The Unreasonable Activist

– by The Shitty Activist

workers-fistIf you’re an activist, probably one of the most common complaints you get is that you’re not being “reasonable.” That you’re refusing to see the other side. That you won’t compromise and find common ground with opponents.

I’d like to propose that not only isn’t “unreasonable” activism a bad thing, it’s essential to the long-term success of a given movement.

Of course, the ability to see a perspective other than your own is an essential skill in life. Many professions, such as journalism, require this (or at least pretend that they do). And, obviously, it’s extremely valuable in person-to-person relationships. If you can’t see where another person is coming from, then you’re either an asshole or a sociopath.

While it’s helpful to understand an opposing view as an activist, your main job is actually to craft an argument to counter those views. To carefully determine your movement’s goals and use every (ethical) tool in the toolbox possible to achieve them.

One of the best definitions of the role of activist was formulated by David Brower, aka the Archdruid, the first executive director of the Sierra Club, and the founder of many environmental organizations including League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, and Earth Island Institute:

“Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise, which we must then work hard to coax our way. We thus become a nucleus around which activists can build and function.”

Personally, you might see some validity in what those on the other side of the aisle are saying, and you may believe that finding that middle path is ultimately the best route. And perhaps that’s true, in many circumstances. However, that middle path is already the likely end result of negotiations, with the majority of voices advocating for that position. Your opponents, meanwhile, are probably sticking to their guns, and if you want to assure that middle ground, you’ve got to hold your position in the ideological tug of war.

This doesn’t mean you’ll automatically win. In fact, depending on how ambitious your goals are, you might actually lose. But your job is to frame the debate and pull the resolution as hard as you can in your direction. You need to be the counterweight, and as an activist, almost all of your power is in your message.

For example, say your movement calls attention to the health and environmental impacts of bioenergy, the burning of trees, trash, plants and manure for electricity, heat, and transportation fuels – currently ½ of “renewable” energy in the U.S. You can damned well guarantee that industry is pushing hard for an expansion of all forms of bioenergy, biomass, and biofuels.

If your movement opposes bioenergy because of air pollution, climate, and forest impacts, to support any form of this technology will contradict your platform, make it hard to build a grassroots base, confuse the media, and cause politicians not to take you seriously.

I bet you probably haven’t heard much about the health and environmental impacts of bioenergy, even though it’s the #1 form of “renewable” energy in the U.S. And I’d venture to say that’s largely due to the “reasonableness” of biomass opponents.

It’s interesting to note that most of the bioenergy “critics” that have been most prominent in the media are actually well-funded supporters of the majority of bioenergy. Many of these groups will speak out against biomass facilities that generate electricity – about 11% of total bioenergy – while supporting biomass heating (50% of bioenergy) and liquid biofuels (27%), even recommending taxpayer subsidies for these dominant aspects of bioenergy.

Imagine an anti-coal movement that opposed 11% of coal burning, while coming out in favor of the rest, so long as it was done “sustainably.” Not only would that stymie the building of a strong grassroots movement, it would carry no real power to influence strong policy – though it would carry the appearance of success when middle-of-the-road legislation is proposed resembling their platform (because this was fated to be the case whether they existed or not).

This sort of weak advocacy isn’t exclusive to biomass opponents. Think of your grassroots movement and how some organizations and activists are pushing for wimpy half-measures and phony “solutions” that are either naïve, defeatist, or done to receive grant funding or a seat at the political table. Now imagine how strong your movement could be if everyone operated in solidarity.

So long as you also have integrity, tell the truth, reevaluate your strategies, and build alliances, you are entitled to be as unreasonable as possible in your activism.

If you believe your role is to travel that middle road, you might want to consider becoming a journalist, government agency staffer, or legislator…and leave the activism to the unreasonable.

Comments

  1. Leif Knutsen says

    Ine cannot compromise with the survival of Planetary Life Support Systems. It does not take a climate scientist or even a particularly bright bulb on the street to see that Capitalism, unrestrained by the requirements of Planetary life support systems, is guaranteed mutually assured destruction. When dollars are sacrosanct to Planetary life support systems, what other outcome can be expected? Socially enabled capitalism is clearly a failed paradigm. Help end tax funded pollution of the commons for starters. Our tax dollars are funding a Planetary ecocide future for the children of ALL species.

    “War becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for peace,” Norman Solomon. “Peace becomes perpetual when used as a rationale for survival.” Yours truly.

  2. CaptD says

    Calling out all those that seek to take advantage of the rest of US is RIGHT. This is written about the US, but it is going on globally:

    What we are seeing is that the Utilities are doing everything they can to shift all tax credits away from non utility renewables so they they can not only get all the tax benefits themselves but also make it even harder for residential owners to justify installing their own renewable generation, which will prevent them from becoming Energy Independent.

    Now lets talk BIG money (Factual info from the internet) and who gets it.

    The powers that be have learned that the way to transfer the most wealth to themselves is to create bubbles, then blow them up, bankrupting others, and then buy things up on the cheap.

    Exactly the plan in the housing bubble of 2005 et al.

    Now turn your thoughts to Solar PV. It is a serious threat, enough of a threat that the nuclear industry is spending $1.4B to spread propaganda, influence law makers and regulators to destroy the solar industry.

    So next year, 2016, there will be a rash of laws, restrictions on net energy metering agreements that let homeowners and businesses tie in to the grid, and utility rate structures that discourage solar. This will bankrupt 80% of solar related companies and injure the rest.

    Then nuclear and oil companies will buy up the remnants on the cheap, and then they will spend billions to promote “safe, large scale, solar farms owned by them”, and rape the public with continued high energy costs, whilst hardly pacifying the continued slave class by telling them “good work now you guys are green”.

    Lets talk health:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/prolonged-exposure-to-even-low-level-radiation-increases-the-risk-of-cancer-world-health-organization-who/5485386

    We need to ID all those working for Nuclear Payback*

    * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

    Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others. Instead of for what is best for mankind’s future!

    Parts of the above posted before at: http://www.energybiz.com/article/15/11/corporate-america-sets-renewable-energy-record#comment-15221

  3. Turd Ferguson says

    Antinuclear activists are just plain stupid. All the while they cost this planet more fossil. Nice going dipshits. Now get out of the way as we clean up your mess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s