Hyperbolic Harms and Performative Protests
A snapshot of what's wrong with our politics
On Saturday over 100 people joined an anti-mask protest on the steps of the Idaho Capitol building. The rally made national headlines because they burned masks and the speakers expressed opposition to potential mask mandates in Idaho. Leaving the mask politics aside, the rally is a great example of what’s wrong with politics today...here’s my case.
#1-Hyperbolic harms. A common feature of U.S. politics today is exaggerating the offenses committed against us. This type of victim politics tends to result in a “harm outbidding” competition. Whoever has been most egregiously harmed is morally justified in their stance. There is a growing body of research in political science that demonstrates that this is increasing and cuts across partisan lines. There are certainly valid and important examples of true harms committed where individuals and groups have every right to identify as the victim. But more often than not the harms are exaggerated and do not relate to reality. One good example of this is the story published a few weeks ago in the New York Times about the student at Smith College who claimed she was racially profiled when the school janitor was simply enforcing university policy. The anti-mask protest is another example of hyperbolic harms. The state of Idaho has not had a mask mandate at any point during the pandemic. Republican Governor Brad Little has left these decisions to counties and cities. One of the speakers discussed the need to protect “constitutional rights”. I have yet to find the part of the Constitution declaring “Congress shall make no law requiring people to wear masks”. I don’t remember reading in Madison’s journals of the Constitutional Convention about the heated debate over the fundamental right of citizens not to have to wear masks. My point is simply that the mask mandates have nothing to do with the federal government nor constitutional rights. People who respect the Constitution and the 10th amendment should understand that the states have broad authority in health matters. If a state does require a mask mandate, it is a matter of policy and not an infringement of constitutional rights. But the call of “my rights” is a good warning sign that the complaint is hyperbole and not related to real harm.
#2-Performative protests. So if the harm is exaggerated, why take the time and effort to bring attention to it? Performative protest, or activism, is meant to raise the emotional level around an issue and keep the issue alive. The purpose of the protest is not to really address the perceived harm but to keep the issue in the news and to keep us angry about it. It has been discussed a great deal but anger/outrage has become a central part of our politics. The linked book, American Rage by Steven Webster, argues that anger appeals to political elites because it results in loyal and active voters. Individuals like to be outraged because it gives us a sense of control and meaning. A great deal of controversies and actions in politics today are geared toward generating outrage and not toward solving the supposed harm. Another example from this week is the Dr. Seuss outrage. As Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter, Representative Kevin McCarthy’s reading of Green Eggs and Ham doesn’t address the real issue. Green Eggs and Ham is not one of the six books the Seuss Foundation (not the U.S. government) says they will not be printing anymore. If McCarthy really wanted to address the issue he would have read one of those six books. Instead, it was meant to be performative. It is reminiscent of the classic Seinfeld episode where people are upset at Kramer for refusing to wear the AIDS ribbon because actually walking in the AIDS walk is not enough. Again, looking at the protests in Idaho on Saturday, what was the point? Idaho does not have a state-wide mask ban. Ada County, the county the capital city of Boise is in, had a mask mandate that they ended on February 19th. The city of Boise kept their mask mandate. Why were the protesters at the state capitol? Why not protest and burn masks outside of city hall? If they are upset about stores requiring masks, why not hold the rally outside of a Walmart or an Albertsons? Or do they want the state government to tell private businesses what they should be doing? If the goal of the protests was to effectively stop mask mandates in the state of Idaho, which are only at the city/county level or in private businesses, then protesting at the statehouse was not the best way to achieve that goal. If the goal was to garner greater attention and create another signpost in the “culture war” over masks, then mission accomplished.
#3-Hyperbolic harms and performative protests minimize true issues, reduce trust and commitment to democratic norms. Racism and racial profiling are clearly issues in the U.S. today. When these issues are used to claim harms not based in reality, as in the Smith College case, then it becomes harder to address true harms when they emerge. Government overreach and abuse of power are also dangers. When people claim violations of constitutional rights that don’t exist it becomes more difficult to address actual violations. Not only does it become difficult because they minimize the issue (the classic boy who cried wolf scenario) but it becomes difficult because it reduces trust between different groups and with the national government. Again, in Weber’s book he shows, through polling data and experiments, that anger leads to reduced trust in government and each other. As he shows, the real danger in this is that it leads to an erosion in commitment to democratic norms. If I don’t trust you to work toward the solution in good faith, then I’ll forget about you and do it unilaterally. Presumably what the protesters on Saturday wanted was the state government to force cities/counties and private businesses to end mask mandates. Often cries of harm seem to be engineered to end debate on an issue and get what we want. It is the modern day realization of Rousseau’s infamous phrase, “forced to be free”. Reducing trust and commitment to democracy is a high price to pay for a short-lived dopamine hit and some national attention.
Based on the evidence it is hard to see long-term benefits of hyperbolic harms and performative protests. They make us feel good by making us feel outraged. They bring greater attention to a harm that doesn’t really exist and keep it alive as an issue to separate us. What they do not do is work toward a real solution, of a real problem. The contrast between hyperbolic harms and what civil rights activists had to endure on Bloody Sunday or what pro-democracy activists in Belarus are experiencing is night and day. Serious political discussion and serious people recognize the difference. If politics is simply about performances over made up issues so we can all be upset then we’d be better off watching The Bachelor or the WWE. They are more entertaining and less harmful. But if politics is supposed to be about actually making our communities better and creating conditions for individuals to flourish, then we need to call out these performances when we see them and not fall into the trap of getting outraged.
Campaign Ads
Hillary Clinton ran this ad in the 2008 Democratic primary in order to raise fears about then Senator Obama’s inexperience.