What if they don't want your help?

I've always admired the progressives' work to advocate on behalf of the poor, downtrodden, marginalized groups of society. But lately I've begun to wonder if their efforts are in vain. 

Are they too performative? Are they overapplying instances of oppression? Are they trying to fix a problem that isn't actually a problem?

Marriage

This Quillette story deals with how elites use coded language and espouse particular beliefs as ways of signaling their class status. Ultimately, I think the author engaged in bad-faith reasoning in an otherwise well-written and researched column. I happen to think progressives, for the most part, are doing what they think is in the best interest of the oppressed.

However, the author makes an interesting point, noting that:

"...in 1960 the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families—95 percent. By 2005, 85 percent of affluent families were still intact, but for working-class families the figure had plummeted to 30 percent.

Upper-class people, particularly in the 1960s, championed sexual freedom. Loose sexual norms spread throughout the rest of society. The upper class, though, still have intact families. They experiment in college and then settle down later. The families of the lower class fell apart. Today, the affluent are among the most likely to display the luxury belief that sexual freedom is great, though they are the most likely to get married and least likely to get divorced."

I don't know that I completely buy the notion that hippies are the cause of the dissolution of the working class family unit (but Mary Eberstadt thinks so), but those marriage rates by class are important figures.

I'd like to probe deeper into what kept poor families together prior to the 1960s? Was social norms and fewer working opportunities for women keeping them in bad marriages? Divorce tends to correlate with money problems; perhaps stronger unions and less inequality kept poor families together?

Microaggressions

I'm all for bringing as many people into the American fold as possible. If there is a way for minorities to feel more welcome at college, I'd like to hear more. But I suspect that many progressives are trying solve a problem on behalf of a group, when it's only a "problem" for a very small portion of said group.

There's the poll noting that only 2 percent of Latin Americans actually prefer the term "Latinx."

Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf notes that many colleges are using examples of phrases to avoid as they are "racial microaggressions." However, he cites a Cato/YouGov survey on free speech and tolerance that finds:

"Telling a recent immigrant, “you speak good English” was deemed “not offensive” by 77 percent of Latinos; saying “I don’t notice people’s race” was deemed “not offensive” by 71 percent of African Americans and 80 percent of Latinos; saying “America is a melting pot” was deemed not offensive by 77 percent of African Americans and 70 percent of Latinos; saying “America is the land of opportunity” was deemed “not offensive” by 93 percent of African Americans and 89 percent of Latinos; and saying “everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough” was deemed “not offensive” by 89 percent of Latinos and 77 percent of African Americans."

PC Language

Finally, in The Atlantic, Yascha Mounk writes about political correctness as mentioned in the Hidden Tribes Report.

"Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages."

Mounk then goes on to describe the demographics of those espousing PC language.

"So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country."

Rich, educated, and white? That sounds a lot like the elitist group described in the Quillette column. Now, just because a group is racially homogeneous and ideologically orthodox does not mean they have a hidden elitist agenda. But it does weaken their "if you disagree with me you're a racist bigot" argument when most minorities are outside their bubble and, in fact, disagreeing with them. And it does suggest they do not necessarily represent the values of the people they are trying to help.

Why I'm not an activist

“there is no such thing as a not-racist idea,” only “racist ideas and antiracist ideas.”
-Ibram X. Kendi

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
-President George W. Bush

This is a defense of moderation, or better yet, my concept of civility. Actvists tend to commit the third great untruth: believing that life is a battle between good people and evil people. And since those not fighting against us are not fighting with us, they have chosen evil.

Moderates are hard to define because we are not a monolith. But here are some reasons we do not engage with your wars.

The wrong action is often worse than no action. In the President Bush quote above, invading Iraq ended up being a terrible idea. Many moderates are slow to action, requiring careful consideration, because taking the wrong action is worse than no action. We would have been better off never invading Iraq, obviously. Inaction probably delayed the civil rights movement, but I believe that is the exception rather than the rule.

I don't trust all of the people on your side. Fighting racism sounds great. I would love to punch a Nazi in the face. But I have some reservations. First, the Kendi quote above comes from a review of his book in which he proposes an anti racist amendment to the Constitution that would:

"establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees... The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."

That sound pretty far from punching Nazis and terrifyingly totalitarian. Oh, and about punching Nazis. I don't trust your side to determine who is a Nazi. Especially after Antifa beat a Bernie Sanders supporter just for carrying an American flag.

I don't prioritize my desires the same as you do. This isn't about privilege; it's about what I think is most important. I don't think we can have a functioning society without trust, which is why I prioritize depolarization above Medicare for All or building a wall.

I would love to have a health care system that provides for everyone and costs less. I'm skeptical it can be done, but I'm more worried about what happens when you try to force half the country off the private insurance plan they prefer. Our system does not work without cooperation and I'd rather repair the system than blow it up.

I don't think all your facts are accurate. I hate racist police officers. The one who shot Philando Castille should absolutely be in prison. I'll sign that petition for you. But I won't march with a group that also marches for Michael Brown, whom I believe was shot because he attacked a police officer.

I'm also picky about systemic racism. Data has convinced me there is no racial bias in arrests for violent crimes. Sentencing? Yeah, there probably is a racial bias. But in my experience, the activists don't offer an à la carte menu to support. It's very all or nothing. Don't confuse my nuanced thinking with inaction.

I hate coercion. I don't love the status quo, but I would rather live in a world with current levels of inequality and injustice than one in which we give one person or party absolute power to change things as they see fit. There's just no way that power won't be abused once it falls into the wrong hands. Which it will. The incentives are too great.