Fighting On Multiple Fronts

With Jim Carrey's recent jackassery and the sudden explosion in discussion over same-sex marriage, I have seen many interesting articles and tweets over the past couple of days.  Somewhat predictably (as much as it pains me to say it), I've also noted some naysayers on the right complaining about all the attention these two issues are getting.

"Jim Carrey is irrelevant," they say.  This is true.  Not only is he not funny, this is the first I've heard of him in some time.

"If only we saw this much energy and enthusiasm regarding the economy and taxes," they say.  And I agree, it would be nice to see enthusiasm on other issues.

But of course, the real question is, what are the implications of statements like these?

I'll start with the argument against Carrey, particularly as I have seen the argument used time and again regarding various leftists from Michael Moore to Piers Morgan.  You see, the point of engaging someone is not because of their importance.  Otherwise, we wouldn't argue with family, friends, strangers, etc. because, comparatively speaking, they are not important.  The point of engaging is to challenge a person's assumptions and conclusions when they deserve to challenged.  Or in Jim Carrey's case, the fact the he is a complete ass.

As for putting energy into certain issues over others, that is just a matter of taste.  Some people are more engaged by moral arguments than economic or political ones.  How is that wrong?  How does "shaming" those who focus on certain issues help with the ones they are perceived to neglect?  Hammering one's allies strikes me as an ineffective way to build alliances.

Ultimately, what this complaining comes down to is the idea that certain issues are "more important" than others.  Not that this isn't true; some issues do carry greater implications than others.  However, this is not a justification to ignore particular subjects, people or ridicule someone for focusing on a subject that you deem less important.  What is important to you may not necessarily be important to someone else.

This mentality is very dangerous.  Determining whether an issue should be addressed by its perceived importance to someone is unwise.  According to this logic, if I may use a military analogy. the Union (in the American Civil War) should never have fought in the Western theater (with General Grant and the Mississippi River).  The Eastern theater, where the northern armies fought General Lee in much more publicized battles, were considered more important by the War Department.  We should have focused purely on the east, according to this perspective.

The war was won in the west.  The Confederates were defeated because of the many victories out west.  Had this sort of short-sighted thinking been applied to that war, we might live in a radically different nation today.  Assuming we would exist at all.

Frankly, having someone who is interested in social issues and having someone else who is interested in fiscal issues should be seen as a good thing.  Then you have people fighting battles that they are fully engaged in.  Additionally, as a movement, this allows conservatives to fight on multiple fronts.  Because ultimately, every issue is important.  Every issue has implications that no one has considered.  Ignoring an issue for no reason other than "it's not important" will allow our opponents to get around us and subvert us.  Our gains in one area will be rendered meaning by our losses in another.

How is that good strategy?

GO AWAY. YOU'RE STILL NOT FUNNY.