Read This Before You Choose Your Next Political Action
Is your group about to make history? Or just make fools of themselves?
Political activism is a highly emotionally charged arena. Oppression, tyranny, trampling on human rights…these are things that evoke visceral feelings in a lot of people, and there’s a reason for that. We all have the right to live our lives in the way we see fit as long as we aren’t harming others’ persons or property. Individualism—both the liberty and responsibility—is at the core of the American experiment, and we get testy when it’s threatened.
At any given time there are things that an action group can choose to be involved in, and they run the gamut from traditional to highly risky. Standoffs, for instance, are one of the more risky actions that has risen in popularity in the last few years, and no one political belief system has a monopoly on them. Both right and left groups have done them, and with varying degrees of success.
How can you know before going in that your action will be successful? Is there a way to minimize the risk to your group while still achieving the results you want and achieving the goal you set? The short answer is yes, you can have a reasonable degree of certainty before you set out for a political action.
The next logical question is HOW? Let’s get into answering that.
The Questions You Need to Ask
Like anything else, when you’re faced with a decision in which your emotions are involved, a logical approach is needed. Before you jump in your vehicle and run off to a standoff or other risky action, you should be asking yourself the following questions. Even more importantly, you should be guarding against confirmation bias, or the tendency to ignore information unless it aligns with what you already believe. Be honest, be blunt, be unsparingly real with your answers. Your life may literally depend on them.
What exactly is the goal of the action? Has anyone actually verbalized it? Is it vague or specific? Is it to stop a specific thing from happening? Is it to force an action by another entity? Beware of the slogan.
Is that goal justified? It seems redundant but we are working through a logical process, and so this is a critical question. Is the goal you’re trying to reach even correct? Are you assuming that your goal is right and moral because an entity you don’t like is on the other side of it?
Is it a one-off situation or is it happening all over? And if the thing you’re protesting is happening everywhere, why is THIS ONE being touted as the thing you need to go to? It’s one thing to say, “This particular injustice is happening right here in my local area, and as a local citizen it’s my job to stand up to it.” It’s entirely another to say, “An injustice is happening everywhere, and I should leave my family, job, and local obligations and go be part of it somewhere else.” Ask yourself why THAT particular occurrence is the one you’re being told to go to. Why not the one happening locally? If food deserts are what you’re passionate about, fix the one down the street from you. If property rights are your thing, look at what’s going on in your own area. In most cases, the adage “bloom where you’re planted” is a smart one.
Are there already laws against what you want to do? I’m the first person to advocate for violating unconstitutional laws, but you should do so only after knowing the laws exist, understanding their scope, gaming out the potential consequences of violating them, AND having a mitigation plan if it goes poorly. Many states have a specific clause in their constitutions about bringing armed forces into the state for the purpose of engaging in various actions. Before you slap on your gear and grab a rifle to run off to “protect human rights,” you should be intimately familiar with what the laws are, and make a logical, informed decision as to whether it’s a good idea.
How much do you know about the situation? Because of aforementioned emotions, people often think they ‘get’ the point of an action but there is a lot of information or history there that people either aren’t aware of or don’t care about—some of which might change the justification part if they knew it. Situations that make people want to go to standoffs are often complex, spanning years or even decades. Rarely can a situation like this be distilled down to a one-sentence rally cry that starts with “X party is trying to harm Y party in Z way.” Unfortunately, it’s far easier to jump on a bandwagon for a slogan than it is to do the work of researching a situation, reading any and all associated documents, understanding the players and their goals, and knowing where you and your group would fit into that mix.
What’s the local take on the situation? A lot of groups don’t like to admit this, but if you’re planning to roll to some other location to protest injustice, you better understand how the locals who live there are going to see you. You may think you’re the knights on white horses coming to “help them,” but they might see you as unwelcome and unwanted. Part of that might stem from the fact that they, living in the area, know the nuances and facts of the situation that you ignored. Part of it may be that they see the problem as theirs to deal with, and don’t appreciate outsiders. It might even be that they simply don’t want the ruckus in their backyard. Locals in the area of Seattle’s CHAZ and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, for instance, weren’t thrilled about being ‘invaded’ by a bunch of activists.
