Yeah, your response does qualify as a howl of outrage, IMO. You have made my point, which is that one can't even pose the question "should some issues be *prioritized* over others?" without getting screamed at.
If I understand you correctly, your position is that since no one has an obvious answer about what to do about energizing the movement, it is impossible to come up with decent reasons why some good issues ought to have priority over other good issues.
I am not persuaded by this reasoning. While I oppose all forms of oppression, I reject the notion that all forms of oppression are equally harmful or that without a Master Plan it's wrong to try to establish anything resembling a political priority. Why is opposing the war more important than promoting gay marriage? Because the harms associated with the former are worse than the harms associated with the absence of the latter (getting blown up and shot is worse than having the state refuse to recognize your relationship).
I am not saying everyone needs to agree with me about which issues are the most important, but I see nothing wrong with starting off by saying "we ought to have political priorities" and then having a healthy debate about what those priorities should be. Until I am convinced otherwise, sure, I'll happily throw my hat in with Rorty.
This is my third and last post of the day. -WD
On 6/15/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Given that you admit that like anyone else you have no
> idea what to do about energizing the movement, why
> don't you stop there rather than denigrating other
> people for working on trivialities? I don't think "the
> American left" is a unitary entity that has adopted a
> line "no privileging" -- in English we'd say
> "prioritizing." To the extent that everyone has not
> flocked to your favorite issues, maybe not everyone
> agrees. Explain to Brian, in plain words, why it
> doesn't matter that his marriage can't be recognized
> in the US, and why he should put off worry about this
> and for how long. Oh, I'm sorry, is that a howl of
> outrage? I really just wanted an explanation,
> honestly. I am sure Brian wants one. But I do know
> that it will not likely to energize the struggle or,
> national health or against the war if we all forget
> gay marriage, or do you disagree? Why isn't that
> economic activity, btw, since marriage is primarily a
> bundle of economic rights? Just asking. If that's what
> made it important. Writing off gay marriage will also
> lose us the support of many gays, who might feel
> differently if you had a reason to think that
> abandoning them until whenever would materially
> contribute to ending the war, for example. But maybe
> you think there are too few active gays for that to
> matter? While we are at it, what other issues aren't
> important and should be set aside till we get back to
> them while we work on the really important stuff?