Rules of the Rude

Several years ago, a friend introduced me to the wonderful term “Workocracy” which described a situation in which leadership was established not by rank or popularity, but by the level of effort contributed by people working together on a project.

As with everything else they touch, those involved with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions “movement” seem to have created an ugly doppelganger for the beneficent Workocracy construct, which I choose to call “Rudeocracy.”

Example #1: At a nearby food coop, the debate over a hummus boycott was brought to a standstill when the boycotters (who were both outnumbered and out-argued) burst into tears, decrying the fact that their voices (no matter how shrill and demanding for weeks and months beforehand) were being stifled.  And the kindhearted people in the room, not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings further, decided to demur to the weepers and give them “equal” (i.e., extra) time to state their case.

Example #2: Close to a decade ago, the same anti-Israel activist who had created three years of mayhem in Somerville Massachusetts through multiple (failed) efforts to get the city to divest from Israel decided to bring the rolling propaganda wagon Wheels of Justice into the public school system where he taught in order to “educate” his captive charges.  Chaos ensued as parents (legitimately) protested, the school (appropriately) cancelled the event, the Israel-hater/teacher (inevitably) called in the lawyers and the program went on (albeit with a counter-program provided by The David Project).

Example #3: On dozens of campuses across the country, student governments consisting of 18-22 year olds (most of them sincerely interested in making the campus a better place, even if some of them might also be looking to strike a pose or pad their resumes) have been forced to sit through all-nighters as partisans for one and only one international issue (guess which one) demand that toothless divestment resolutions be passed immediately.  And when those student governments said no, the BDSers refused to take that as a final answer, demanding re-votes year after year (sometimes more than once a year).  And, when all else failed, they packed the Senate with people whose first and only agenda item was BDS – not the aforementioned making the campus a better place.

What these three examples have in common is that they were all instigated by people lacking even a scintilla of manners, empathy and propriety – people willing to bend (or break) every rule, manipulate people’s emotions, browbeat others to submit to moral blackmail, all so the boycotters can pretend to punch above their limited political weight.

While this might come off as simple criticism of people I disagree with, the concept of a Rudeocracy highlights and important reason why the Israel-Palestinian conflict is on the agenda of so many civil society organizations that have not taken (or been asked to take) stances on other political matters, like those that have left hundreds of thousands killed or homeless in every country in the Middle East, save Israel.

Often, this double-standard is chalked up to hypocrisy, and certainly that compliment vice pays to virtue is part of the story.  But without individuals and organizations (which I won’t dignify to call a “movement”) ready to push the boundaries of civilized behavior to the breaking point in order to get their way, BDS would not have gotten shoved up the agenda of so many organizations.

After all (and as I’ve noted previously), it’s child’s play to do what the BDSers do.

For if I shared their fanaticism and value system, I could blanket the communities I belong to with photos of tortured and murdered women and homosexuals and demand that anyone who claims to support women’s and gay rights must immediately and officially condemn my political adversaries or be exposed as traitors to the causes they claim to champion.

I could drag “experts” touting my beliefs into inappropriate situations (like my kids’ school or Scout troop) and insist everyone be exposed to a manipulative presentation of “facts” that are really my opinions.  And if anyone complained, I could burst into tears or start shouting so loudly that those around me would do anything to bring the temperature down, including (ideally) doing what I say.

The only trouble is that I would never cause harm to others, just so that I could use their names and reputations to further my political agenda.  I would never expose children (even my own) to one-sided arguments or highly contentious/truncated explanations of events and claim these to be important educational experiences.  And I’ve long outgrown crying and screaming to get others to do my bidding.

Apparently, though, those who live by the creed of Rudeocracy have no problems doing any of these things.  And while I suspect that in the long run such behavior brings more negative than positive consequences to those who practice it, dealing with individuals and organizations that mistake misbehavior for boldness and manipulation for argument is no fun (beyond the occasional schadenfreude that often happens when their ugly tactics leads to yet another defeat).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.