Spirit of '76

There are some advantages to growing older (not the least of which is it beats the alternative), assuming you can remember them.

Remembering the past, for example. I’ve been involuntarily reminded recently (and frequently) of an attitude that prevailed for a while in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s as the nation was roiled by protests over the ill-fated Vietnam War and civil rights. Car bumper stickers sprouted like modern-day memes. “America, Love it or Leave it” is the one that comes to mind in light of modern day events. That ugly assumption, that if you have the temerity to criticize your country you must hate it, is making a resurgence. News commentators, social media posts and more are implying, if not outright yelling, that POV.

Why must everything be a zero-sum game, an all or nothing proposal, with both poles screeching at their opposites, and, worst of all, dismissing any valid points that get lost in the halitosis of the shouting? And what is MORE American, especially on the day celebrating our independence, than protesting? Tea Party anyone?

On this 4^thof July, before getting into snark, meme posting, or finger pointing, let’s apply the stink test to our thinking. Would I react the same way if the action or opinion came from my “team?” 

I saw a great t-shirt at the Pride Parade in St. Louis Sunday: “Be careful who you hate; it might be someone you love.” I think that applies on multiple levels.

No Fan of Big Buts

I’m not a fan of big buts, because “but” contradicts the initial premise. Have you ever heard, or perhaps even said:

• I’m not prejudiced but …

• I’m not a racist but …

• I’m not sexist but …

• I don’t want to hurt your feelings but …

• No offense but …

• I don’t have anything against gays but …

• I believe in freedom of religion but …

But… Wait for it …. You are now going to hear (or say) something prejudicial, racist, sexist, hurtful, offensive, homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc. So, in fact, whoever starts with that phrase is, in fact, what they just said they’re not.

The “Big But” is an easy trap to fall into, trying to deny reality when it’s inconvenient. We’ve all done it, although I hope not in exactly the ways described above. A disturbing number of people have used, and continue to use, the “easy way out” by sharing, liking, retweeting, etc. to express racist views. Most would, of course, deny being prejudiced; after all, they’re just nodding at or reposting something someone else said. 

Sorry, not sorry: if you endorse a position you are also, by extension, endorsing the person(s), for better or worse, who offered the opinion. You can’t take a single quote from Adolf Hitler (or Vladimir Putin) and pretend that nothing else he said or did matters.

Charlottesville is my Rubicon. I’ve tried hard, really hard, to give people the benefit of the doubt for the last year and a half. No more. Put me in coach, I’m ready to play. Appropriating an appropriate phrase, “Never again.” Because, when you say, “I’m not defending the Nazis but….” and it’s followed by deflecting to another group or minimizing criticism of those hateful people and groups, wait for it, YOU ARE DEFENDING NAZIS. No, there are no good Nazis, there are no good people who accept or associate with Nazis. Those who defend Nazis are Nazi collaborators and no better than Nazis themselves.

I’ll go even further. I will never again use the phrase “alt-right,” because it’s nothing more than a euphemism to sanitize evil. Instead I’m going for the more accurate phrase: “fucking Nazis.” Because that is what the alt-right is.

If you, in any way, defend the the bullies of the so-called alt-right, you dishonor my father who fought them in World War II and was wounded working to defeat that evil. You threaten people whom I hold dear and are part of my soul. You threaten society as we know it. If you defend, or rationalize, or mitigate evil, you, too, are evil and stained in the same way.

I will, tepidly, and fighting back nausea, defend your first amendment rights (as well as those who use those same rights trying to block or counter the hatred you spew – and should you show up in St. Louis, I will be there with them), but know this: you are a despicable human being and I won’t bat at an eye or lift a finger when karma pays you a biting visit. There is no big but. I’m done.

Stink Test II -- Walking Out, Closing Minds

As the outrage swirls on social media and elsewhere over the commencement walkout by Notre Dame students, I’m reminded of an incident with some paralells when I was at Hamilton College in 1967 (one that I’ve recounted before but as an example for a different topic). That anecdote might better apply to the Ann Coulter kerfuffle or others where students objected to the presence of a speaker whose views they find abhorrent. But I think the point is essentially the same.

I’m neither defending nor condemning their actions, their exercise of a civil liberty. Was their action disrespectful to the Vice-president? Perhaps, but do THEY feel disrepected by this administration? Probably. That they chose to reply in kind accomplished little, in my opinion, except to drive the dividing wedge between us painfully deeper, and for that reason I think I would have chosen to sit quietly but respectfully, and find a way to make my counter opinion known. But I don’t know for sure.

Before I get to that, however, I’d ask those who are somewhere on the spectrum between mildly upset to outraged to honestly apply the “stink test.” Had students walked out on President Obama, would you have had the same reaction, or might you have (at least silently) cheered, or at least defended, such an occurrence? Only you can answer that question and I don’t need to know it, no matter how you might rationalize it. Remember, the Notre Dame students can rationalize their actions, as well.

To the anecdote from my past:

“George Lincoln Rockwell, the (late, totally unlamented) American Nazi leader, ... claimed to not be a racist. He spoke at Hamilton College during my sophomore (and final) year there. His invitation, and presence, in 1967, was, to say the least, controversial. I’m not sure who thought having him give a speech was a good idea. There was some debate over boycotts, protests, etc. In the end, the semi-organized response was that we students would attend but sit quietly and then walk out at the end in silent protest.

I can’t tell you if that was really a brilliant idea or not. I like to think I’d do something, anything, different today. However, what happened made everything moot, because he revealed his true nature and sabotaged whatever goals he may have had without any help from us.

Rockwell was, like his idol, a pretty accomplished speaker. He had a rhythm and cadence that worked to dampen the resistance of his audience’s intellect. As I recall it, he was about a third of the way through his speech, trying to convince us that American Nazis were somehow different than the old-fashioned kind, and that they weren’t racist but just good Americans concerned about the deterioration of American life [please note this was almost 50 years ago and the theme still plays to certain audiences] the way the Founding Fathers had intended (conveniently forgetting how most of those same founders had been slave owners, of course). He was on a roll, gaining a modicum of momentum, when, as he talked about crime, he used the word “nigger.”

The change in atmosphere was palpable; I remember a collective gasp. He knew that whatever minor traction he had gained had immediately vanished. His car careening on the ice, he desperately tried to recover, to justify his use of, what even then, at least in educated circles, was an unacceptable racial slur. He failed miserably, in the same way so many others have failed. They fail because it’s not true; they are, in fact, bigots, who, while they may be able to single out, even perhaps admire an individual or group of individuals [who fit their world view], cannot, in general, see past the stereotypes that enslave their opinions.”

However, the same could be said about the reaction to Vice-president Pence. He is the former governor of the state which is the home to Notre Dame. He was a reasonable and appropriate choice as commencement speaker. By refusing to listen, those students failed to get past THEIR preconceived view of the man who might well become the next President of the United States (for better and worse, sooner or later). When we stop listening, or confine ourselves to the echo chamber of our own beliefs, we just perpetuate divisive stereotypes. That’s not good for any of us.