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.

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.

Holiday PSA: Politics and Family

It's not that simple....

    As the holidays come crashing down around us (Do yours sneak up on you? Wow, lucky you.), I am sharing once again this PSA on dealing with your relatives who are less enlightened or politically astute, and who have an apparently innate need to share their misguided opinions with you (with your best interests and edification in mind, of course).

The phrase that I plan to use and strongly recommend that you keep handy (aside from Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas or Happy Kwanzaa or Happy Hanukkah or whatever works in your family’s culture wars): “I don’t think it’s that simple.” Because, really, nothing is. You get to retain your claim to your beliefs without engaging in a no-win argument. “Agree to disagree” sounds dismissive, but most importantly, doesn’t work very well. At least it doesn’t in my family; that phrase tends only to inspire only additional louder voices and increasingly tedious arguments as the evening gets longer and the wine and beer supplies get shorter. Plus I can only go wash the dishes so many times before my absence becomes obvious.

My father used to tell me about a boss he had who was fond of saying, “When you find the answer it will be simple.” Because we seldom agreed on anything, I was always compelled to add, “… and wrong.” My father was a good man, and intelligent, but incapable of seeing any shades of grey. Like (apparently) many of his fellow citizens, he envisioned a world that conformed to his values and saw a straight path to that destination.

I don’t believe that even his world, back 75 or so years ago, was ever really that simple, but even had it been, I think most people would agree that it has become increasingly complicated and at an ever-accelerating rate. To ignore that fact makes you, well, President-elect Donald Trump. Simple solutions, as attractive as they might seem on the surface, ignore the Law of Unintended Consequences. (Of course, complicated solutions, with so many moving parts, generate their own, as well, perhaps on an even larger scale.)

Although I’m not going to convince my brothers any more than they’re going to convince me, “I don’t think it’s that simple” avoids the discussion becoming angry or personal, with the resultant (potential) hurt feelings. As I’ve noted before, talking about politics and religion is, almost by definition, personal because those topics deal with our most deeply held beliefs and world views.

I’ll let you know it works out. I’m hopeful, if not optimistic. But my solution, too, probably isn’t that simple.

Fakes & Phonies: Authentically Artificial or Artificially Authentic?

Every so often, but with some regularity, I read on Facebook derisive comments about some who, either through a fashion choice or appearance alteration somehow automatically now qualify as “fake,” or “phony,” or “artificially hip.” A recent such observation inspired me to dredge up the draft and edit the following previously written, but unpublished, piece.

Based on trips to both coasts over the last year it would be almost impossible not to notice that many people go to great trouble and expense to create or maintain an image. Before the movie came out, I re-read Girl on Fire (Hunger Games trilogy) where denizens of the capitol change their appearances to fit the dictates of mercurial fashion leaders. I have previously written about “acting one’s age.” Not all that long ago we were treated to numerous references to J.D. Salinger, the creator of Holden Caulfield and his rants on being “phony.”

We all (well, maybe not ALL – I still cringe remembering my father’s propensity for loudly opining, “Obesity is an epidemic in this country” every time a person of girth passed us in a restaurant – and since he seemingly always wanted to eat at IHOP or Cracker Barrel….) like to think we’re not judgmental. We like to think we’re tolerant. I would suggest that we can be both tolerant and judgmental. Nevertheless, this collision of random thoughts and events makes me wonder....

Like Holden's references, this piece is only about adults; teens, and even young adults, are still trying to figure out their true identities and entitled to try on as many as they need to be comfortable in their own skins. Actually, now that I consider it, aren’t we all? Isn’t our identity-search an ongoing process? How many of us are the same person now we were when we were younger? And if we are, is that a good thing?

Most of us, if we’re being truly honest with ourselves, do not have a great deal of respect for others whom we perceive as “fake” or “phony,” while we, of course, are completely authentic, true to ourselves and our nature. Very few of us would admit otherwise. We might rationalize that we occasionally have to put on a political front in certain situations, usually with family or co-workers, but our friends and loved ones know and can count on who the “real us” is.

But what exactly constitutes authenticity? Can you modify your looks and still be authentic? For example, does using make-up turn a woman (or man, I guess) into a fake, someone inauthentic? How about changing hairstyle or color? Adding or subtracting facial hair? Piercings, tattoos, or other body modifications? Cosmetic surgery? Wearing a certain style of clothing? I’d suggest those are superficial changes and are not, in and of themselves, enough to make someone “fake.”

Cannot appearance-altering, using cosmetic or chemical enhancements, be an attempt to become more authentic, to bring into line what we see in the mirror with the person we think we are, or want to be? Do those actions make us artificially authentic or authentically artificial? Cannot someone who aggressively disregards artifice in order to present a certain “natural” image be just as “fake” as one who pursues an “improved” (in their mind) image? What of those who use a shocking appearance as a political or personal statement? Are they, too, fake?

In the end, doesn’t it all come down to being true to ourselves, our motivation for the appearance we present? Is not how we act, how we treat people, more important than the appearance we present? At least, is that not what we claim to believe, ignoring the boatloads of evidence that attractiveness increases the odds of success in our society? How can we judge someone else based solely on his or her appearance, no matter how “fake,” inauthentic, unattractive, or downright bizarre it may appear to us? Can we really judge another’s attempts, no matter how misguided, to make him or herself attractive as “phony”? Is vain or superficial the same thing as fake?

I’m not saying I won’t look askance (discretely, I hope) at the next person I see who has created an incongruous image for him or herself or one that doesn’t conform to my definition of attractive, that my mind won’t scream, “What is (s)he thinking!?” But I do hope I can continue to be generous enough in thought to live and let live and not affix the “fake” label to them until I actually know them, and have it apply to something more significant than their appearance, like their actions.