Across the political spectrum we are inundated with the smoking craters of daily battles over identity politics. Black Lives Matter provokes those more conservative to respond with “All lives matter.” Feminism provokes the reactionary Mens’ Rights Activism. Clamors to end the War on Drugs provokes law & order types to plead with politicians and law enforcement to “get drugs off our streets.” Criminal justice reform is met by opposition which proposes further “tough on crime” measures. The list of conflicts are seemingly endless.
Instead merely provoking and reacting to identity politics in current events, I’m going to suggest something which, to some may seem obvious and to others quite radical; We should try to find a way to care about the problems and concerns of others, even if we believe those problems don’t affect us.
Majority Indifference vs. Minority Outrage
A common thread I see in political debates over current events is what I would call majority indifference vs. minority outrage. When a black man is killed by police, it is typical of law & order whites to say, “Well I obey everything a cop tells me to do, so police violence isn’t a problem for me.” This apathy is concerning for a number of reasons, but I would like to focus on one of those reasons; Apathy as a serious tactical error.
The political class isn't precluded from using a successful tactic against the majority just because they started an authoritarian experiment with a minority. Example; The war on drugs started with prohibiting opium as a way to arrest Chinese and remove them from the work force, then it moved to Mexicans and "reefer madness." Of course we all know the end of that story. Being white won't stop you from being arrested for smoking pot. I'm sure whites back in the day thought, "But I'm not Chinese or Mexican, so what do I care if they made it illegal?" But successful tactics are successful tactics. The political class will use them against everyone eventually. A person also might say, “But I don’t smoke pot or use opium, so what do I care if it’s illegal?” No, but you may have a friend or family member who does. Or as a business owner, you may have an employee who does. Does it benefit anyone other than the political class to have them rotting in prison? Does it benefit YOU? The answer is probably no. So why, in our apathy, would we support something which has no benefit to us personally and arguably has a net negative benefit to society?
This is where the divide-and-conquer of identity politics is absolute insanity. Does mens' rights vs. feminists or black vs. white make it more likely for the political class to increase their powers, or less? I think the answer is obviously "more." They will do it either way but division accelerates the rise of abusive forms of power.
That is not to say we should necessarily form arbitrary collectives around every issue. We can allow identitic politics to have a monopoly on that kind of failure. What it means is that it is in our own interests to support movements and ideas that, on the surface, may not seem to directly affect us. Whether the mechanism is the market, charity, NGOs, crowdsourcing -- whatever the mechanism may be, we should take interest in the problems of the world and think systemically about solving them, even if those problems do not directly affect us personally. We will make ourselves and our communities richer, and the world a better place.
Instead of doing this through the politically directed civic engagement which is constantly propagandized by the political class, we ought to spontaneously organize and simply do these things... And do them triumphantly, and defiantly in spite of the political class, rather than within their mechanisms and mandates.
Considering many of society's problems were created by the political class, solving them outside of statism's "civic engagement" constitutes a productive form of rebellion. You will be solving problems without dependence or the blessing of the political class. Other peoples’ problems also present to us enormous personal opportunities. For the entrepreneur, someone else’s problem represents a market demand for a solution. For the bleeding heart, someone else’s problem represents the next great call to activism against injustice that must be overturned. For the philanthropist, it’s the next great charitable adventure, and so on.
Of course, the good news is that this is already happening all over society whether people notice or not. But instead of most people vacillating between “there ought to be a law,” or “it’s not my problem,” it might help to look at every culture war conflict as an opportunity.
Rest assured, politicians certainly do. Perhaps the rest of us should as well.
What opportunities do you see in solving the problems of others?