Shrove Tuesday and Politics

Today is Shrove Tuesday, Fat Tuesday, Pancake day, Paczki day, Mardi Gras.  This carnival day is not just a day to over indulge and be crazy and then forget.  It is the last day before Ash Wednesday, which, in the Christian calendar, marks the beginning of Lent, the penitential season.  Recalling the 40 days that Christ spent in the wilderness, Lent is a time when Christians traditionally undergo deep reflection and self-examination as they seek a closer relationship with God.  The gorging and partying of this day precedes the fasting, self-denial, and quietness of Lent.  This time of reflection and suffering ends with the joy of Easter.

What does this have to do with politics?  As far as the religious practices, nothing.  But there is a point to be made.  Actually, more than one.

First, the Carnival celebrations have a tradition behind them.  In a society that is becoming less and less religious, the underlying meaning becomes forgotten and this day (or now in many areas a week or more) becomes just a time for excess and indulgence.  It does not come with the 40 days of repentance and reflection.  That, I think, is a loss, regardless of whether one is religious or not.  There is something to be said for reflection about one’s self and one’s actions. 

Secondly, religious calendars are cyclical.  In many cases they compare to the cyclical nature of pre-religious celebrations related to the seasons, the harvest, etc.  These cyclical calendars remind us of our ties to something greater than ourselves.  The winter will come, but after it will come spring and then the harvest.  We may feel lost in life, but God is there, Jesus will be born and will rise.  These cyclical reminders give us hope, even in our darkest hours. 

Thirdly, religions give their practitioners a common language, a common set of traditions and values.  This helps the individuals to see others, even those with different political views, as a part of their “family.”  It helps to eliminate the hatred that many feel for people “different” from them, because they realize that in the end they share the important things in life – that they are indeed family.

These things are necessary not just to religious bodies.  These are some of the qualities that are necessary for a good society generally.  These important aspects of life need not necessarily be filled by a particular religion, or by any religion at all, but they do need to be filled by something.  Without self-reflection, without a belief in something greater than oneself, without a common language and an understanding that beyond differences in appearance or politics we all together make up humanity and that each deserves each other’s respect, without these things we cannot have a healthy or peaceful society.

Today, in many ways, our society seems to be one lacking in hope, lacking in self-reflection, and lacking in a belief in something greater than the everyday.  Many seem to be unable to get beyond the hatred of an opposing position in order to understand the humanity of the one holding that position.  Religious beliefs have always filled the hearts and souls of many, but religious practice and understanding is diminishing.  Without it, many seem to be lost or searching.  The voids they feel need not be filled by a particular religion, but they do need to be filled by something.   Without the hope of something greater, many are left in the hopelessness of a failing society, in despair, in a lack of respect for any human life, including their own.  Some look to material possessions or self-indulgence to perhaps fill their yearning, yet they remain empty.  Some look to the state to be their savior, and perhaps that causes them to be so unyielding in their positions of what is the role and duty of the state.  Some try out a series of quasi-religious practices or simply read and quote a series of feel good sayings and memes, but still don’t find the deep meaning that they seek.  Many believe they must move forward into the future and that means rejecting the many religions and traditions of the past.

In giving up traditions, many of which are indeed based in a religion, we are giving up more than just an old way of doing things.  We are giving up something than feeds our souls and our humanity and helps to keep the society in which we live both civil and productive.  Yes, we need to keep church and state separate, but we also need to keep what each gives us that is good.  So, that is what Shrove Tuesday has to do with politics.  

Rolling Back Federal Overreach

Rolling back the overreach of the federal government and returning some rules or protections to the governance of the states is not a roll back or denial of those protections, but simply a resettlement of them in their proper place.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, clarify many important powers, including such things and freedom of the press, religion, and speech.  Amendment 10 states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

So, when we see headlines such as “Congress allows killing of bear cubs,” or “Trump eliminates protections for transgender students,” we need to realize that while technically correct, they do not reflect the reality of the situation.  These do not reflect a sentiment on the part of the President or Congress in favor of killing bear cubs or more broadly being anti-environment, nor do they reflect a sentiment of hatefulness toward transgenders or other LGBT people. What they do reflect is a belief in smaller federal government and return of power that has been usurped from them to the states.  The states are free to create regulations or legislation that are as strong as, if not stronger than, the federal rules that are being reversed.  

