Beware of They!

Although I suppose it would be easier (read, simpler) in many ways, we do not live in a black and white world.

Them! They! Certainly not US!

Originally written 9/21/2017, updated & edited today.

Do you ever wonder who “they” are?

I was perusing FaceBook, something I admittedly probably spend too much time on, and I stumbled across a post about them, which was to say not the poster, wanting to do something that seemed snowflakey. Snowflakes and triggers come in both red and blue, incidentally. Then I ran across another post about how they were hateful.

And I began, as I often do, to wonder, “Who is this they?” If you consider yourself a conservative, “they” is probably liberals. If you consider yourself a liberal, “they” is probably conservatives. If you’re a (true) libertarian, you get to alternate “theys” between both the liberals AND conservatives! Lucky you!

But I would ask you, before sharing, reposting, tweeting or retweeting, that meme or article, to ask yourself who that they is to whom you’re referring.

Because the fact of the matter is, unless you’re talking about a very specific (and generally small) group of people, there really is no “they.” Of course there are Nazis; of course there are anarchists (who, almost by definition, are a less than cohesive group); of course there are Kluckers; of course there are, well, you get the picture. And yes, there are true-believer Republicans and Democrats, and while frequently those who have been elected by their party will follow the party-line, it is often as much out of a desire to stay in office than any real commitment to a particular bill or even philosophy. Even those who do claim a philosophical affiliation with one party or the other (or some other) will often be loyal only to a point. Only the wonks actually know or follow the platform of their party, and even then selectively. (Note that the GOP didn’t even bother with a platform in 2020.)

But all generalizations, like all stereotypes, will seldom be accurate when describing any individual.

I’ve been called a liberal, a socialist, even a communist (that was a long time ago). I’ve previously expressed my scorn for labels, because labels are too simplistic. I lean left, no doubt, so in the eyes of a staunch conservative (including my own family), that makes me a liberal. Even if true, guess what? We don’t have meetings to decide what we believe, because there is no consensus.

My brothers lean right. But they don’t, at least as far as I know, meet up for lunch to define the weekly positions for a true-believer conservative. Or at least they didn’t invite me when you could still do lunch. Nor do any other conservatives, or liberals. Those terms are only marginally useful because there is no organized group. But if you want to rile people up, get them excited about fake issues (like removing statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson), feel free to talk about how they are doing whatever.

The USA Needs You (And who is "You"?)

I had an exchange with one of my right-leaning (well, in his case, it’s clearly more proudly living than leaning) formers on Facebook.  He is a self-described Constitutionalist who could not abide Obama’s politics or Clinton’s character (I’m sure her political positions didn’t help, either). He was and is, a stand-up member of the brass division, although not the Trumpet section, even if he did vote for him, with at least some misgivings, it seemed.

Instead of adding on to our conversational thread after we had found some common ground, I thought I’d generalize the challenge I thought about leaving with him, in the hopes there are enough more like him to make a difference. Just call me Pollyanna. Here’s what I wanted to add:

We (the Clinton voters and/or liberals), but more importantly, the country, need you to stand up for us and challenge President Trump when he (as he will) tries to blatantly ignore the Constitution. We need you to challenge him when he makes up facts (like the recent Boeing kerfuffle) or reinforces his reputation as the “Fastest Tweet in the West.” We need you to ask thoughtful questions when he makes head-scratching appointments to his cabinet or other federal positions.

We can’t do it (try as we might, and some are trying mightily) because as soon as someone like me opines anything critical of the president-elect, the Trumpet section blares into a cacophonic crescendo of defensiveness. But Pollyanna here does have some (slim) hopes that the true-believing Trumpet section perhaps just might listen to someone who actually voted for the man.

Stand up and be counted. Please. Your country needs you. Patriotism is not just flag waving. It is looking past partisan politics to the long-term good, the morality if you will, of your country. I like to think I am a patriot. Are you?

Can the Center Hold?

Beliefs caveat:

       • Liberal ≠ Democrat

       • Conservative ≠ Republican

       • Both camps have members who are:

              ° mean-spirited

              ° racist, prejudiced, or bigoted

              ° self-centered or selfish

              ° just plain dumb        

                  ° all of the above and more

Each pole is flawed. Each side has its own conceit and each side spits out the opposing label like a foul epithet. Mean-spirited and unfair memes exacerbate the problem. Conservatives often seem likely to think that if something is not their problem, it’s not really a problem at all and, therefore, doesn’t need a solution, or at least not one that shouldn’t be supplied by the individuals for whom there actually IS a problem. Liberals, on the other (left?) hand, seem to tend to believe that EVERY problem everywhere is not only a crisis that must, MUST I tell you, be solved (with an overarching grand(iose?) program), and right this minute, no matter how long that problem has been in the making, failing to realize that problems of long standing are never solved quickly or simply.

Simplistic Metaphors: The conservative safety net is an old rope with a sign at the bottom: “Climb on up, you can do it. Others have,” followed by a pious sermon on self-reliance. The liberal safety net is a hydraulic memory foam mattress. “You know you have a problem, right? Good news, we have the solution! Let us make you comfy and fix everything for you. No, really, just relax, we’ve got this,” followed by a soothing talk about how nothing is your fault. 

