Civility vs. Activism

I.
I keep thinking about the two campaign strategies: try to turn non voters into voters or try to turn moderate voters into voting for you. One assumes that there are a lot of people who think like you and you just have to convince them to vote. The other assumes that you can convince people who aren't that different from you to switch sides and vote for you.

One thinks that people don't change and any effort to do so is wasted energy. The other thinks that people are complex and some of them can change if you engage with them.

I think whichever one you favor says a lot about you.

I like Ezra Klein. He is thoughtful and kind; he invites people he disagrees with onto his podcast. Which is why it shocks me when I hear him say things about how he prizes blunt activism over working with the other side.

I can recite dozens of reasons why my path of civility/moderation/compromise is better, but I don't think any of that matters. Because I don't think I get to choose.

I think my coercion aversion (I really need a better name for that) decides for me. I think I prefer civility and compromise because, at my core, I really am uncomfortable telling people what to do or think.

A libertarian economist like Russ Roberts can write a long essay about how minimum wage laws actually hurt low skilled workers more than they help them. But I don't know that he doesn't just feel uncomfortable telling businesses how much they have to pay people, and then worked to find a good reason to justify that feeling.

II.
I think higher education was dominated by the civility types. Now, the activists are having their say. Activism gets things done, while moderates hem and haw about the right approach.

I know the academic pursuit of truth calls for careful consideration about what is good and true, but it didn't seem to make much room for the academic activists.

Maybe this is like Jonathan Haidt's idea of colleges deciding to be Truth U or Social Justice U. Activist students should have the opportunity to go to a school where they will be taught how to mobilize for social change: conducting multi cultural training, organizing protests, boycotting non fair-trade companies, and so on.

Truth U will teach students how to consider numerous viewpoints, how easily we can be fooled by data, civil debate, gentle persuasion, and so on.

Maybe viewpoint diversity is just one viewpoint and it isn't for everyone. It's not enough to split the world into liberals and conservatives. There are also liberals and conservatives who don't want to engage with their outgroup and liberals and conservatives who do. Maybe they both need their own space.

That's easy enough for higher education, but what about politics? We only have one governing body and the battle between civility vs. activism seems as important as the battle between Democrats and Republicans.

III.
Maybe without realizing it, groups like Better Angels, Living Room Conversations, and More in Common—groups that seek to unite liberals and conservatives—are actually crystallizing a political faction that has not had a home in civic participation. Instead of bridging the divide between reds and blues, they are just building a home for the existing reds and blues who don't hate each other.

From Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone:

"Ironically, more and more Americans describe their political views as middle of the road or moderate, but the more polarized extremes on the ideological spectrum account for a bigger and bigger share of those who attend meetings, write letters, serve on communities, and so on. The more extreme views have gradually become more dominant in grassroots American civic life as more moderate voices have fallen silent."

The Hidden Tribes report notes that "Progressive Activists" account for 8% of Americans, "Devoted Conservatives" making up 6%. Meanwhile "Moderates" and "Politically Disengaged" combined to form 41% of all Americans.

In general terms, I think what distinguishes these moderates is that they place greater emphasis on civility instead of pushing through their agenda.  And for good reason.

In a Democratic, pluralistic society, you need civility to accomplish your agenda. Plus, moderates do not want to live in a society in which authoritarianism, coercion, or, God forbid, violence is the means through which a faction achieves its goals.

And the activist faction might be less stable. Scott Alexander noted:

" Long before a group can take over society, it reaches a size where it needs to develop internal structure and rules about interaction between group members. If you collect a bunch of people and tell them to abandon all the social norms like honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason in favor of a cause – then the most likely result is that when your cause tries to develop some internal structure, it will be overrun by a swarm of people who have abandoned honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason...

"someone who will be a jerk for you will be a jerk to you ... But more importantly if you elevate jerkishness into a principle, if you try to undermine the rules that keep niceness, community, and civilization going, the defenses against social cancer – then your movement will fracture..."

But really, I'm just a guy who doesn't like aggressive confrontation on an emotional level and I'm looking for a community of like-minded believers who can confirm my priors. That's how I ended up as a member of Better Angels.