The Ethics of Tactics
Were there racists among the leading women suffragettes of the 19C and early 20C? Were there some leaders of the 19C abolitionist movement and the black civil rights movement of the mid-20C who were misogynistic? Well, yes and yes. Would either movement have been as successful as they were without the contributions of those non-saints? Probably not.
Politics is messy. Who are we to judge the folks that championed expanded rights for some marginalized/discriminated groups who simultaneously opposed such rights for other groups? I constantly caution against making ethical judgments about people’s behavior in the past, but the kinds of historical tensions that challenged their morality echo today and a similar wariness is called for.
At the same time, we can wonder, both historically and currently, whether as a tactical matter, a “big tent” approach to protecting/expanding rights would be more effective. Indeed, I recall thinking back in the 1970s that the women’s movement (and the civil rights movement) missed an opportunity by not joining forces. Revitalizing and restating the Civil War Amendments to encompass not only race, but also sex and gender would have protected the Congressional statutory efforts and state enactments already then on the books and obviated the efforts to reverse them either in Congress or the Courts that have garnered recent attention. But, I suspect the leaders of each movement couldn’t reconceptualize their projects or risk opening their power structures to “outsiders.”
Instead, the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress, in both cases by 10-1 ratios (and endorsed by Pres. Nixon!) in 1972, 30 states quickly ratified, but the effort petered out in the late 1970s. The result was that the protection of women’s rights was left to the Supreme Court; an avenue that, as we have seen in recent years, was all to subject to summary reversal. Similarly, we have seen key aspects of the Civil Rights legislative program of the 1960s and 1970s effectively neutered by the Court.
But this posting is not about the wisdom or propriety of these recent Supreme Court decisions. Nor is it about the implications of the overly difficult constitutional amendment process. Rather, my point is a political one. This is reflected in the old adages: “Politics is the art of the possible,” and “half a loaf is better than none.” It can be difficult to risk diluting the focused effort to make progress towards any policy goal by including a broader agenda; and sometimes tactical considerations push moral values to the side. but that is the task of enlightened leadership—whether by advocates or elected officials.
This is not just a matter of historical reassessment. We might (we might need to!) look forward to an era in which such policies are once again feasible, if not in the framework of constitutional change, at least in statutory terms. It might, however, be a greater stretch to imagine a more mature politics among those with progressive views that could make advance the cause of civil rights (in both racial and sex and gender terms) without pushing the envelope; thereby increasing the possibility of actual progress.
The same questions arise in the context of a host of other policy fronts: climate, health care, infrastructure, AI, housing, and Social Security, to name a few. Political parties are about coalition-building. The Dems are famously a “big-tent” party. That particular tent is looking pretty creaky these days, so part of the path to power will mean constructing a new tent. That’s mostly the job of emerging leaders—Shapiro, Ossof, Pritzker, Bernie (Wait, that’s four Jewish guys!), Jeffries, AOC, Warnock, Newsom, and others. But as importantly, it’s the job of the ordinary folks who will populate the tent.
It remains to be seen whether they (we?) can put aside the moralizing, judgmentalism, and outrage over the incumbent administration and give up 20% of whatever perfectionism we might use to define a successful policy for our particular goals in order to restore some basic sanity and dignity to the country, as well as stop the bleeding on virtually every policy sector, and make a modicum of progress in those areas.
The alternatives are either 1) a Vance/Rubio variant of what we have now or 2) a Democratic administration with (hopefully) a generally supportive Congress but one which is hamstrung by the kind of punitive politics disguised as ideological purity that is practiced by the Congressional Republicans, particularly in the House.
The essential point is the compromise is not a moral failing, whether of the sanctimonious sort seen by the “Freedom Caucus” or in the more insidious, well-rationalized variety seen by Civil Rights and Women’s Rights advocates in the 19 and 20C. This compromising will need to occur in the context of prioritization and of policy trade-offs. Judgementalism is the enemy of at least incremental progress. There is so much work to be done on so many fronts, it would be a pity to waste time on details and squabbling.
