re: "If you haven’t persuaded enough people to join your cause to build enough public pressure to force those in power to bend to your will, then you’re doing it all wrong. That is ultimately the goal of activism, is it not?"
I believe that it is not, and in the Democratic party hasn't been so for quite a long time. The object of the exercise is to show power -- that you can mobilise your group, certainly, but more
impressively that you can threaten the Democratic leadership into submitting to your will,
in part because you threaten to riot and burn down the neighbourhood. If might makes right, then you no longer have to convince others that your position is correct -- indeed the more cynical do not believe what they are professing themselves.
I think these protests are best understood in religious terms. The goal is to purify their souls and demonstrate that they are among the Elect who would be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. Or, in more earthy terms, the goal is grandstanding and self-righteousness. Either way, it is a mistake to think of the protests in instrumental terms as an attempt to achieve change in this world. Actual Palestinians despair of “friends” like these.
This article is well intentioned, but have we seen any evidence that these activists are actually trying to convince people?
If that were the case I'd think they would stop with chants like "globalize the Intifada" that are repulsive to almost everyone, let alone flag burning or calling the US a settlers state.
You list other countries that have war or on going ethnic cleansing, but those examples aren’t relevant because the US isn’t funding those countries or hosting its leader in a joint session of Congress. I think “Respectability Politics” can get a bad reputation on the current left, but frankly, if the US is an active participant in ethnic cleansing, it’s hard to get upset with activists who burn the flag of a country responsible for the deaths of their families. Netanyahu is wanted for arrest by the ICC. That’s the story, not “protest gets out of hand.” When the IDF breaks the rules of engagement, its defenders say “shit happens in war.” Shit happens at protests too, but civilians being butchered is a bigger problem and more in need of a scolding article than some minor property damage.
"Atrocities are not worth focusing on unless we're financially culpable in some way" is not really a persuasive moral argument anyone is going to take seriously. It's what the left did with Syria and Ukraine and it cost them a lot of credibility.
Your response is so bizarre I don't know how to engage with it. If your family is suffering, you don't say, "Well, lot's of families are suffering, so why focus on ours?" A basic principle of any moral system is that there are problems where you do and do not have agency, and you have greater moral responsibility in cases where you have greater agency. America is actively pouring gasoline on the fire in Gaza. We have a moral responsibility to withhold our gasoline.
I have no idea how the US could help in Xianjian, none. Boycotting China would probably not help. Starting WW3 would definitely not help. Mild criticism by the State Department has not helped. It is a genuinely hard problem how we could affect a positive change for the people there, which means that my moral relationship to the Uighyrs is that I wish them well in their quest for dignity and human rights, but it is at a deep level, not something I or my government have any levers of control over, so it is difficult for me to go beyond well wishing. The same goes for many other problems around the world. US intervention has as a historical matter just made problems worse, and staying out of it seems like the best course of action most of the time, with some exceptions like possibly bombing radio towers in Rwanda in the 90s or defending Ukraine now or whatever.
The Israel-Palestine problem is also in general a hard problem about which people of good will can genuinely disagree about the best course of action to build a peaceful future. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Netanyahu's insane determination to ignite a larger regional war is, however, not a hard problem. The US must if it is to have any moral standing whatsoever, cut off aid to Israel until it complies with the ICC rulings. Will Israel comply with the ICC after the US cuts it off? No, almost certainly not. They are determined to act and will continue to do so even if we withdraw our support. But we will at least no longer be absolutely complicit in an ongoing war crime. To suggest doing anything less is morally barbaric. It is a complete abandonment of elementary moral principles.
Should protestors not burn flags or vandalize property? Sure, I guess. It seems like a counterproductive if understandable action.
Should the IDF not enforce siege conditions resulting in the widescale starvation of an entire 2 million person population? This is the much more pressing moral and prudential question! Turning attention to other questions when discussing American foreign policy is beyond a distraction, it is a gross dereliction of simple morality.
A) That's not how the metaphor worked on its own terms. The family was the US. That's the whole point of everything that follows.
B) Your inability to follow the metaphor is caused by racist thinking. I'm going to post this and block the thread because there's no point in continuing.
Not much clever or insightful to add I’m afraid as you basically said all that needs to be said, I just wanted to do something more than a Like to show how much I appreciated this piece
re: "If you haven’t persuaded enough people to join your cause to build enough public pressure to force those in power to bend to your will, then you’re doing it all wrong. That is ultimately the goal of activism, is it not?"
I believe that it is not, and in the Democratic party hasn't been so for quite a long time. The object of the exercise is to show power -- that you can mobilise your group, certainly, but more
impressively that you can threaten the Democratic leadership into submitting to your will,
in part because you threaten to riot and burn down the neighbourhood. If might makes right, then you no longer have to convince others that your position is correct -- indeed the more cynical do not believe what they are professing themselves.
