The March of Dimes Syndrome
An essay from a conservative think tank arguing that advocacy groups perpetuate problems after they’re largely solved, dubbed “March of Dimes syndrome,” has drawn sharp scrutiny. Commenters contrast that thesis with ideas like the Shirky principle and Parkinson’s law, and counter that many causes cited — from racism and LGBTQ+ rights to #MeToo — remain far from “mission accomplished” and are actively facing backlash. Much of the debate centers on whether shifting focus or “moving the goalposts” reflects institutional self-preservation or a reasonable response to evolving norms and ongoing discrimination.
Concept and related theories
- Commenters link “March of Dimes syndrome” to existing ideas: Shirky Principle, Parkinson’s Law, “Iron Law of Institutions,” and “systemantics” (systems seek self‑preservation).
- Some argue the label is misapplied: the original charity pivoted to new health problems, which looks like normal mission adaptation, not pathology.
- Others distinguish two phenomena:
- Solving one category of problem then finding more of that type to work on.
- Refusing to admit success and continually tightening standards within the same issue area.
Activism and “moving goalposts”
- One side: activism often escalates demands to maintain relevance and funding, turning improvement into a reason to intensify rhetoric rather than wind down.
- Counterpoint: activists naturally move to the “next” problem or to defense of gains; that’s analogous to continuing product work after one feature ships.
- Some say this is an issue with all institutions and “career activists,” not just progressives; others emphasize it is more an “activist” dynamic than a left/right one.
Culture‑war examples and disputes
- Thread heavily debates LGBTQ rights, race, and #MeToo:
- Some accept the article’s framing that definitions of harm and discrimination have expanded (e.g., sexual misconduct, hate groups).
- Many argue the opposite: rights are fragile and currently regressing, so continued alarm is warranted.
- There is extended back‑and‑forth over:
- Whether refusing services for same‑sex weddings is discrimination against people vs. objection to an “event/message.”
- What counts as inappropriate sexual content in schools vs. exaggerated moral panic.
- Trans participation in sports as a complex, sport‑specific fairness issue.
Legal, moral, and practical tensions
- Disagreement over where to draw lines between:
- Religious or expressive freedom and civil‑rights protections in public accommodations.
- Legitimate concern vs. manufactured “outrage cycles” in conservative media.
- Some stress that even if discrimination persists covertly, overt discrimination should remain illegal.
Critique of the article and source
- Multiple commenters call the piece propaganda from a conservative think‑tank, with cherry‑picked culture‑war examples and strawman descriptions of progressive causes.
- Others see at least a partial truth in the institutional incentive critique, while rejecting the article’s selective and partisan framing.
- The origin and neutrality of the term “March of Dimes syndrome” itself is questioned; it may be very recent and ideologically loaded.