Doing Something

Occasionally, I'll see people who tend toward the left side of the political spectrum accuse those on the right of not "doing something" about whatever the cause du jour happens to be.   I think that at least some of the confusion comes down to what people mean when they say "doing something".   For me (and I suspect many on the right) "doing something" generally involves a measurable cause and effect.  So if I "do something" to stop poverty then I would expect that whatever I did would show a direct measurable reduction in poverty in order to claim success.   I do realize that sometimes "doing something" involves experimenting with different possible options some of which may not have the desired effect.   When that happens, then what?  I think that it's relatively safe to generalize in saying that most on the right would say that if your experiment doesn't produce the desired results then you need to try something different or make significant changes to what you are doing.  This same mindset doesn't necessarily translate to the political left quite the same way.   I think it's safe to say that there have been a number of "doing something" efforts that haven't produced the desired results but are so beloved by the left that to even consider scrapping them is met with cries of doom.    For example, how did the whole LBJ war on poverty work out?  Or take a look at many major urban school systems which are failing and watch how stubbornly the unions and interest groups fight doing anything except injecting more and more money into a failing school system. 

So, what does it mean to be "doing something"?  I think that there are a few things that are problematic from a leftist point of view.

1.  There is often a sense that if you are not doing what the political left considers the "correct" something, then you are not "doing something.
2.   There is often a sense on the left that making a symbolic gesture is "doing something" tangible.
3.   There is often a sense on the left that as long as you make the symbolic gesture (think any of the hashtag campaigns) that you have done enough and too many on the left are satisfied with the symbolic.
4.    There is often a sense on the left that if "doing something" doesn't involve a government program, that it isn't as valid.
5.    There is often a bias from those on the left that predisposes them to believe that those on the right virtually never "do something".

I'm sure that this list can and will grow, but I'll stop here for now and give a couple of examples.

For years, I exclusively hired homeless unemployed men to work for me.  I paid above minimum wage and was pretty generous in terms of hours paid versus hours worked.    I would argue that I was "doing something" to help with homelessness and unemployment, I'm not so sure the left would agree.  

A few years ago a bunch of African girls were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, there was a very high profile and active Twitter campaign to "save" these girls and by extension to limit sex slavery.  I wonder how many of those girls are free now?  I know for certain that sex trafficking continues to be a major problem (interestingly I see much more interest from the right than from the left in stopping this horror).  So the question must be asked, "Did the Twitter campaign actually "save" anyone?".  "Is anyone's life improved because a bunch of people hashatgged something?"

There was a symbolic call for Muslims to embrace the Charter of Medina as a path to lowering the conflict between Muslims and others.   Now, I think that any instance of any Muslims publicly doing anything to speak out about the horrors perpetrated by those who share their faith.  But, until we actually see some tangible results is it really accurate to suggest that "something" had been done?

Personally I think it boils down to how one views symbolism versus tangible results.   Is it possible that symbolic gestures can lead to tangible results, of course.  Had the "save our girls" campaign led to either local, regional, or international bodies stepping in to rescue the kidnapped girls and punish the kidnappers, then I say "well done".  But when it symbolism doesn't lead to tangible results, then how can one argue that they've "done something"?   

One last thought.  I'd suggest that if we spent less time criticizing the other side for not "doing anything" and looked at things that are being done without preconceived biases and evaluated things based on real measurable tangible results;  that we could support the effective, discard the ineffective, and focus on results, we'd be much better off.