Skip to content
Subscribe

Back Of The Bus?

Published:

Proposition 8's opponents seem tobe quite intent on riding the Alienation Express all the way into the last stopon the railroad of irrelevance. However, having already commented on their disgraceful behavior, it seems redundant to condemn their most recent antics without some level of reflectionas to the reasons for their behavior. By that I do not mean the question ofwhat they hope to achieve (they obviously want the bill overturned), but ratherwhy they have chosen these specific tactics.

The answer seems self-evident onone level. In reading the article which was most recently posted aboutProposition 8's opponents, one has difficulty not being reminded of the actionsof two notable lobbies; one historical and the other contemporary. To see whichgroups I am referring to, think of the tactics Proposition 8 opponents areusing: Engaging in mass boycotts so as to bankrupt the organizations that areintent on denying them their so-called "rights", while simultaneouslyproducing lists of  businesses and private individuals who have donatedmoney to the pro-Proposition 8 cause. Obviously, the boycotts are meant toinvoke the Civil Rights coalition of the 1960s, and the Montgomery bus boycottsspecifically, but what might the publishing of names and addresses signify?Intentional or no, this behavior is reminiscent of anti-abortion groups thatpublish the names of abortion-providing medical professionals on their Websites.

Leaving aside the irrelevantquestion of whether one agrees or disagrees with either of these movements,they both have one thing in common. They are (or were) both dedicated to theidea of expanding civil rights for previously disenfranchised groups. It wouldbe unnecessary to dredge up quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. proving as much,but if articles like this are any guide, the pro-life movement considers itselfvery much to be part of the same legacy.  Even as MartinLuther King Jr.'s niece has joined the pro-life cause because she sees itas part of her uncle's struggle, the idea that pro-life activists seethemselves as heirs to the Civil Rights movement is beyond question.

I shall not consider the questionof whether such a comparison is unnecessarily self-indulgent. That isirrelevant and up to the reader to decide. What is relevant is that whether thecomparison is accurate or not, the fact remains that if such a comparison wereaccurate, it would provide the group utilizing it with a great deal ofrhetorical firepower, as well as some level of license to take more extremeprotest measures. (After all, whoever stands in the way of the heirs of civilrights will almost certainly end up on the wrong side of history). As such, anincentive clearly exists for all sorts of groups to try and frame themselves ascontinuing the fight for civil rights.

This incentive is not a bad one,rhetorically, but it becomes dangerous at the point where a group such as thepro-life movement (or the opponents of Proposition 8) believe so strongly thatthe comparison is true that they mistakenly believe that everyone else alsobelieves it is true. If such a belief enters the collective unconscious of apolitical movement, then a very dangerous implication also begins to grow,which can best be laid out in the following syllogism (with Movement Xsignifying the group who believes the comparison):

Proposition 2: Movement X = TheCivil Rights movement

Proposition 3: Therefore, MovementX is on the correct side of history

Such a syllogism is logicallycorrect, but morally dangerous because most activists who believe themselves tobe on the "right side of history" therefore believe that whateverexcesses they go to can be excused by virtue of the fact that they are, apriori, on the right side of history. Such a belief can and often does leadto ruthlessness, political tone-deafness and alienation of one's allies, all ofwhich appear to dominate the current anti-Proposition 8 movement. This isunfortunate, because whatever ideological vision one holds, Proposition 8 isnot a settled question and should not be treated as such. The seeds of backlashare being sowed, and the opponents of Proposition 8 should take some humility beforeit is too late and they are crushed.

Perhaps most dangerously, theproponents will then have the authority to write the history books.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Back Of The Bus?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us