The Great Activist Argument

There are several ways to deal with disagreement.

1. Compromise. I give up something I want, you give up something we want, so that we can both get something we both want.
2. Segregation. I do my thing, you do your thing, and we stay out of one another's way.
3. Domination. I force you into doing what I want.

At the macro political level, I think the third option is the most popular. People are are so certain they are right that they cannot image conceding anything to their enemies, who are clearly wrong.

Segregation would seem more like federalism, which surprisingly has gained no traction in these highly contentious times. People have not warmed to the idea of carving out a reservation for their enemies to do whatever they want as long as they stay in their area.

Domination is popular. People want a tough guy in the white house who will Executive Order the crap out of their enemies.

The Great Activist Argument

Progressive activists have a powerful rhetorical tool: BuT wHaT aBoUt SlAvErY? Here's why it works so well:

1. Domination worked
2. Federalism/segregation would not have worked. There would still be slavery.
3. Compromise would not have worked. Accepting anything less that "end slavery" would have been a weak compromise for the north.

So progressives have a great example for using domination to push their agenda. The fact that there is consensus bipartisan agreement that slavery is and was wrong reinforces their second rhetorical device: YoU wIlL bE oN tHe WrOnG sIdE oF hIsToRy.

The fact that progressive activists were right to use domination physically (Civil War) and politically/socially (Civil Rights Movement), even when unpopular, reinforces their belief that as long as they are on the side of the oppressed, they are always right and justified in using dominance, in spite of being unpopular.

I hate domination/coercion tactics. But I have trouble coming up with a good argument against this. It's difficult to create a theory that makes an exception for domination. I don't know how to tell when the next Obvious Wrong like slavery will appear. I can only say with confidence that 99 times out of 100 it will not be judged the way we judge slavery but will be more like siding with the transgender woman who demands immigrants wax her scrotum.

Climate Change

Climate Change is another good argument for domination. Segregation won't work. If the biggest polluters (China) don't cut back C02 emissions, it doesn't matter what everyone else does. And compromise doesn't seem like a great option; cutting back on greenhouse gases is the only option sans some type of geoengineering.

This is where persuasion is really necessary. The idea is that if the US can go green, the rest of the world will follow. But how can we convince our outgroup in America that reducing CO2 emissions is for their benefit as well?

First, you'd have to understand the outgroup. They are mostly conservative or very pro-business. So things like tax credits for solar energy is a good start. It's not coercive and puts money in their pocket. Promoting nuclear energy makes sense. It just replaces coal powered plants so the effect on the economy is zero sum but the effect on the environment is huge (of course I'm very worried about the tail risks of nuclear plants after watching HBO's Chernobyl.)

Next, you have to understand factionalism. The biggest thing stopping this brand of conservatives from getting on board is their proclivity for owning the libs. You need to make room for them to create their own platform. It has to feel like their own idea.

This is where groups like Better Angels can really help. They have a rule that they never meet without an equal number of reds and blues. Every major communication about climate change, whether a protest or a Green New Deal legislation, should be co-led by a liberal and conservative. Greta Thunberg and AOC are not going to convince conservatives that they are wrong. If the effort is led by AOC and, say, Lindsay Graham, it will be viewed as a partnership and become less tribal. It becomes about the platform and not about which tribe is right.