Who is leading your efforts? Before deciding you need to go to a political action you should be intimately familiar with the people running the show. What do they want? Who are they as people? What’s their history leading these types of things? What’s their track record? What is driving their action? Don’t just look at what they say, look at what they do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called “leaders” out there who have their own agendas. They want to be “relevant,” they want more attention for themselves, they want to compete with other groups for preeminence, they want to be seen as heroes or even martyrs for the cause. These people are dangerous because they don’t care if the people following them die. After all, so the thought process goes, dying for the cause is the pinnacle of heroism to these people, no matter how misguided and stupid a notion that is. I’ve argued before that living in such a way that you can maximize your efforts and influence over the longest amount of time is far more worthy an objective than getting arrested or dying for your cause. Before you go to a standoff, take a good look at the people in charge. Also be aware of turf wars, as group leaders vie for camera time or try to jockey their way up the food chain. You could find yourself caught in the crossfire of a pissing match.
Are you willing to be jailed for the rest of your life, in a prison where you are hated and singled out, on behalf the people you’re ‘helping’ or for the immediate goal? This is a highly unpopular question. Most people involved in political activism say they’ll die for their cause. That’s nice and all, but are you willing to live, in a prison away from your family, locked in legal battles you cannot afford…for the exact stated goal of the action and the people running it? You can’t say yes to that if you don’t know every detail of the situation in question, can you? You can’t say yes to that if you know deep down that the person running it has a horrible track record with this kind of action. You can’t say yes to that if you see evidence that the person leading your delegation is more interested in clout for himself than in making real change.
When you think about NOT going, do you feel guilt? This is another critical question. This kind of decision should have zero emotion attached to it, and if you’re about to put your livelihood, family, and even your own life on the line, it sure shouldn’t be because you’ll feel guilty if you don’t. Unfortunately, political groups and the shysters who often run them are excellent manipulators who use guilt as a means to push people to action. They might put out lofty messages talking about concepts like bravery and honor, invoke the names of others who have “given all" for the cause, or claim that THEY are “not hiding” and therefore how dare you do less. It’s naked behavior steering through emotion. If you raise concerns, it’s because you’re a coward. If you’re unwilling to follow them to jail or death, you’re not dedicated, and maybe are even part of the enemy. If you’re not ‘all in’ and following what THEY think you should be doing, you’re not worthy. This strikes at the heart of our need to matter, to be seen AS worthy human beings. It’s a particularly disgusting tactic that makes a lot of people jump on board even when they know, deep down, that it’s a bad idea. If you take nothing else from this article, understand this:
Choosing to say no to ill-informed actions with vague or unachievable goals, run by egomaniacs, manipulators, poor leaders, and clout-seekers doesn’t make you unworthy to be part of your cause.
In fact, having the balls to perform your own due diligence on a matter before getting involved, and being able to say no to something that is a bad idea means you’ll be able to operate for your cause in an effective way, long after the Tweedledees and Tweedledums are dead or in prison. And speaking of guilt, later when the standoff is an abject failure, used as an example of what not to do for years to come, you won’t have to know that you helped contribute to that particular crapshow.
You’ll notice there’s one question not on the list: Do you want to go? Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter if you want to or not. Using your desire to go as a decision making criteria is a sure-fire path to confirmation bias, because you’ll find a way to bolster your desire and justify your involvement even when you should run the other way.
It’s Sounds Like You’re Saying Never Get Involved!
Not at all. There are situations in which it is both morally right and absolutely necessary to get involved in a major political action—even if there is risk. They’re the ones with actionable, smart goals, that will help the efforts overall, bolster public support of your cause instead of harm it, led by people who are logical, strategic, and motivated by something other than self-aggrandizement. It’s the situation that you’ve researched thoroughly for yourself, understand the scope of, and have a plan to mitigate risk or accept it knowingly. It’s the one that you’ve gamed out in a logical manner and are involved with outside of your emotions.
You might be arguing that no situation is perfect and we need to jump on whatever comes. Not true. While situations are always imperfect, that’s exactly why the questions above are so important. If you have done the research on the scenario and its players, if you’ve done the mental work on yourself and gamed out potential outcomes, then YOU can make the decision as to whether the level of imperfection is something you’re willing to accept. If it is, great, then get in your car and go.
Just know that knowingly choosing to involve yourself in a bad action doesn’t make you brave, and choosing to stay out of one doesn’t make you a coward.
In the next issue, we’ll talk about the building blocks for deception analysis, which will help you wade through political rhetoric and make those decisions about what to be involved in. Subscribe now for free so you don’t miss it.
Kit Perez is a counterintelligence and deception analyst, and the co-author of Basics of Resistance: The Practical Freedomista. She is currently working on her second book, which will focus on group activism efforts.