Were there racists among the leading women suffragettes of the 19C and early 20C? Were there some leaders of the 19C abolitionist movement and the black civil rights movement of the mid-20C who were misogynistic? Well, yes and yes. Would either movement have been as successful as they were without the contributions of those non-saints? Probably not.
Politics is messy. Who are we to judge the folks that championed expanded rights for some marginalized/discriminated groups who simultaneously opposed such rights for other groups? I constantly caution against making ethical judgments about people’s behavior in the past, but the kinds of historical tensions that challenged their morality echo today and a similar wariness is called for.
At the same time, we can wonder, both historically and currently, whether as a tactical matter, a “big tent” approach to protecting/expanding rights would be more effective. Indeed, I recall thinking back in the 1970s that the women’s movement (and the civil rights movement) missed an opportunity by not joining forces. Revitalizing and restating the Civil War Amendments to encompass not only race, but also sex and gender would have protected the Congressional statutory efforts and state enactments already then on the books and obviated the efforts to reverse them either in Congress or the Courts that have garnered recent attention. But, I suspect the leaders of each movement couldn’t reconceptualize their projects or risk opening their power structures to “outsiders.”
Instead, the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress, in both cases by 10-1 ratios (and endorsed by Pres. Nixon!) in 1972, 30 states quickly ratified, but the effort petered out in the late 1970s. The result was that the protection of women’s rights was left to the Supreme Court; an avenue that, as we have seen in recent years, was all to subject to summary reversal. Similarly, we have seen key aspects of the Civil Rights legislative program of the 1960s and 1970s effectively neutered by the Court.
But this posting is not about the wisdom or propriety of these recent Supreme Court decisions. Nor is it about the implications of the overly difficult constitutional amendment process. Rather, my point is a political one. This is reflected in the old adages: “Politics is the art of the possible,” and “half a loaf is better than none.” It can be difficult to risk diluting the focused effort to make progress towards any policy goal by including a broader agenda; and sometimes tactical considerations push moral values to the side. but that is the task of enlightened leadership—whether by advocates or elected officials.
This is not just a matter of historical reassessment. We might (we might need to!) look forward to an era in which such policies are once again feasible, if not in the framework of constitutional change, at least in statutory terms. It might, however, be a greater stretch to imagine a more mature politics among those with progressive views that could make advance the cause of civil rights (in both racial and sex and gender terms) without pushing the envelope; thereby increasing the possibility of actual progress.
The same questions arise in the context of a host of other policy fronts: climate, health care, infrastructure, AI, housing, and Social Security, to name a few. Political parties are about coalition-building. The Dems are famously a “big-tent” party. That particular tent is looking pretty creaky these days, so part of the path to power will mean constructing a new tent. That’s mostly the job of emerging leaders—Shapiro, Ossof, Pritzker, Bernie (Wait, that’s four Jewish guys!), Jeffries, AOC, Warnock, Newsom, and others. But as importantly, it’s the job of the ordinary folks who will populate the tent.
It remains to be seen whether they (we?) can put aside the moralizing, judgmentalism, and outrage over the incumbent administration and give up 20% of whatever perfectionism we might use to define a successful policy for our particular goals in order to restore some basic sanity and dignity to the country, as well as stop the bleeding on virtually every policy sector, and make a modicum of progress in those areas.
The alternatives are either 1) a Vance/Rubio variant of what we have now or 2) a Democratic administration with (hopefully) a generally supportive Congress but one which is hamstrung by the kind of punitive politics disguised as ideological purity that is practiced by the Congressional Republicans, particularly in the House.
The essential point is the compromise is not a moral failing, whether of the sanctimonious sort seen by the “Freedom Caucus” or in the more insidious, well-rationalized variety seen by Civil Rights and Women’s Rights advocates in the 19 and 20C. This compromising will need to occur in the context of prioritization and of policy trade-offs. Judgementalism is the enemy of at least incremental progress. There is so much work to be done on so many fronts, it would be a pity to waste time on details and squabbling.
RSS Feed