Fear the Mob

– An Explanation, Not a Defense

I want to share a story. It’s one I’ve shared with numerous students over my career. Whether it makes anyone think differently or not, whether it will even give pause, I don’t know. But maybe it will explain how easily and quickly people can get caught up in a mob, in a moment.

It was the summer of my junior year in high school. I was traveling with some of my classmates on a church!-sponsored youth experience, working with other students from multiple European countries to rehab a castle in Untergruppenbach  Germany. We were, if memory serves (and, sadly, it’s not as good a servant as it used to be), the largest single contingent in the “camp.”

Conditions were, at least from an affluent American kid’s perspective, Spartan, although hardly something out of Oliver!, had it been filmed yet. We slept on cots in a room repurposed as a dormitory. But it was the food that became the bone of contention. Breakfast consisted of a kind of mush or oatmeal, mint tea, and bread. Our morning break was dark bread and more mint tea. Lunch was a repeat of breakfast. Not typical fare for us.

Our alleged leader, a young minister, apparently either took this “abuse” personally or took advantage of our complaining to try weasel his way into our hearts. (I freely admit that this is not an unbiased assessment of him; I didn’t like him, didn’t respect him, although, in my defense, his actions, and not just the one related in this anecdote, on this trip were the primary causes of my negative opinion.) In any case, about 3-4 days (as I recall) into the trip, he stood up at lunch one day, banged his bowl, and said, “We’re not taking this any more. Let’s go!”

It was, at that moment, I officially lost my mind... ...to the mob. Most (at least) of us also stood up, bowls of mush in hand, and, following his lead, stormed out the room, looking for the owner of the castle. Not sure what we were going to do when we found him; there were no chickens about, so “mushing and feathering” would seem to have been out. It didn’t take much stomping randomly through the building for some of us to decide, “Uh, this is stupid and embarrassing;” the mob lost steam and dissipated. We went from sheep to sheepishly returning to finish our gruel. 

That should have been the end of it, but it wasn’t, not for me. In retrospect, it remains one of the most frightening events of my life. I don’t pretend to be particularly modest about my intellectual abilities. But, for those brief minutes, my mind was not mine; I was not in control. I was just another anonymous follower. It is a feeling, one that strikes fear into my heart to this day, that I never want to repeat.

Imagine, now, had the grievance been serious, legitimate (at least in our perception), of long-standing, simmering on low-heat over a period of years. Cooks know it doesn’t take much more heat to turn a simmer into a raging boil, bubbling over onto the stove. If there’s no one there to turn down the heat, but instead add fuel to the fire (e.g., media and agenda-driven “leaders”)....

Think it couldn’t happen to you? Armies have relied on this semi-controlled sublimation of individual will for centuries. It’s the only rational explanation of the irrational act of charging to a certain death. Sports mobs, in and out of stadiums, are another common example. Mass hysteria is well documented. We all like to think we’re exceptional, to believe that we wouldn’t act that way, but there’s too much scientific evidence to the contrary for that to be true. Something to think about before we rush to judgment of others or absolve demagogues of responsibility.

Note: This sat in draft form for over two years, dating back to Ferguson and other events. The more things change....

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Memes, almost by  definition, are simplistic and misleading.

In the wake of a restaurant’s request to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she leave, (false) comparative memes have popped up: the (CO) baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or the (WA) florist who refused another couple flowers; even more of a stretch, the refusal of restaurants to serve blacks prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Here’s the difference. Refusing to serve or do business with any individual is always that business owner’s right (it must be nice to be able to turn away business). But to do it based on the accident of a person’s birth, by virtue of race or sexual orientation, is discrimination by definition because it is not a decision about an individual, but a group, and not based on the actions (or even attitudes) of a particular person.

Ms. Sanders chooses to work for an administration that many people find abhorrent. This is her choice, as is the business owner’s (and its employees) to protest the policies of the Trump White House, a White House of which she is the face (at least as much as President Trump is willing to share the limelight for anything). That choice triggered the business owner’s choice.

Whether that turns out to be a sound economic decision or not remains to be seen. This particular protest, and others it may inspire, strike me as meaningless challenges that will accomplish nothing except to further fuel the outrage and divisions that are already growing the chasm between citizens. Unless the energy of outrage can be channeled into organized action, it is really little more than self-gratification. So feel free to vent your own outrage with prank calls, fake reviews, etc. if you have nothing better to do with your time. For me, I have now spent more time on this event than it probably deserves.

