Every once in a while I see, here on Dailykos, people who appeal to altruism as a foundation of progressive activism and values. Really? You seriously think that this motivates people? Follow me below the fold for a tame rant.
Okay altruists, I'm glad that you exist, I'm happy to embrace you as comrades, but seriously, could you be any more naive? There are, I believe, a handful of people in this world that are motivated by altruism, but I don't think that serious change has ever been motivated by altruism or concern for other human beings.
I guess it makes me an awful person to say that, but I can't help but believe it's the truth. Maybe part of the problem is that we've become so alienated, so blind to our social relations, that we have a difficult time seeing that our selfish, individual welfare is bound up with the welfare of others.
This is how I see it. Every major revolution throughout history has resulted from a pursuit of self-interest. I can hear readers at this very moment, if I have any, doing a Scooby-Do "hhurrerrr?" What the hell could I possibly mean? How could selfishness lead to progressive revolutions? Isn't selfishness the domain of conservatives?
But see, that's just it. It's not. The great labor revolutions of the last century were a product of people pursuing their self-interest. Workers recognized that their self-interest wasn't served unless they organized and formed collectives stronger than the power of oligarchs. The great democratic revolutions during the Enlightenment period were the same as well. Unless people organized, they would be unable to overturn the power of the oligarchs. The same is true of women's suffrage and civil rights revolution. In each case, banding together with others was seen as increasing the power of the individual. Absent organization, the individual twists in the cold winds of fate. Together we change the world. Hence the person interested in advancing their own self-interest bands together with others to make life better for themselves.
The difference between conservatives and progressives is not that conservatives are selfish and progressives are altruistic. No. The difference is that conservatives are immature and progressives are mature. Conservatives believe that they are "self-made men" that exist in a vacuum. Progressives recognize that we are social beings, existing in relations with others, and that therefore we have to take account of these relations to advance our own self-interests. If we're to properly advance our own self-interests we need to band together to organize social relations so as to promote those relations that are most free, secure, and safe.
I admit that whenever I hear people talk about altruism, I begin to twitch. Altruism is perhaps the weakest of human motivations. Sure, there are a handful of tender souls out there that are motivated by altruism, but I believe they're few and far between. Go ahead, call me a bastard. I'm fine with that. If I'm interested in poverty, education, strong social programs, economy, etc., then this isn't because I have a particular tender hearted concern with my fellow humans. I think most of them are pretty awful and my tenure here at dailykos among fellow progressives (where they can be found here) convinces me of this even more. No, I think education, strong social programs, equality, progressive economic programs that favor workers over corporations, promote a more stable social world, with less crime, with less religious fanaticism, bigotry, racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc., than free market fundamentalisms. People who are safe, secure, and have opportunity tend to be less beastly than people who are living on the edge of life. Hence it's in my self-interest to promote these things.
I guess at the end of the day I just feel that appeals to "morals" or high falutin values are pretty unpersuasive to the general electorate. Why not appeal to their avarice? Why not show why these things are in the interests of working and middle class men and women? Isn't the problem with Kansas that they aren't voting their avarice? What's the problem with pointing that out?