One problem for those that seriously care about environmental issues is that the far-out stance of many of the environmental leaders can easily be used to discredit the entire cause, and create the impression that the issues do not exist. The radicals do their own cause more harm than good.
I don't disagree with the abstract formulation you make, Steven. Sometimes, however, in practice, one person's "radical" is a practical activist, and vice versa. Nor do I disagree with the need to put some distance between the very far out and the "rest of us." However, I don't think a great deal of time and effort should be put into it. For a couple of reasons. First, because the conflating of the two will go on, whatever one does. It's just too good a debating tactic to identify, let's say, the environmental movement with the very far out. Second, to make a large effort detracts from other efforts.
As for the phrase, "the radicals do their own cause more harm than good," that's not always the case. Sometimes the "radicals" actually have a different cause in mind. I'll never forget some conversations I had with friends just after Reagan was elected in 1980. They argued that it was terrific news because it made the social divisions more transparent, would lead to more social chaos, which in turn, would undermine the establishment. Not my cause. I was more interested in expanding democracy and getting a government which was more responsive. |