As counterproductive as the owner’s action may turn out to be, it does not compare to a civil rights violation, as were the segregation laws and policies and discrimination against gays. Business owners can refuse service to any individual for virtually any reason (including “You were mean to me in high school!”), but only as long as it is not based on that individual’s membership in a protected class of people. By the way, except for the District of Columbia, party affiliation is not protected.*

* I do not dispute for a minute that similar outrage (and quite possibly charges of racism) would have been generated in the opposite direction had a member of President Obama’s staff been treated in like manner. That, too, would have been counterproductive. Hypocrisy is a two-way street with both red and blue cars in more or less equal numbers. Secretary Sanders deserves credit for handling herself with grace and class under the circumstances. More than can be said about her boss's tweet rant reaction.

Collusion Confusion & The Partisan Divide

President Trump repeatedly tweets and claims that he is not guilty of collusion. It may come as a surprise that I absolutely concur, although it’s neither a compliment nor an endorsement; Donald J. Trump is not capable of collusion (as far as I know, it is not even one of the many words he has misspelled).

Collusion requires listening skills; collusion requires the ability to work with others; collusion requires discretion and self-discipline; collusion requires loyalty and commitment to a common goal; collusion requires consistency. None of those attributes are hallmarks of the current president. His minions, of course, are, perhaps, another story.

Beyond that, I don’t think the Russians really cared who won the 2016 election. (If you think HRC was in their pocket but Trump is independent, or vice versa, your “stink test” detector might need a new battery.) There were advantages and disadvantages for Vladimir Putin to both candidates. No, what Putin wanted was exactly what he got, a divided nation with citizens so busy fighting amongst ourselves that Russian objectives, prime among them restoring Russia to global player and superpower status, could be achieved with a minimum of American interference. Russian trolls continue working to perpetuate those divisions.

“We have met the enemy and he is us,” said Pogo, so far back in the day that few of you reading this even get the reference.

Getting it, however, is less important than its truth. Are you part of the problem that is our toxic, tribal political atmosphere? If you’re posting or even sharing partisan memes, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re railing and ranting against either liberals or conservatives, as if one group has a monopoly on truth or virtue, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re pointing fingers (not just the middle one) or shaking fists at one group or another, religious or political or racial, if you’re generalizing and stereotyping, my answer is, “Yes.” If you believe that your team is good or that the “other” team is evil, my answer is, “Yes.” Political beliefs do not qualify their adherents as either saintly or ungodly.

Rabid partisans, almost by definition, are not prone to self-examination. Asking yourself, “What if I’m wrong?” before jumping in or sharing vitriol at least has the potential of mitigating some of the anger so prevalent on social media, the anger that continues to drive that wedge between us even deeper into our national soul. Of course, that means we have to admit such a possibility. But I’m guessing if you won’t, or can’t, admit that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong (and that an opposing point of view might have value), you probably never started reading this in the first place.   

The Anger Games – Where The Odds Are NOT in Your Favor And No One Wins

I’m trying to take what I hope is an objective look at the 2016 election, free of recrimination or accusation. I am having trouble organizing my inchoate thoughts. I apologize if this seems disjointed. And too long. I’ve edited myself as best I could, without taking more time. I want to get this written and published and then take a break. It’s too depressing. And I’m not talking about the results of the election, but rather the stereotyping and bitterness that continues to spew from both sides. We all need to remember that half the country voted for the other candidate. But what I seem to be seeing on social media (which is why I plan to take a nice long break) is a new reality show, The Anger Games. “You think you’re pissed?! Well, see how pissed I am! Take that!” And back and forth it goes.

November 8 marked the first (and last) time I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it was more about voting against than voting for. Not that I believed most of the propaganda shoveled in her path; she was flawed, certainly, but I demand more evidence than hearsay and tenuous conspiracy theories before I buy into most of the accusations against her. Did she lose the election because she was a woman? Not really, although she was clearly held to a different standard than men and subjected to more intense scrutiny than male politicians. But anyone who voted against her because she was female wouldn’t have voted for a male with her belief system, either. (President Obama faced a similar challenge; the votes he lost because of race were not votes he could have ever won.)

Had HRC presented with the same characteristics as President-elect Trump, she would have had zero chance of even getting into a primary, much less out of one. I confess I still do not understand how his obvious flaws could be overlooked, not only overlooked but often celebrated. I hope his supporters don’t have to look back and consider the adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” I doubt that will happen, of course, and I’ll address that shortly.