Let us not forget that the media needs to grab our attention and that currently much of the media wants not only to grab our attention but to also turn that attention against Trump and his administration.  What better way to incite our hatred than to show us a picture of an adorable bear cub and then to tell us that Trump wants it killed.  This does not reflect the reality of the situation.  There are laws on the books in Alaska, which some argue favor hunting rather than necessary species protection.  I personally would fall on the side of species protection (it sickens me to envision bear cubs shot in their dens), but the way to protect them is not by federal overreach, but by taking action within the state to alter or amend the state laws.  Similarly, the transgender bathroom rule reflects not a hatred of the cause, but only of federal overreach.  Obama’s rule of one size fits all did not consider for example school districts that choose to provide unisex bathrooms as a way of accommodating transgender students.  The question of how best to accommodate the needs of students in a particular school system is one for local not federal control.  Some states already provide greater protection than did Obama’s order, others provide alternate but equally adequate protection.  In some schools the needed protection may be lacking and if so, it is up to the people there to demand that their state or their school system implement the appropriate regulations and protections. 

We have a constitution, and, in addition to setting up three branches of federal government, it also provides for both federal and state governance. Federal overreach seems to have grown enormously in the past few years.  That so many are upset with the corrections to this overreach, not understanding or acknowledging that states have the ability, right, and duty to enact the rules whose federal roll-back they are bemoaning, reflects the real threat to the well-being of our democracy.  The larger the federal government becomes, the more that it takes local decision-making from the people, the smaller that voice of the people becomes and the more that one’s individual freedoms will be replaced by one-size fits all mandates from the federal government.  And, carried to its logical extreme, it becomes the governance model of a dictatorship.  So, if you do not like the result of the ending of various federal overreaching rules, do not direct your anger at the person or administration who is stopping such overreach.  Instead, direct your voices to your state and local governments, and demand that they assume the responsibilities that have recently been usurped by the federal government.

Oh, and read the Constitution.

A Note About Memes, Platitudes, and Superficial Sentiment

Yard signs are cropping up in neighborhoods around the country.

They look something like the following, though the sentiments may be in a different order depending on where one lives and who produced the sign.

In this house we believe…             No human is illegal Love is Love             Science is real Women’s rights are Human rights             Black lives matter Water is Life             And kindness is everything.

Now, I’m sure that those who have placed the signs in their yards have only the best of intentions, but, I really don’t think they have thought much about what the sign says.  And, it is that lack of thought, and the reliance on platitudes to make some sort of point, that I find most offensive.

So here are a few comments to those who have placed these signs in their yards.

“No human is illegal.”  I’m not sure I understand exactly what that statement means – do you?  But, if it means something like all humans are basically good, then I think I agree.  But, humans do commit illegal acts.  There are laws and if we do not obey them, then we have anarchy.  If we do not like them, in a democracy there are legal means for changing them.  If, in your house there are no illegal humans, then are you saying that it is OK with you that we have rapists and murderers on the streets, maybe even in your home?  And, OK, I really get that you are talking about illegal aliens.  The humans themselves are not illegal, but as illegal aliens they have committed illegal acts, and, like a murderer or rapist they must be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law, including deportation.

Love is love.  And an apple is an apple.  But there are good apples and there are rotten apples.  And, similarly, there is love whose expression is good, and love whose expression is not.  Love is a word that has many different definitions and connotations.  Which do you mean here?

Science is real.  Yes.  In many ways scientific principles govern our lives.  But sometimes scientific claims are made that are not fully supported by scientific evidence; those claims need to be questioned and the proponent pushed to find and produce more substantial support before asserting that the claim is real.

