Dana Milbank argues that it is irresponsible for the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify the Family Research Center as a “hate group.”
Milbank’s main argument, used twice, is that it’s wrong to include the KKK and the FRC on one list.
Milbank’s argument is intuitively appealing, but falls apart on second thought. There’s no logical reason that a list of groups engaging in specified behaviors can’t encompass both some mainstream groups and some non-mainstream groups. (Consider that a list of “sports teams” could include both a kid’s 4-square team and an NBA team, even though those two teams have many important differences).
Milbank writes as if to ever utter a harsh word is wrong and uncivil. But he’s mistaken. Some groups genuinely have demonstrated a pattern of hateful behavior, and it’s legitimate to call them out on it. Civility requires us to always treat the humans we are talking to with respect; it does not require us to never say anything that another person might find harsh or discomforting.
The SPLC is, as far as I can tell, careful. They calmly criticize specific extreme behavior by a small number of groups, rather than painting all opposition with a broad brush. In short, the SPLC is not our problem.
The real problem is that American political rhetoric is now overflowing with casual, thoughtless demonization of political opponents. I hear it from both sides: People who disagree aren’t just wrong. Instead, everyone on the other side is evil and stupid and acting in bad faith. Our political discourse is consumed by wild fury, and the sneer has become our default expression.
In a recent interview, science fiction author David Brin talked about people being addicted to self-righteous indignation:
We’ve all been in indignant snits, self-righteous furies. You go into the bathroom during one of these snits, and you look in the mirror and you have to admit, this feels great! “I am so much smarter and better than my enemies! And they are so wrong, and I am so right!”
And if we were to recognize that self-righteous indignation is a bona fide drug high, and that yes, just like alcohol, some of us can engage in it on occasion — as a matter of fact, when I engage in it, I get into a real bender — but then say, “Enough.” If we were to acknowledge this as a drug addiction, then it might weaken all the horrible addicts out there who have taken over politics in America…
Read the comments following the political stories in newspapers and on youtube, and you’ll see dozens of examples of addicts getting their indignation high.
That’s the problem. And I don’t believe that scapegoating the SPLC does anything to solve that problem.
* * *
That’s the end of this post, but I also recommend reading JHW’s excellent comment on why he’s suspicious of “civility talk,” and this blog post: If We Don’t Call it ‘Hate,’ What Shall We Call It? A hat tip as well to David Blankenhorn’s post, for the link to Milbank’s op-ed.
Another good read to add to your list is from the Social Justice League:
The Revolution Will Not Be Polite: The Issue of Nice Vs. Good
-Jeremy
Both sides are engaged in an orgy of self righteousness that has gotten completely out of control. Hasn’t anyone ever been wrong about something? When I look back on my life I see that by thirty I recognized a lot of stupid things that I had believed at twenty. And at almost forty I’m shocked by how many additionally silly things I believed at thirty. Seeing that, how could I be totally convinced that now I have absolutely everything figured out? When you come to that realization, you have to admit that your current political opponents MIGHT have a point about something some of the time. And since I’m human it is certainly likely that in at least one major area I’m overreacting/ignoring something really important that is super obvious to people who disagree with me.
I don’t think it’s irresponsible to call FRC a hate group, based on a transparent definition which the group meets. The SPLC is very clear that defaming groups of people is part of their definition.
Their opposition to same-sex marriage is not what gets them that classification; it’s the defamation of gay people. When a group says that the “gay agenda” is about raping children, calling them a hate group is just a statement of fact. And when that same group says “But we’re not violent!” as if feeding people the line that someone is out to harm you or your child *doesn’t* incite violence, I don’t think that counts as an excuse.
If it’s “irresponsible” to say anything unkind about the FRC, no matter how true, how is it not “irresponsible” to spread lies that result in violence against gay people? One attack merits calling on the SPLC to water down its definitions, but thousands of hate crimes against LGBT people doesn’t mean the FRC should maybe stop defaming those same people, in ways that seem designed to incite violence against them.
Either words matter, or they don’t. You can’t argue that calling a group a “hate group” is irresponsible because it might lead to violence against them and then say that statements like “One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.” *aren’t* likely to lead to violence.
I don’t think a group has to flat out say “Go out and kill the [slur for the group they hate]” to be guilty of inciting violence. Nor should “blatantly advocates violence” be the sole definition for hate groups. I mean, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan calls itself a “white civil rights movement” and is supposed to be a “kinder, gentler” KKK. Should the SPLC take them off its list too?
I think the idea that the FRC can’t be called a hate group is a silencing tactic in the same vein as the idea that it’s worse to be called a racist than to be racially discriminated against. (That’s not to say I think it’s deliberately silencing on Dana Milbank’s part, just that it plays nicely into the double standard where privileged groups can say whatever they want and it’s “irresponsible” and “inflammatory” to ever criticize them.)
I’m having a hard time putting my finger on just what the FRC has a point about “some of the time” when they use discredited pseudo-science to suggest that gay people are pedophile, mentally ill, and a danger to society.
The closest I can get is “well, I can agree that they are people who have strong feelings about things.”
Screw the FRC.