But the primary cause of my reluctance, both this year and in 2008 is that she is, and has been for decades, a polarizing figure. Her mere presence in the political arena generates such antipathy in our country that I saw no way she could be an effective leader, no matter what other positive attributes, and in my opinion there were many, she might possess. However, the obvious polarization manifested since the election of Mr. Trump seems to point not to any particular candidate, but the widening division in our country. I fear that the number of people on either side who have closed their minds is growing and the rift between us is becoming a gaping chasm.

Still, Mr. Trump’s victory speech said the right things, calling for healing and unity. I hope (and will give him the benefit of the doubt) that those were more than just words, that he meant what he said. I further hope his more ardent supporters (again, half the country voted for the other candidate) also take those words to heart, although I haven’t seen too much of that yet on social media; granted, the occasionally unhinged comments of those who opposed him hardly constitute an olive branch either. Winners, however, real winners, are magnanimous in victory and don’t feel the need either gloat or to respond to every perceived slight. Responding with even more anger to the bitterness of the disappointed only drives the sharp wedge of division deeper into our collective soul.

We might want to remind ourselves (as I am not finished reminding you) that an essentially equal number of citizens voted for each candidate and that we need each other if we are to become “one nation, indivisible.” If Mr. Trump can lead us (supporters and opponents alike) in that direction, that would indeed be a step toward greatness and the most important accomplishment of his presidency. That will require, however, that all of us stop pointing fingers, laying blame, matching insult for insult (“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”), but instead go about the hard work of actually listening to each other, recognizing others’ points of view, practicing empathy (just because something is not your problem does not mean there is no problem), understanding that good people of good will can, and do, see the same picture differently because their life stories are different. Not better, not worse, just different. All those stories need to be valued.

I also call on President-elect Trump’s supporters stand up to the unsavory elements of his base. I know many, many good people who supported Mr. Trump. Undoubtedly, most of them were. Contrary to some extreme thinking, voting for Mr. Trump did not make someone racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. However, I’m pretty sure that every racist, sexist and xenophobe did, in fact, vote for him, which is their right, just as it is for unsavory characters on the left. But I would challenge his supporters to call out the racists, the sexists, the xenophobes when they rear their ugly, deplorable heads. And, by that, I mean truly stand up. Tsk, tsk, head-shaking or even, “Well, that’s not me,” and the like do not constitute a sufficient response to the ugly poison of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc. That is your responsibility to the rest of us. And our responsibility to the rest of you is to also point out the same, respectfully. Just because you do not recognize or believe something to be racist (and all the other -ists) does not mean you are correct.

I also hope that his supporters will objectively assess his presidency, statements and actions, and not go into auto-defense, bunker mentality, blindly defending his every move. He will be criticized by many, (over half the country did not vote for him) because listening to and accepting criticism is part of the job of being President of the United States. I don’t see this as a great strength of Mr. Trump, so it is up to his supporters to keep those lines of communication open and not reflexively strike back at the legitimate concerns of those who disagree. If you just sit in the echo chamber, defending every action because you somehow feel that you need to be “all in” (this expression is the only valuable thing to come out of televised poker, IMO) on your support, to the point that you cannot disagree or be critical, you do neither your country nor your president any favors. That, too, is your responsibility to the rest of us. On the other side, if, like me, you did not vote for Mr. Trump, our responsibility as citizens of the United States of America is to not reflexively oppose everything or everyone on his team.

By the same token, disappointed, or even angry, Clinton supporters must also recognize that good, decent people, millions and millions of them, voted for President-elect Trump, about the same number that voted for HRC. Although their votes may seem like a personal attack on your values (in much the same way that your vote for any other candidate might seem like a rejection of everything they hold dear), it was not. Their vote was not about you any more than your vote was about them. We all have our own perspectives, and until we start listening, truly listening to those perspectives, working to understand those perspectives, our divisions will not only remain open sores but will fester and the infection that plagues us and threatens our democratic republic will spread. It is all of our responsibility to treat those wounds, deep as they may be, gently, with respect, and work to heal them.

I do not minimize the difficulty of these responsibilities. I hope you do not minimize their importance. United we stand; divided, we will, inevitably, fall, and our once great nation will fail and truly no longer be great. And it won’t make a damn bit of difference which side is in power when that happens.

Lose-Lose

In just over two weeks we will cast our ballots for the next President of the United States (if you haven’t done so already). At least one national nightmare (Campaign 2016) will end, but at least 40% of the country will contend that a new one has begun. If that is, or will be your stance, I humbly beg you to please reconsider.
Back in the day….