When you say that “women’s rights are human rights,” to what rights do you refer as being “women’s rights”?  Women are a subset of humanity, so I guess if there are human rights then of course they encompass women.  But precisely how and what are you defining as human or women’s rights?  There are many definitions of and sources for these rights and they vary from culture to culture and religion to religion.  For all I know you are referring to the rights of men in some countries to beat their wives as a human right, since it is considered as such in that country and that, under your statement, is then also a women’s right (to be beaten).

Black lives matter.  Yes, and so do brown lives and red lives and white lives.  I believe that the lives of all humanity (and other animals too) matter.  To pick only one group to assert that their lives matter is one of the worst forms of identity politics and segregates that group of people from the rest of humanity.  And, what do you mean by matter?  Does that mattering come with some sort of special rights?  Do you not believe in equal rights for all?

Water is life.  Yes, we need water to live.  What is your point?

“And kindness is everything.”  Really?   And how do you define kindness?  If a mother yells at her child she is not being kind in the moment, yet she may have just prevented her child from running into traffic and being hit by a car.

My problem with your sign, as with any meme of this type, is its superficiality and its demonstration of a lack of deep thought.  It may envision a Utopian world inhabited by perfect individuals, but that is not this world and humanity does not consist of those individuals.  So, assume the best about your fellow humans, but understand that they will at times disappoint you.  Demand that we have fair laws and that when they are broken that those who have committed the illegal act face fair consequences for their illegal acts.  Demand facts and evidence for not just scientific propositions but for all assertions – that is, do not just accept what you are told at face value or because it sounds good, or because you like the source of the comment.  Look beyond the short term.  Think critically and try to see the big picture and the long-term consequences of everything that you do and that you advocate.  Thinking and understanding is far more likely to create the better world that you seek than even the best sign full of platitudes. 

About the Press

Yes, we need a free press. 

And an unbiased press without an agenda of its own.

And an educated electorate who is media literate and does not consume the press blindly.

We have a free press.

But that press seems to have an agenda that goes beyond a fair and full reporting of the news. 

And I am not sure about the electorate’s media literacy or whether it simply accepts without question what its chosen media provider presents.

So, no, a free press is not the enemy of the people; it is a necessary element of democracy.  But, a press which believes it has a purpose beyond full and fair reporting, that believes it has a duty to further its own agenda which may be biased for or against a particular person or policy about which it is reporting, is not a friend to democracy.  Rather, it approaches a form of propaganda which is indeed an enemy of democracy, especially when the public lacks in media literacy.

I have already addressed the duty of the public to demand a fair and unbiased press (see my post dated Feb. 13, 2107, The Audience’s Responsibility to Demand Unbiased Reporting  http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/02/the-audiences-responsibility-to-demand.html ).    The press also has a duty: to fairly report the actions and inactions of the government so that the public can be fully informed.  With that information, it is the public’s duty, using the many means available within our democracy, to effect changes in the government that it deems necessary.  It is not the responsibility of the press to effect those changes. 

The press is often referred to as the fourth estate, meaning that it is an important power or influence in our society that is not officially recognized.  That power (like any power) can be used for good or evil.  It is good when it furthers the provision to the people of important and relevant facts.   It is not so good when it is used for propaganda that spreads biased information in order to promote a particular policy or political position.   Propaganda is used in many dictatorships and when the press is the instrument of that propaganda, it is indeed the enemy of a free society and hence, the enemy of the people.

So, the real question in the current fight between the president and the press is: what press are we talking about?  One that fairly and fully reports to the people or one that serves as a propaganda provider?  Can we fit the many media sources all into one category or another?  No, I don’t think so.  Some are admirably following the good goals of the fourth estate, some are doing so some of the time or partially, and some are rarely, if ever, serving the laudable goals of a free press in a democracy.  But, I think that if one objectively looks at the media in this country today, one must admit that many in the media believe it is perfectly OK, if not their duty, to serve as a purveyor of propaganda for one view or another.  This is not the free press that is essential to a democracy and it is not the sort of power that we should allow to the fourth estate. 