But if we expand the field to include more mainstream opponents of SSM, they do have a point that society is changing in ways that seem to make traditional marriage less likely, and that this is a problem, because lots of surveys and evidence show that a lot of people want to be married, and when marriages are healthy they actually do seem to be a healthy environment for raising kids.
Where they’re wrong, of course, is in thinking that it makes any sense to address this by fighting equal rights for lgb couples.
Certainly, Amp, and this is why I keep saying, where is the support for marriage/couple therapy (and the larger issue of health care reform and mental health coverage) in these people’s agendas if they think marriage is so important to strengthen?”
I stand ready, willing, and able to personally act as one of the leading supporters of strong, stable marriages and couple partnerships, using methods proven to actually increase couple stability and well-being, but I never seem to see my field and what it has to offer acknowledged or encouraged by the “marriage supporters.” And meanwhile people whose marriages could use my support can’t access my services or don’t even know about them, while “marriage supporters” go haring off after The Gays
(They’re totally un-interested in the benefits of conjoint therapy as far as I can tell. Unless, of course, it’s forcing people to go to mandated counseling before they’re allowed to divorce, which not only exposes DV victims to incredible risk, but also has absolutely no demonstrated effectiveness, in part because, as any Marriage and Family Therapist can tell you, by the time one or both people have decided they’re already out of the marriage, the odds for successfully turning the relationship around are incredibly low. Not non-zero, but a lot lower than getting to that couple before they’re looking for the escape hatch.)
I think his is one of the worst articles ever. But I am positive David Blankenhorn will love it.
The real problem is that American political rhetoric is now overflowing with casual, thoughtless demonization of political opponents. I hear it from both sides: People who disagree aren’t just wrong. Instead, everyone on the other side is evil and stupid and acting in bad faith. Our political discourse is consumed by wild fury, and the sneer has become our default expression.
Worst paragraph ever, especially when included in the overall topic of the FRC and SPLC. All those hundreds of thousands of people who stood in those long lines at Chik-Fil-A ARE haters. Even on camera they would say, “I don’t hate the gays I just don’t want them to be equal to me” If hundreds of thousands of people stood in line at Chik-Fil-A to deny black citizens equal civil rights, would you say they are NOT haters? Racism is a form of hate and saying sexual minorities don’t deserve equal civil rights is also a form of hate, no matter how sweetly the people say it AND deny it.
I don’t call it a knee jerk reaction when sexual minorities throw out “Hate” I think that it is calling it like it is. I think your tying to make both sides equally guilty is unfair. We are not fighting to deny them equal civil rights. I demonize Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and Michelle Bacman and Rick Santorum et al because the are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to bar Civil Marriage for sexual minorities and other injustices. If I demonize them it is because they have earned it. But I am sure David Blankenhorn loves what you wrote.
I always thought the Red Sox and their fans were just fellow citizens peacefully exercising their rights, including the right to express opinions with which I disagree. How blind I was.Thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, I now realize what should have been obvious all along – the Red Sox and their followers are a hate group:
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/alert-splc-boston-red-sox-are-hate-group.html
Casual and thoughtless demonization does occur, but I don’t think that’s the case here with the FRC. Specific facts, statements, and actions can be pointed out that support the claim of genuine ‘hate’ rather than simple disagreement.
Hey, I’d really like to thank whoever it was that read my link from my previous comment, went over to my blog, and left me some comments belittling me and calling me a liar. I’m sorry if you’ve had a bad experience with therapy, but that kind of personal attack on me is pretty uncalled for.
:-(
Yeah, I saw that (having also followed the link to your post). I’m sorry people are jerks.
Elusis: That sucks.
For what it’s worth your point is really good.
Oh, I didn’t even approve the most recent ones.
Guess this is one of those “welcome to life on the Internet as a woman” thing. So much more fun when you have to put your personal contact info on your site in order to do your job.
Wow, Elusis, those are some comments you’ve gotten. I’m struggling to put into words my feelings about them. This is why we can’t have nice things.
Thanks Jake.
Yeah, I’m working on a blog post about the problem for women therapists – we’re told we need to have a social media presence so we can make the Googles happy with our fresh content so clients will find us, which of course means blogging and Tweeting. But we can either stick to the utterly banal like “10 ways to spice up your [heterosexual] marriage!” in our blogging, or we (and by “we” I mean “me”) can write about gender and power and privilege and sexual identity and race and violence and fat-phobia etc., and know that if we get “lucky” enough to have a post go viral, wait for the comments roll in calling us fat lesbian [expletives] who should get raped to death* along with .gifs of our head grafted on to explicit porn, knowing full well that we’re utterly accessible to anyone who wants to start phoning us in the middle of the night or show up on the doorstep of our office.
*So far I’m just lucky enough to be told that I’m a stupid whore whose degree is a lie because it’s not in STEM and women get handed worthless doctorates just for having vaginas and I am probably a shitty, dangerous therapist for men. So I know I have a long way to go before I hit the big time.
Oh, those comments made me fume at the screen for an extended period of time. The internet offers so many marvellous opportunities, but it’s also an extremely effective tool for spreading hateful bile.