Greg Lukianoff (FIRE) on "Being Non-Partisan in a Partisan Age"

An excellent post, about an organization that I very much admire. An excerpt:

Be willing to make common cause with ideological opponents

As he contemplated the challenges and pitfalls of advocating for abolition, Frederick Douglass began to see that dialogue with those who saw things differently was critical to achieving his goals. When the more stringent and radical abolitionists, whose motto was "No union with slaveholders," criticized Douglass' approach, he famously replied, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."

We can learn a great deal from Douglass' wisdom here. The only way to make real progress is by forming coalitions around specific issues and collaborating, even if we remain deeply divided on other topics. You can't claim to be non-partisan if you only call out one side when they do bad or only praise one side when they do good. You also can't claim to be non-partisan if you won't accept help from or collaborate with your ideological opponents on issues where you actually agree.

And here's the thing: If you are waiting to only ally with a person, a politician, or—worse still—a political party that is never wrong on matters of freedom of speech, you will never partner with anybody. If we're being honest, by that standard you likely wouldn't even be able to partner with yourself….

(Note that I have done a bit of paid consulting for FIRE in the past, and FIRE is representing me pro bono in a couple of cases; I have also supported FIRE's work in the past pro bono on many occasions. I'm passing this along, though, solely because I liked it.)

Comments

[DIsrobing]

Another profile in courage.

Shame.

[Eugene Volokh]

?

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

You and they miss the point. You accomplish nothing by destroying fromthe face of the earth every enemy of your position. Douglass also said he disagreed with the women's rights suffrage group because the black suffrage issue was much more important. I've been involved with many groups and I always say the same thing' Esatablish your point with utter clarity, that one thing you want and the basis for it" IF you have to answer lies or naysaying do so. BUT STICK TO WHAT YOU ARE FOR and drop the "we are against" approah. It accomplishes nothing. THe stupidest thing about Hillary Clinto was that very thing. If she had killed every deplorable in the world we'd still be inthe dark about what she actually wanted. SHe hated Trump and that is what her whole stupid campaign collapsed over

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know Greg -- he's a decent man and that's the problem -- he doesn't understand the Left's scorched earth tactics

He doesn't understand that it is impossible to reach common ground with ideological zealots who refuse your very right to exist.

He's too decent a man to understand this -- he's just heard about Planet UMass, he never had to be boots on the ground in that purgutorial cesspool...

[Noscitur a sociis]

He's too decent a man to understand this

Not an issue for you, fortunately!

[Paladin_44]

Don't be judgemental. Be curious!
So says Ted Lasso. And maybe that should be an outside voice for quite a few of us?
Barbecue sauce!

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

That is the old poor advice of 'Keep an open mind and never let it close on any conclusion"

[IANNAL]

I agree with FIRE's sentiment, but can't quickly find the reference to the slippery-slope-log-rolling post / article where ideological opponents end up making decisions they otherwise would not have based on an initial agreement to some discrete shared issue.

[IANNAL]

This one:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/08/slippery-slope-arguments-and-the-role-of-ideological-advocacy-groups/

[Stephen Lathrop]

The best efforts to build common ground to advance the common good have not typically come from rights-prioritizing ideologues. They have come from figures like Benjamin Franklin, who thought over-insistence on rights was an impediment to enlightened effort to pursue the common good. It will be a long time before the likes of FIRE accomplish as much public good for the nation as Franklin had already done across the colonies prior to the 1760s.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Well, wrong about that. On 3 counts

1) He should have stuck to his initial insight and not fought off stupid variations on it or mindless attacks
"It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of Ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests"
2) HE was anti-abortion at great personal cost and did not take it as a discussable point, why discuss whether taking a human life is a right or not ? There he made great sense He would not abort his illegitimate son. He said it would be an abomination
3) The Founders established the morality of Family and Marriage as the basis of all liberty

A New Birth of Marriage: Love, Politics, and the Vision of the Founders Hardcover – 2022
by Brandon Dabling
" Founders at the state and national level shaped marriage law to reflect five vital components of marital unity: the equality and complementarity of the sexes, consent and permanence in marriage, exclusivity in marriage, marital love, and a union oriented toward procreation and childrearing. "

YOu confuse partisan with 'having principles. YOU MUST BE PARTISAN to morality,conscience and the Founding Principles.

The next young person murdered by an illegal immigrant will be my point illustrated.