Several years ago, a crisis arose in Flint, Michigan. The public water supply was found to contain dangerously high levels of lead and this had significant negative impacts on public health. One of the first to sound the alarm was a professor at Virginia Tech named Marc Edwards. He paid close attention to the issue and as a result of his efforts, important steps were taken to improve the situation. While these steps were being taken, Edwards continued to monitor the situation. Eventually, water quality returned to safe levels and Edwards reported on this success. Grateful for his work, his fellow activists expressed their appreciation for what he had done and their gratitude that the situation had improved.
Hahahaha, I’m just kidding. Of course that’s not what happened. When Edwards reported that tests had shown the improved safety of Flint’s water supply, his fellow activists responded with insults and verbal abuse and generally attempted to destroy his personal life and professional reputation. Kevin Drum from Mother Jones magazine wrote about this bizarre affair:
Marc Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor who first exposed toxic levels of lead in the water supply of Flint, Michigan, was initially a hero to the Flint community. Thanks to him, Flint became the target of national outrage and steps were finally taken to reconnect Flint to Detroit’s (safe) water supply. In less than a year, lead levels in Flint water had dropped to safe levels.
So what did Edwards do? Well, he’s a scientist, and just as he had honestly exposed Flint’s problems in the first place, he also continued to honestly report the results of the intervention. When the water was clear again, he said so – and it turned him from a hero to a pariah.
But why? Why was it so awful of him to report that a situation that people ostensibly wanted to improve had in fact improved? Drum suggests that the activists were too bitter to accept good news:
Here in the progressive community, we like to criticize conservatives for being too anti-science; too tribal; and too submissive to their most extreme wing. But look what happened here. Science told us, as you might expect, that Flint’s water got better after mitigation measures were put in place — but activists on the ground were too angry and bitter to accept that. Instead, they turned on the man who reported the results, tribally, and at that point you were either with them or against them…
So here we are [progressives] are: anti-science, tribal and subordinate to our most extreme wing. Oh, and a man named Marc Edwards, who exposed and solved this disaster, is now practically an exile. It’s a sad microcosm of our modern political arena.
Of course, “activists” are not a monolith – they are a collection of individuals all motivated by a number of different factors – with multiple different factors influencing each individual. Could bitterness be part of the explanation? I’m sure it played a role. But when I came across this story, I was also reminded of another framework I wrote about that I think can also explain some of what’s going on.
A while ago I suggested that there were two ways we could think about political activism. One form was what I called activism as a form of production, the other was activism as a form of consumption.
When activism is viewed as a form of production, the point and purpose of engaging in activism is to improve or solve a social problem – in other words, to produce a particular outcome. When activism is viewed as a form of consumption, the purpose of activism is to gain personal benefit – a sense of community, social status, a sense of purpose and meaning, and so on. These two different activities have very different implications.
When activism is intended as a form of production, there is a clearly defined goal to be achieved, and once this is achieved, the need for activism ceases.
When activism is used as a form of consumption (such as people who see “involvement” as a great source of meaning and purpose in life), there is no clearly defined goal and the goalposts often shift, because actually achieving a goal people robs one of their impulses for activism.
As a problem actually improves, those who use activism as a form of production will declare “mission accomplished” and move on with their lives. But for those who engage in activism as a form of consumption, and especially for those who see activism as an important part of their social identity, the idea that a problem has been solved can be threatening. This gives them an incentive to deny the improvements, or move the goal post, or both. As time goes on, and especially as the world improves, any movement will become increasingly dominated by those who use activism for consumption rather than production – a form of Gresham’s law in action.
This seems to give some indication of what happened in this case. Edwards became involved in Flint’s water supply as a manufacturing activist. As water security problems improved, the obvious next step for him was to recognize the progress made. But for consumer activists, people who find meaning and purpose in “fighting the good fight,” where they are told that the battle has been won by threats to deprive them of that meaning and purpose. Thus, those who claim that the situation has improved become a new enemy to attack. And as a result, we ultimately witness the bizarre spectacle Drum Laments. The phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” traditionally applies when the messenger in question was the bearer of bad news. But among consumer activists, the urge to shoot the messenger arises when the messenger is the bearer good news. Marc Edwards was the unfortunate bearer of good news, but his case is by no means unique.