|
August 22, 2008
The "PETA Principle" (how activists undermine consensus)
In a marvelous essay about the animal rights organization PETA, Michele Catalano touched on two of my pet peeves -- animal rights and the tendency of shrill activists to drive ordinary people away by dominating issues they might support. PETA's current attempt at activism only made me shake my head in dismay.Nothing new for an organization which has compared eating animals to the Holocaust (the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign), or the slaughter of animals to the torture and enslavement of black people. It's standard activist fare. The irony is that most Americans abhor cruelty to animals, and they might be inclined to support organizations working to prevent it. But once they learn that the goal of many of these organizations is to outlaw meat-eating and virtually all ownership of animals including dogs and cats, they do the only sane thing, and run. Unfortunately, this lets the hardest hard-core activists have the playing field all to themselves, which is great if you're a hard core activist, but not the best way to get results on consensus issues. Just as most Americans oppose animal cruelty, most oppose late-term abortions, as well as uncontrolled immigration. But what happens if they try to get involved? Once again, they are driven away by what I might as well call the "PETA Principle." You want to oppose late-term abortion, you'll soon find that the people and organizations who dominate the playing field see their issues the way PETA sees theirs. Just as PETA thinks "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," those who dominate the anti-abortion debate think a morula is a blastocyst is a baby is a Supreme Court justice. And they also believe that RU-486 is just like Zyklon-B, and pharmacists who dispense it are little Himmlers. Ditto border control. The people who want draconian measures (or who believe in a vast North American Union conspiracy) will alienate ordinary people, and thus prevent the majority consensus goal of basic border control from ever being achieved. In a way, I can't blame the activists. If they were careful not to drive ordinary people away, majority consensus on these issues might be obtained. And who would pay attention to the activists? posted by Eric on 08.22.08 at 12:21 PM
Comments
Nice dr kill · August 22, 2008 01:30 PM Hey, delighted you liked it! Eric Scheie · August 22, 2008 07:22 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Hunger Stalks Iran
They Are Burning The Houses The "PETA Principle" (how activists undermine consensus) Housing Problems Immorally unowned property? Redistribution No Deal Not Just Camping Out Zombies On The Attack Inside Hollywood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"...the tendency of shrill activists to drive ordinary people away by dominating issues they might support."
Spot on.
As you correctly demonstrated, this is not an exclusively leftwing fallacy. The 'PETA Principle' applies to abortion and border control as well.
(By analogy to Gresham's Law, could one say that 'bad activists drive out good activists' or 'extremists drive out moderates'?)
A similar principle applies to driving people out of political parties as well. Republicans let possible supporters be driven into the Democrat's camp, because they allow the Religious Right to drive them away. For example, there is no reason that gays and secularists cannot support basic Republican principles. Unfortunately, the Religious Right doesn't like them, so they vote for the Democrats.