Media is a big business and often a way to succeed in that business is to fall outside of the definitions and ethics of a free and fair press.  The public can rectify this by refusing to purchase or consume media that is not truly serving the goals of a free press in a democracy.  As a business, the media will respond to the demands of its consumers.  So let us all demand only the highest standards of truth, fairness, full, and fair reporting from all our media sources that make up our fourth estate.

Why the Thimble?

Today, some thoughts not on politics, but about an iconic game.

The people have voted and the thimble is being retired from Monopoly.  I find this sad for a few reasons, some sentimental, some because of what the tossing of the thimble may say about society today.

Sentimentally, the thimble has been a part of monopoly since the 1930s.  It is reminiscent of its time, as are thimbles generally.  Those of us of a certain age can remember our mother’s (or grandmother’s) sewing box or her button box.  We can remember when she made at least some of our clothes and our costumes for school plays and dance recitals.  Sewing used to be a part of many people’s lives – that was when we made things – when we didn’t just expect someone to do it for us.  And, in the context of garments, people used to sew because it was a way to save money.  But now, when we can buy clothing much cheaper made by sweatshops overseas, there is not really a practical reason to sew.  So now, sewing is no longer a life skill, but a craft activity for some who are bored because they have nothing to do.  (I realize that there are still those who do indeed practice the life skill of sewing – they hem a skirt or sew on a button, or even make a child’s or their own apparel; but, these people seem to be far fewer than in the past when nearly every house held a sewing machine, a button box, a needle, a spool of thread, and, yes, a thimble).

So, what does that say about us.  Is it that we no longer value this skill?  Or are we content to have lost it?  Are we content to let others do the work that we once did?  The work that was once perhaps a chore has become a craft for the idle.  Is this the same – is the skill the same?  Is the satisfaction that one gets from completing a fun, but unnecessary project the same as that which one gets from completing a project that is a true necessity in one’s life?

Hasbro, the maker of Monopoly, says the thimble is no longer culturally relevant.  Perhaps not.  In addition to it no longer being a part of a basic life skill, it is no longer a common employment for many – the tailors and seamstresses of yesteryear.  But let’s note that the other playing pieces, the ones that were not voted out – a hat, a cat, a dog, a car, a ship – do not involve work.  The only remaining piece that involves direct labor is the wheelbarrow.  (This is not to say that a car or shoe, for example, do not require labor for their production, but, unlike the thimble, they do not represent the labor itself).  Today, for many, making something from beginning to end, creating a product ourselves, is not a part of our life.  Even in a garment factory, the seamstress will generally repeatedly sew one part of a garment as part of a sort of assembly line version of sewing; the seamstress may have the satisfaction of creating a fine seam, but will miss the fulfillment of having created an entire garment, seeing it move from raw fabric to something that one takes pride in wearing.  And, along with the loss of creating an entire product comes the loss of understanding of what that product involves in terms of work and raw materials as well as a respect for and understanding of those who do that or similar work.  That is, working gives both satisfaction to the worker as well as a respect for others who work.  So perhaps the real significance here is that we are becoming a culture of consumers rather than makers, expecting others to provide for us, to do the work that we once did with a personal pride.  And, the real question is, what sort of a culture is one in which we consume rather than make, in which we are takers rather than makers?

(Unwitting) Tools

Note to the anti-Trump extremists and their supporters: 

            Do you understand that you are participating in a soft coup, an attempt to undermine not just President Trump and his administration, but our entire system of government?

            Do you understand that your efforts to bring down the president are misguided, that the ends do not justify the means?

            I fear that many of you do not really understand this, that you do not understand what you are doing or the long-term consequences of your actions.  But, then, why should that surprise me when most people today cannot see beyond their own noses and are nearly fully focused only on immediate gratification.

