Another Open Letter

 

Dear conservative friends,

My last open letter appears to have aroused the ire of quite a few of you. Not only did you take issue with my characterization of the ALS ice bucket challenge, some of you have suggested that my criticism is ultimately harmful to the conservative cause and humanity generally. So please allow me to expand on my original letter.

First, I think it is wonderful that the ALS Association has been able to raise substantial sums toward research. While I question whether those sums will ultimately come at the expense of other, equally worthy causes, I am inclined to be optimistic that this fundraising campaign has enlarged the pie of total donations. Perhaps it will lead to greater ongoing giving too, which would also be wonderful. And although some participants are spending more on bagged ice than they would have given to ALS research, it’s good to see greater awareness of the disease. I’m inclined to be optimistic here, too: Perhaps this awareness will touch some people more permanently, and be more than a passing fad.

I also salute the marketers who invented this remarkable campaign. If other charities now need to step up their game, that is not in any way a black mark on the ALS Association. The world is changing, and charities need to adapt. The Association’s marketers were quite insightful in their effective use of the socially coercive power of social media.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that such a campaign is, in fact, coercive. Some of you have scoffed at my use of the word, equating coercion with force, but the two concepts are not identical. It’s an understandable mistake; on Ricochet, we commonly discuss the government’s monopoly on force, and the coercive power of its threat. But while physical force is the most blunt and fundamental form of coercion, there are other forms too. Financial pressure, emotional pressure, and social pressure can be applied to get people to do things they don’t otherwise want to. Guilt, shame, the threat of ostracism, and inducements to belong are tools of coercion rather than reason.

Certainly there are worse things to be coerced into than dumping ice water on your head or donating to a charity. And it is certainly an improvement to have such coercion come from society rather than government. At the same time, to favor less government intervention in society and markets is not to automatically endorse the outcomes that they produce. You can favor removing government strictures on prostitution, drug use, gambling, tobacco, profanity on television, or anything else without necessarily endorsing the activities themselves. Mozilla’s decision to fire Brendan Eich was not government coercion—it was the legitimate working of free markets in society. But I would still contend that Mozilla’s decision was bad for society generally. Brendan Eich was ultimately the victim of a social media mob.

Which brings me to the question of whether the conservative cause should embrace these kinds of viral campaigns. Community is a strong element of conservatism; but these campaigns don’t reinforce shared values so much as create bonding through shared adversity (in a sanitized form). Going along with what’s normative is also, historically, a conservative approach; but that’s because conservative thinking has been guided by a preference for the tried and true, not for the conformity of the mob. Independent reasoning and personal autonomy have been central principles of conservative thinking from Aristotle to America’s Founders to Ayn Rand. In the case of the ice bucket challenge, you may agree with the ends, but the means—ill-informed social pressure applied through social media—are the same as what lost Brendan Eich his job. Even if conservatives want to turn viral campaigns to their advantage, I doubt that they can. Using viral conformity to advance conservatism is self-contradictory.

So by all means, have fun making videos, and be generous to the ALS Association. But while you do, be aware that you may be undermining some of the values you cherish. And know that my original offer still stands: If you’d like to persuade me, on the merits, that I should donate to ALS research, I’m all ears.

Sincerely,

Son of Spengler

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 63 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    SoS, if you want, feel free to drop it all with no hard feelings or declarations of victory on my part. I get interested in these kinds of details and distinctions, but I’m well aware that it’s not for everyone and perhaps way beside the original point. I don’t think so, but I realize that many would disagree with me on that too.

    • #61
  2. Son of Spengler Member
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Ed G.:

    SoS, if you want, feel free to drop it all with no hard feelings or declarations of victory on my part. I get interested in these kinds of details and distinctions, but I’m well aware that it’s not for everyone and perhaps way beside the original point. I don’t think so, but I realize that many would disagree with me on that too.

     Likewise. I can be a little tenacious sometimes about some of these things, even though the stakes are low. It allows me to play philosopher from time to time ;-)  Don’t worry, I won’t hesitate to let you know if I’ve had enough.

    • #62
  3. Son of Spengler Member
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Ed G.:

    SoS, taking your suggestiong about presumed relationships, isn’t social pressure to participate in good causes a natural consequence of friendship and family?

     Yes, done sparingly. My friends and family know they can call me and say, “I’m doing X for Y cause. It’s important to me. Would you please support me?” And I sometimes do the same. But if someone uses the relationship too often–which ostensibly is a relationship of affection, not a transactional one–it can hurt the relationship. I see a big difference between, “This matters to me, please do it” vs. “We’re all doing this, you should too”.

    Part of the distinction may also be one between emphasizing shared values, and imposing personal values. It gets to how you define “good causes”. If we agree, then no problem. If you assume we agree, then we may have a problem. If you know we disagree, then we definitely have a problem.

    And every so often, even among good friends, it’s helpful to have a grownup ask, “If all your friends were jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump too?”

    • #63
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.