I had an activity that I picked up doing my MAT at Webster (when it was still “just” a college) called Win as Much as You Can. Some of my formers may remember me running it in some class or another (or even staff at an in-service, because it didn’t matter how old you were, the point/lesson was still appropriate). The upshot was that no one “wins” if your victory must come at someone else’s expense, makes a “loser” out of someone else. In other words, if someone must lose in order for you to win, then the win is at least diminished, if not negated. Win as Much as You Can advocates Win-Win outcomes.

While this obviously doesn’t apply in the sports arena very well (although I might argue that respectful competition improves everyone’s game and that disrespecting and/or destroying the opposition makes you a loser, not a winner), it works as a model for most other aspects of life. You could even make a case for it in business. If you destroy all your competition you will not only run afoul of the government but consumers will resent you. Sooner or later someone will find a way to beat you at your own game; and destroying competition also damages innovation.

But this is about politics and the toxic competition that has become the norm in our country. Sadly, it is no longer enough to try to defeat the opposition with ideas, you must also make sure that even should they win, their status and reputation are so damaged or destroyed with a significant percentage of the population that they can get nothing done. The concept of loyal opposition seemingly, sadly, no longer exists. Instead we have the new normal: “If I can’t win, I’ll make sure you don’t either.” That attitude is not appropriate for the USA (United States of America), but the DSA (Disunited States of America, or perhaps Dismantled States of America), and assumes that our country isn’t one team. If that is our attitude, our once great nation may actually realize Donald Trump’s self-fulfilling prophecy and we truly will no longer be great. That results in ALL of us losing, because here is the problem with poisoning the well.

In political contests when even the winners lose, we ALL end up having to drink that water until the next election — after which the water is still poisoned. Thus, we all lose. Both sides justify this scorched earth policy by pointing fingers at the opposition; and both sides are equally correct, and equally guilty, IMO. “They started it” sounds more like elementary and middle school than adult behavior. It does not matter, in this respect, whether the next president is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; each will ascend (descend?) into office carrying the poison of this campaign, some of it self-inflicted, some of it injected by the opposition, but all of it with a radioactive half-life that ensures years of damage beyond his/her term(s) – to all of us.

What can we do about this? In some ways, as individuals, very little. But this I pledge (again!), as a citizen of the United States of America: My next president (or senator, or governor, or….)  gets the benefit of the doubt, my trust that (s)he is acting in what (s)he truly believes is the best interests of the country, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those actions, because (s)he won the election.* He (or she) gets to start with a clean slate. You cannot claim to love your country while simultaneously working to destroy it or undermine the successful candidate because the election didn’t go your way.

Rush Limbaugh’s attitude from Day 1 of the Obama presidency (“I want him to fail”) was un-American, unpatriotic, selfish and self-centered, bordering, in my opinion, on treason. Although that attitude is easy to rationalize, it is only that, rationalization; I rejected that approach then and ask you to do the same now, whether it’s for President Trump or President Clinton. That’s a little thing each of us can all do if we choose to. Because the next president won’t be yours or mine, the next president of our country will, in fact, be ours.

* I would suggest this a true pledge of allegiance and is far more significant than whether I stand for the national anthem or wear a flag lapel pin or manifest any other symbolic gesture.

Unfriended

I was recently “unfriended” by a former student, probably because I called her out on the use of what I consider to be an offensive, even hateful, divisive term, “libtard,” even though it was NOT personally directed at me. I wonder if she refers to mentally challenged people as “retards”? 

She was not the first to take this action (but please note, it was SHE who severed the relationship, such as it was, although I certainly implied an invitation for her to do so), perhaps won’t be the last. However, I have had numerous conversations with my right-tilting friends, and pride myself (and compliment them) on keeping the civil lines of communication open, making whatever points we want considered in a respectful manner. That is democratic thought and communication, a foundation of our country.

I’m not losing any sleep over this loss, but I have obviously given it some thought on my almost daily walks through the ‘hood. As a casual student of human nature, I now think about her and the decision she made with a combination of curiosity and sadness. My memory of this woman as a student is nothing but fond (and I knew her better than many, because she was a former softball player); I remember her with a perpetual smile on her face, friendly, kind, giggly, just a “nice kid” from a solid family.

Everyone’s life path is different and everyone faces different challenges and obstacles. But I wonder what happened to turn this seemingly cheerful optimist into such a (again, seemingly, judging solely on the torrent of FB posts and shares) bitter, angry person, almost filled with hate? It seems unlikely I will ever get an answer to this question (although I am still friends with her sister), but I hope she finds her own answers that will bring her peace. I doubt the outcome of this election or the political arena will do it for her, though.