            So, the goal is to bring Trump down, to get him out of the white house.  Why?  Have you been persuaded by the extremist propaganda that paints him as another Hitler or worse?   Have you bought into one or more lines of the left and progressive hysteria about a particular issue that is important to you?  I am not saying that the Trump administration will not view and approach things differently than did prior administrations.  Yes, the Trump administration believes in smaller government and more power to the states.   Certainly, it is possible that things will change – that is what happens when we have a new administration – but not to the extent that the over-the-top hysteria would have you believe.

            Have you actually listened to what those with differing political views, those now duly elected to public office, have to say?  No, of course you haven’t – you are too busy shouting them down, screaming over their attempts to answer your questions at town halls, refusing to listen to any views that do not parrot your own or those of the ideologues whom you worship.  Those ideologues encourage you to scream down any differing views, because listening to other views threatens their power, and their hold over you.

            Do you really believe that in order to reach your (or your ideologue’s) goal of ridding the country of President Trump, that it is OK to subvert the very government that you think you are trying to protect?  Is it really OK with you that government employees, tasked with protecting the national security of our country, leak secure and confidential documents to members of the press friendly to their (and your ideologue’s) cause?  Is it really OK with you that firings and other actions occur within the government based on the press’s reports of leaked information that may or may not have been verified or fully presented?  Are you really willing to participate in the destruction of our government and our democratic system just to remove one man whom an orchestrated propaganda campaign has taught you to hate?

            If you truly believe that these ends justify the means, then I think that you do not understand how our democracy works.  The way we change power and policy within our government and its institutions is not by political assassination but by election.  Those whom you are serving are in the process of creating a system in which there is only one voice, the loudest or strongest voice, the voice that is willing, by any means available, to silence all opposition.  Such a system is called a dictatorship.  And, those who participate in creating such a system should remember that in the future they too could be among those chosen to be silenced.

            So, please, wake up, think beyond the propaganda, understand how our system works.  If you support the system, rather than the subversion of it, in the end your voice will truly be heard and we will continue to have a country in which diverse views are welcomed, not silenced.  To support the system does not mean that you have to accept all it does or that you have to like everyone who has been elected or appointed to a position of power.  There are ways to speak out about what you do not like other than by subverting the very system that you (and your ideologues) claim to be protecting.

            Please, take a day to step back and move beyond blind acceptance of propaganda put forth by ideologues who care not about our government or our country or its people, but rather only about their own power.  Take time to learn the actual facts, not just taking the ideologues' propaganda at face value. Spend some time thinking for yourself.  Take time and consider whether you really want to serve the purposes of ideologues in order to gain some immediate gratification for yourself.  Or, are you willing to take the slower, harder road of supporting and working within our system to effect the changes that you believe would lead to a better America?

The Audience's Responsibility to Demand Unbiased Reporting

I think that by now everyone is aware that the media is biased.  Fact checks are also biased.  People are biased.  So, what can we do?

First, both audience and the news media must clearly distinguish between reporting and opinion writing.  Opinion pieces and editorials by their very nature include the author’s characterizations about facts as well as the author’s judgments and positions on those facts and the issues to which they are connected.  But editorializing should not be part of reporting the factual news. 

Thomas Jefferson stated, "If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."  We know that the news media is biased, but that does not leave us, the audience, off the hook.  We must try hard not to fall into the trap of complacency and acceptance of biased news.  This means that we need to be vigilant about the subtle editorializing that goes on in the media:  the tone of voice of a reporter when he or she talks to or about a democrat or republican; the use of adjectives that present a partisan view of the news being written or read.  We need to read or listen to media that has a political view that is different from our own, for in listening to biased reporting from several viewpoints we will likely be able to come to a better understanding of what facts are simply facts and what facts have been presented or omitted or characterized in a way that supports the reporter’s bias. 

