The Perpetual Annoyance Of Do-Nothings
“Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a non-existent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.”
- Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals
“If you have a critique for the resistance, our resistance, then you better have an established critique of our oppression.”
“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.”
Community activist Saul Alinsky once wrote in one of his seminal texts, Rules For Radicals, that the Have-Mores of the middle class, produced a particular breed of person who feigned concern in liberal causes as a roundabout means of keeping uncomfortable grievances quiet. He referred to them as Do-Nothings:
“These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, “I agree with your ends, but not with your means.” They function as blankets whenever possible smothering sparks of dissension that promise to flare up into the fire of action. These Do-Nothings appear publicly as good men, humanitarian, concerned with justice and dignity. In practice they are invidious. They are the ones Edmund Burke referred to when he said, acidly: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.””
By no means do I agree with everything in this passage. I do not accept the Machiavellian truism that “the ends justify the means” as the quality of the means can affect the quality of the ends. Not all forms of protest are created equal, but in moments of great strife, protest, in some form or another, must needs be had. What Alinsky so eloquently hits upon in this passage, is the perpetual annoyance of those who claim to care very much about racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other bigotries, yet spend all of their time critiquing those who attempt to redress these injuries.
These Do-Nothings can reliably be expected to speak out when the crime is opposed, but are nary to be heard when the crime is committed. If the crimes are acknowledged at all. Any attempt to counter offense, however mild or well-articulated, is dismissed as a whine or “political correctness.” Our righteous indignation is attributed, absent of evidence, to the nefarious motivations of “virtue signaling” or “white knighting.” Instead of admitting that they hold little interest in the problems as we see them, they decide to save face by insisting we share the very same goals. It is a very strange thing.
It is a strange thing indeed to see people who claim to despise police brutality, yet spend all of their time attacking police reform. To see people who claim to oppose sexism, yet spend all of their time mocking feminist movements. To see people who claim that religion can be criticized, yet spend all of their time dismissing religious criticism. To see people who claim no great love for Donald Trump, yet spend all of their time maligning his critics. It is a very strange thing.
The most popular method of the Do-Nothings is to use the individual to smear the whole. They point out a few anti-racist activists who call for the death of police officers, therefore the issues raised by anti-racists are dismissed wholesale as illegitimate. They point out a few feminists who are against pornography, to smear a whole wave of feminism as puritanical. They point out a few critics of Islam who are xenophobic, to assume any problems with Islamic beliefs are rooted in xenophobia. They point out a few Trump protesters who compare him to Hitler, as means to shrug off any criticisms of the president as equally hyperbolic. The reasonable or nuanced voices within these movements are hardly ever elevated, or indeed, sought out. Only the craziest fringes are given platform to represent the validity of these causes, or at least, their current iterations. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that these problems are as widespread as these Do-Nothings claim, they could easily lead the way by presenting a better means of opposing these grievances. Yet no such models are ever put forth. Their default position is to oppose, not propose. Their priority is on imperfect allies, not on malignant evils.
By no means do I mean to say that the Left is beyond critique, or that a failure to point out the world’s every grievance assumes assent. We are only human, after all. Even the righteous are capable of mistake. Even the vigilant can’t be present for every tragedy. Liberals must be passionate, but also humble. Take criticism with a heart of gratitude, and don’t be so quick to shirk from debate, as it is only when our beliefs are confronted that we are able to better confirm them. All this being said, be suspect of those who claim to be allies in word, but have little to show for it in action. A man cannot be all offense against his friends, and never a shield against their enemies. How are we to take seriously one who devotes all his energies towards discrediting those who fight bigotry, yet little or none towards the bigotry that sparked the reply?
We may not always be perfect in our activism, and for this, critique is warranted, but no more can we tolerate the haranguing of those who do nothing.
Originally published at http://sansuthecat.blogspot.com on February 10, 2017.
