs: with the authoritarians.
> "anti-vaxxers changed no policies — they simply raised their own mortality rates"
We have a very prominent anti-vaxxer at the head of government, and he is altering policies. Mortality rates have increased for everyone -- not just for anti-vaxxers -- due to anti-vaxx efforts.
> "anti-trans activism has succeeded merely in further radicalizing the political left."
Anti-trans activism has led to a surge in anti-trans violence, legislation across the nation, and a migration of trans folks from dangerous states to safer states. It has been very effective, and has led to much more than "merely further radicalizing the political left".
Also why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2TbrtCGbhQ
There's also lobbying. If something is unpopular with lobbies, like healthcare reform, no matter now popular it is with the public, is never going to pass in congress. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, truly destroyed democracy and turned it into an olygarchy.
Very much agreed. Although I can think of one activist group that is making gains and is a lot closer to their goals than they've ever been: anti-abortion activists. Left wing groups could learn something from these people about playing the long game.
Similar to same-sex marriage, both rely on court rulings (though same-sex marriage has been somewhat shored up by the Respect for Marriage Act and the United States v. Windsor decision). Last I checked, most states, including some red ones, that put abortion rights to ballot initiative votes saw pro-choice outcomes.
Really worth emphasizing that the Respect for Marriage Act was a very direct response to the overruling of Roe v Wade. SCOTUS stepping aside to leave the policy-making to elected representatives has had a moderating effect on our representatives.
I think most of the electorate is in favor of abortion being an option even if they don't like it overall. So I'm not entirely sure why politicians and activists keep pushing it.
> "[same-sex marriage and anti-abortion activists] both rely on court rulings"
Anti-abortion activists have been extremely successful in shutting down access to women's healthcare for decades through violence. They have absolutely not achieved those victories by waiting for, or relying on, court rulings. It seems only the pro-choice side relies on court rulings.