We must realize that when the news media editorializes about the facts it is reporting it becomes less effective both in reporting the news and in making its editorial point.  The more obvious is the bias of the news reporter (and it is pretty obvious these days), the less credibility the reporter has.  That is, if the reporter’s position on an issue is clear to the audience, then the audience must wonder whether the reporter is fairly or fully presenting any of the facts rather than simply presenting those that support the reporter’s point of view.  The audience should have far less trust for the reporter.  This is true, even if the reporter’s view matches that of the audience, because, being aware of the bias the audience must understand that the reporter’s view will color all the presentations – those with which the audience agrees and those with which it does not.  We should not want such a reporter when we are seeking factual news and not opinion or feel good confirmation of our own opinions.  The audience can trust its own opinions more fully knowing that they are based on a full presentation of all the facts.

We must also see that reporters who feel the need to present their judgments about facts are in a way belittling their audience.  They are assuming that the audience cannot process the information, understand the significance of the facts, and arrive at its own conclusions about those facts.  Perhaps the audience will reach the same conclusion or point of view as has the reporter, but if the audience reaches that result on its own, its conviction of the correctness of the position will likely be much stronger:  the audience members will have their own decision which they have arrived at through their own analysis of the facts and they own that decision rather than it simply being someone else’s view point.

But, in order for people to arrive at their own conclusions about the facts, they must be given the facts objectively, fully, and fairly.  For example, instead of reporting on the president's “tumultuous week” or his “chaotic week” the press could and should drop these or any editorializing adjectives and simply tell us “here is what the president did this week,” leaving it to the audience to make its own judgment about the significance of those activities.  The adjectives reflect the reporter's view and subtly present that view to the audience as if it were fact.  If given just the facts, perhaps the audience would also conclude they could be characterized as "tumultuous" or "chaotic," but perhaps the audience would simply see those facts as "busy" or "hectic" or "purposeful" or maybe "insane."  The key is that the news should simply give the audience the facts, allowing the audience to arrive at its own judgments and conclusions about those facts. 

Biased presentation of news is wrong and it hampers the right of the people to be well informed.  Jefferson correctly told us that a well-informed electorate is essential to democracy.  But if we are content with the biased or incomplete news reporting that currently exists, then it is likely to continue and we will remain uninformed.  I hope and pray that everyone will begin to vigorously use their minds instead of just hearing and accepting the propaganda of their chosen ideologue.  To do so is essential for the well-being of our democracy.

On the three branches of government

"This is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.” 
 ~Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Law School

“I’m not sure [the government’s position] would have been so easily rejected had it been advanced on behalf of a different president.  Courts tend to defer to the executive on national security issues.  But, it’s tough to convince a court to [trust] the president’s judgment when that judgment is fundamentally suspect.  In short, this might have worked if the president were not a tantrumming preschooler”

 ~Comment seen on Facebook

In this country we have 3 branches of government, each with a distinct role.  While they of course interact and become intertwined, the primary roles are as follows:  The legislative branch makes the laws; the executive branch enforces the laws; the judicial branch interprets the laws.   Sadly, just as some have looked to the executive branch to selectively enforce laws based on individual views of what those laws should be, now many seem to be looking to the courts to make our laws and our policy rather than to simply interpret them.  As reflected by the above Facebook comment along with the astonishing jubilation over the Ninth Circuit’s opinion yesterday, many seem to be perfectly fine with courts allowing personal judgments and feelings to color their decisions.  This is not OK.

Our system of government works in large part because we have 3 branches of government each with its own functions.  These create the checks and balances that we used to learn about when civics and government were a required part of every child’s education.  Those checks and balances are important.  We elect our lawmakers believing that they will enact laws that will reflect the will of the people who elected them.  Those laws will be driven by underlying policies.  We elect the president whom we believe will staff the executive branch with people who will enforce the laws that are enacted.  Of course the president will have some effect on what those laws are, in part through his interactions with the legislative branch, in part by his exercise of veto powers, etc.   But, once we have the laws, we have a right to have the executive branch enforce those laws in an unbiased and unselective fashion.  That is, we do not expect the executive branch to enforce only those laws it likes or ignore those which it does not.  We look to the courts to first and foremost determine if the laws that have been enacted are constitutional and legal.  The courts will interpret the laws for us so that we fully understand their meaning.  But it is not the job of the courts to make the laws.  Interpretation means explanation or clarification; it does not mean creation, reinvention, disregarding or overlooking. 