Tanner Greer, quoting political theorist Jo Freeman writes about this here: https://scholarstage.substack.com/p/why-republican-party-leaders-matter
I think these protests are best understood in religious terms. The goal is to purify their souls and demonstrate that they are among the Elect who would be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. Or, in more earthy terms, the goal is grandstanding and self-righteousness. Either way, it is a mistake to think of the protests in instrumental terms as an attempt to achieve change in this world. Actual Palestinians despair of “friends” like these.
This article is well intentioned, but have we seen any evidence that these activists are actually trying to convince people?
If that were the case I'd think they would stop with chants like "globalize the Intifada" that are repulsive to almost everyone, let alone flag burning or calling the US a settlers state.
Did you read to the end? Because I think the article shares your doubts about the goals.
You list other countries that have war or on going ethnic cleansing, but those examples aren’t relevant because the US isn’t funding those countries or hosting its leader in a joint session of Congress. I think “Respectability Politics” can get a bad reputation on the current left, but frankly, if the US is an active participant in ethnic cleansing, it’s hard to get upset with activists who burn the flag of a country responsible for the deaths of their families. Netanyahu is wanted for arrest by the ICC. That’s the story, not “protest gets out of hand.” When the IDF breaks the rules of engagement, its defenders say “shit happens in war.” Shit happens at protests too, but civilians being butchered is a bigger problem and more in need of a scolding article than some minor property damage.
"Atrocities are not worth focusing on unless we're financially culpable in some way" is not really a persuasive moral argument anyone is going to take seriously. It's what the left did with Syria and Ukraine and it cost them a lot of credibility.
???
Your response is so bizarre I don't know how to engage with it. If your family is suffering, you don't say, "Well, lot's of families are suffering, so why focus on ours?" A basic principle of any moral system is that there are problems where you do and do not have agency, and you have greater moral responsibility in cases where you have greater agency. America is actively pouring gasoline on the fire in Gaza. We have a moral responsibility to withhold our gasoline.
I have no idea how the US could help in Xianjian, none. Boycotting China would probably not help. Starting WW3 would definitely not help. Mild criticism by the State Department has not helped. It is a genuinely hard problem how we could affect a positive change for the people there, which means that my moral relationship to the Uighyrs is that I wish them well in their quest for dignity and human rights, but it is at a deep level, not something I or my government have any levers of control over, so it is difficult for me to go beyond well wishing. The same goes for many other problems around the world. US intervention has as a historical matter just made problems worse, and staying out of it seems like the best course of action most of the time, with some exceptions like possibly bombing radio towers in Rwanda in the 90s or defending Ukraine now or whatever.
The Israel-Palestine problem is also in general a hard problem about which people of good will can genuinely disagree about the best course of action to build a peaceful future. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Netanyahu's insane determination to ignite a larger regional war is, however, not a hard problem. The US must if it is to have any moral standing whatsoever, cut off aid to Israel until it complies with the ICC rulings. Will Israel comply with the ICC after the US cuts it off? No, almost certainly not. They are determined to act and will continue to do so even if we withdraw our support. But we will at least no longer be absolutely complicit in an ongoing war crime. To suggest doing anything less is morally barbaric. It is a complete abandonment of elementary moral principles.
Should protestors not burn flags or vandalize property? Sure, I guess. It seems like a counterproductive if understandable action.
Should the IDF not enforce siege conditions resulting in the widescale starvation of an entire 2 million person population? This is the much more pressing moral and prudential question! Turning attention to other questions when discussing American foreign policy is beyond a distraction, it is a gross dereliction of simple morality.
Palestinians are not “our family” though anymore than the others are.
I was pretty close to liking and agreeing with your article, but your failure to meaningfully respond here has me questioning your reasoning.
Are you more responsible for an atrocity that you are funding? YES. YES YOU ARE. OBVIOUSLY.
Meh. I think the term is “you’re missing the forest for the trees”.
A) That's not how the metaphor worked on its own terms. The family was the US. That's the whole point of everything that follows.
B) Your inability to follow the metaphor is caused by racist thinking. I'm going to post this and block the thread because there's no point in continuing.
It does not make sense to people that Gaza = the US is suffering. That’s not going to be very persuasive
Wow what an utter over reaction.
Or any less.
It’s not an understandable action. It’s a stupid fucking action that you’re covering for because the people doing it share your “religion”.
LOL, yes, I a visibly trans white woman share my "religion" with Hamas. Blocked.
“I couldn’t possibly be Muslim because I’m trans” wow ok
That's not what I said, but if you want to be blocked, cool.
Blow me.
Dumb fuck asshole is not going to look good on your résumé
Excellent! Well said, thank you 🙂
You’re a fucking idiot. Sucking the cock of the worlds biggest terrorist.
Terrific piece
Not much clever or insightful to add I’m afraid as you basically said all that needs to be said, I just wanted to do something more than a Like to show how much I appreciated this piece
Thank you! Great post!
Great post.