I Wanna Be Am The Minority, And So Are You

February 25, 2010 - 5:17 pm
Irradiated by LabRat
Comments Off

Not addressed at any of the comments I got to my last post, but to a certain strain of argument I’ve seen come up repeatedly in issues related to civil rights of all kinds that’s still itching at me. To wit, in response to some variant of “we should grant Annoying Minority Group X this thing because they actually have legitimate point Y”, the following logic:

“We should fight against (thing) because if they get that right they’ll only push further and ask for (series of unreasonable things).”

Which… is true, but that’s not the point. Yes, any minority group will take any victory as a stepping stone to push for more, and that “more” might be completely reasonable or it might be completely unreasonable. That’s human nature; the only reason a given interest group ceases to push for its interests is if it suffers defeat so thorough that all members of that group come down with a collective case of learned helplessness. Even then it has to be really thorough or they’ll bounce back- just ask the Israelis.

The point is that not only is pushing for whatever goals they think are in their interest their right even if they’re wrong about the legitimacy of those goals, this is the fucking American way. This is the way politics in a representative democracy is conducted; people form coalitions based around their interests, no matter what you or me or anyone thinks about whether those interests are good or bad things, and they push those interests and do their best to make sure their point of view is represented. Not only do various squeaky minority groups that annoy me and I disagree with, like the whiny Christian fundamentalists from the last post, have a right to exist and do what they do, I’m a member of squeaky minority groups that other people wish would shut up too. In terms of, say, gun rights, I’m way the hell over on a tail of the bell curve when it comes to what I think should be legal and what restrictions on second Amendment rights I think are legitimate. The Brady Gang, who I wish would shut up and stop trying, really wishes people like me and other 2A advocates would shut up and stop trying. Not gonna happen in either case, and both of us have goals a randomly selected centrist American would probably regard as completely unreasonable. I personally think my goals and principles are completely grounded in reason and can explain why at boring length- but until I can get enough or the right people to agree with me, we’re probably not going to see Alaska-style gun laws in Chicago.

More than that, there’s something fundamentally unsound about basing your civil-rights argument on what an annoying minority might try for rather than whether or not they have a legitimate point. A society in which we have serious political debates about affirmative action, racial profiling, and Ebonics is a far healthier society than one in which we have serious political debates about segregation and Jim Crow laws precisely BECAUSE the former arguments are more trivial and ridiculous than the latter, which represented a serious abuse and violation of the political ideals outlined in our founding. I’m sure Al Sharpton would never have had his career as a race-baiting profiteer if we’d never desegregated- but it doesn’t follow that that was therefore a bad thing.

If you would put aside values like individual liberties and equality before the law aside in favor of political strategy, you don’t really have values at all so much as you’re playing a team sport with national consequences. It’s one thing if you think collective benefit trumps individual liberties and equality of outcome should be favored over equality of opportunity- that is at least a conflict of values rather than an opportunistic discarding of values in order to make sure the “right” people win or lose. If you find yourself doing this, I suggest you either examine your conscience or switch your focus to the inconsequential team sport of your choice in order to spare the rest of us from serious consequence.

In any case, I find the easiest way to marginalize the more outlandish goals of annoying squeaky minorities is to ruthlessly starve them of legitimate grievances.

No Responses to “I Wanna Be Am The Minority, And So Are You”

  1. Tai Says:

    …damn it, I miss the days when you checked facebook. I wanted to give you a tiny heads up that it’s looking at least reasonably likely that I might be spending a month this summer in your (general) neck of the woods chasing around lizards. If the desert does not eat me, maybe Kang can give it a shot? ;)

  2. perlhaqr Says:

    I find the easiest way to marginalize the more outlandish goals of annoying squeaky minorities is to ruthlessly starve them of legitimate grievances.

    Amen.

  3. Geoffrey Says:

    *Applauds roundly*

  4. RobertM Says:

    Well, as usual.

  5. Old NFO Says:

    WELL SAID!!!! :-)

  6. bluntobject Says:

    Well said, ma’am.

    If I’m guessing right, this at least partly fell out of the DADT debate. I’d be a lot happier if these issues were specifically discussed — “if we let gays serve openly, we don’t want them to get preferential selection for promotion in order to balance out the straight/gay ratio at each rank” is a perfectly reasonable concern, but it’s difficult to address if it’s buried in an argument that amounts to “OMG COOTIES!”

    Furthermore, making the issue plain allows a distinction between gay servicemen (who I suspect fall vastly in the category of “servicemen who happen to be gay”) and political groups like the asshats at HRC. It’s the latter who’re likely to push for unreasonable and outlandish goals, and it makes no sense to punish the former.