Those selfish conservatives like to think everyone ought to be able to better themselves (many, it seems to me, operate under the illusion that they, and they alone, are responsible for their whatever status or success they have and see every playing field as level); if one can’t find a path to success, it’s their own fault or weakness. No better are the busy-body liberals, who seem to think no one can better themselves without the help of an extensive (usually expensive) program, implemented by an overburdened, and some would argue (with at least occasional legitimacy) overreaching, and, too often, incompetent, government.

All of the above are exaggerations, of course, pushing stereotypical perceptions to the extreme, although I have, in fact, actually seen essentially those descriptions as the “other side” is being vilified or decried, all too common in our world today. And what I am seeing even more often today is a seemingly ingrained belief that those who do not think like we do are evil or stupid, not even entitled to basic respect. Contrary beliefs, legitimate criticism of ideas or philosophy, are not only rejected out of hand, but vilified as, at best, the ravings of a lunatic fringe not worthy of even cursory consideration.

It is an ongoing and familiar theme of mine, but we live in a complex society that continues to evolve in increasingly complex ways. Nothing is that simple, neither the problems nor the solutions. If a solution can fit on a bumper sticker or be reduced to a slogan or 30-second commercial, it’s a fraud, and a simplistic fraud at that. Back when I used to teach American politics, one of the things I tried to emphasize was that the solution to every problem creates a new problem or even set of problems that then seem to require new solutions, in a never-ending cycle. However, I stressed, that does NOT mean that we, as a society, should just ignore problems and hope they’ll go away. They will not. Like sores, they will fester and eventually demand immediate attention. Is it not better to anticipate problems and be proactive than to be forced into a panicked reaction?

As polarization expands and strengthens its depressingly vise-like grip on our society and culture, I perceive a serious danger and threat to our future. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are trying to exploit that polarization for their own benefit and power. Instead of encouraging respect for those with a different perspective and a different life journey, they instead discount and demonize. However, even as a left-leaner, while I personally do not think we need a new government agency (Committee to Reduce American Polarization?) to deal with it, neither do I think we can just pretend this increasing polarization is not really a problem.

Here’s a truly radical notion; we could communicate with each other, respecting and giving each other credit for being people of good will, to find a solution that can, if not fully solve the problem, at least ameliorate it and allow us to find other areas where we can continue to work together (which involves that dirty word, “compromise,” of course) for the good of all. There is room in the middle of the poles, but we must be willing to take the first step in that direction and not wait for the other side to go first. Let it start with me – and you.  Kumbaya!

Losing Friends While Influencing No One

So the field is set for the 2016 presidential election. The choirs and true believers in the full pews have all been preached to. The major parties have their candidates, the Libertarians threaten to become relevant, and even the Green Party may have the most influence since Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

I do not care for whom you vote in November. That, of course, is not exactly true. I would obviously prefer that you vote for the same people as me, but I don’t expect that. Some of you will vote for Mr. Trump. The fact that I think he is dangerous and would put our country and economy at risk does NOT mean that I am right and you are stupid. People have their reasons for their candidate choices. I respect that their point of view is different from mine, that their situation is different from mine, that their history is different than mine. In short, I respect them as people.

I also respect everyone’s right to advocate for (or against) any candidate. I think that trying to influence the votes of others via Facebook memes, shares, reposts, retweets, etc. is fruitless, but hey, it’s your time and your life.

However, while I am not trying to accumulate or even maintain a particular number of Facebook friends, I am going to do my bit for civility. If the strategy I describe below culls the herd, so be it. There are even some I will be sad to lose, because I have warm feelings for them.

Nevertheless, if you post something that says, or even implies, that I am stupid or immoral or whatever, simply because I think differently than you, I am going to call you out. I will neither tolerate nor ignore that kind of disrespect and don’t need to have any connection with you. I will give you a (one) chance to retract or rethink, not your beliefs, but your approach. Because, again, I don’t care about your politics, but I do care about how you treat me (and others). 

I am not going to stalk those woodpecker strategy posters, who seem to believe that somehow their 45^th post of the day (hour?) will be the one that changes a mind. Nor am I looking for things that offend; quite frankly, that’s too easy a task, even for me at this stage of life. If a person wants to be offended, there’s plenty of, uh, stuff out there to accomplish that task. But if I see your post and it IS offensive, using the aforementioned criteria, I will no longer disregard it and hum the Frozen theme song, because then, in my mind, I am part of the problem of the growing incivility in politics and public discourse.

So, fair warning. If you get from me some variation of the following message: “Did you really intend to call me _____________ (stupid, immoral, evil, a libtard, unpatriotic, un-American, some other insult to be named later)? Because if you did, I don’t see how we can even be Facebook friends, and believe me, that’s a pretty low bar. I will take no response from you as an affirmative, that, ‘Yes, I really do think you are ________________,’ and act accordingly. I will also make my last post on your wall a notification of my action.” If you choose a proactive approach, that is up to you, but I would appreciate you telling me that you are choosing to “unfriend” me, so that I know why.