When one branch of government tries to work outside of its designated role, when it tries to take on the role of one of the other branches then we are all in trouble.  We may be delighted momentarily or we may be unhappy, taking our dislike out on the current actors; but, regardless of one's position, the damage goes far beyond the moment.  We must look beyond the current individuals that make up the institutions of our government.  Delight that one branch of government acts outside of or in a way not consistent with its role is essentially delight that our system is not working.  Without the three branches and the checks and balances that their designated roles provide, we are without the freedoms and protections that we enjoy and for which the United States of America stands.  There is probably something wrong if we are always delighted by our government, just as there is probably something wrong if we are always displeased.  Our government works because no one individual nor one institution nor one branch has all the power.  Our system forces compromise and understanding.  When we try to conflate or are simply delighted with the conflation of the three branches into one or the confusion of their separate roles, we lose those checks and balances that were so dear to our founders and which are the skeleton that supports our way of life.

So, when a branch of government takes on an inappropriate role, (whether it is the legislative branch not serving the people by whom it was elected, or the executive branch not enforcing laws it dislikes or enforcing them selectively, or the courts replacing personal feelings and legislative urges for their role as interpreters) rather than cheer, be alarmed.  Do not stand for it.  Speak out and demand that our government function as designed, regardless of whether the current action is or is not to your liking.

Form and Substance

Form and Substance.  Can you separate the two?  Maybe not completely, but it seems that at the moment we cannot separate them at all.  And, that inability to separate may be behind much of the hard-line positions of hate that are dividing the country.

People seem to be unable to look past the form; many do not take the time to understand the substance that is being presented in one form or another.  If they like the form, they assume the substance is good, and vice versa.  And yet, form is not substance and it is important that we not confuse or conflate the two. 

  

For example, President Obama was eloquent.  His words told us that everything he was doing was good, fair, and for the good of the whole world.  Barack Obama, the man, was well liked.  So, when he deported people or did not let people into the country, many looked the other way, not because they necessarily chose to do so, but because they simply did not look past the form to the substance.  President Trump is not an eloquent man and he tells us that he is going to shake things up.  Donald Trump the man is not liked by many.   So, when he chooses to impose a temporary pause in admission of people to this country, again, looking only at the form, many people assume it is wrong, not necessarily because they disagree with the substance, but, again, because they cannot look past the form.

If we set up our leaders based on form, then we are going to see them as either good form or bad form and, when you have such a binary choice then it is easy to choose one and reject the other.  It is easy also to reject everyone who aligns with the rejected form.  And, if you judge the substance based solely on the form, if you think it is the form, then you are simply going to also accept one and reject the other.  But, substance cannot be so easily divided (one can argue that neither can form, if one takes the time to get past the bigger than life caricatures created by the media, but that is another issue).  To take a real position on substance requires studying the many facts and analyses that go into a substantive position on any one issue; and, often any one issue is actually made up of several smaller issues each of which also need to be well understood.

Why do we so often focus primarily or exclusively on form over substance?  That I do not have an answer for, but I can take a few guesses.  First, it is of course easier to look only at the superficial and not make the effort to delve into more complicated substance.  Secondly, we have become more and more used to quick answers.  For years now we have watched television shows resolve very complex problems in an hour or less.  We expect to get a full briefing on the national and world news in a half hour.  That’s been going on for a while, but social media seems to make it worse as we seem to find the answers to life’s problems in a single meme.  We scroll through the news feed taking in a world of superficial headlines and 140 character tweets.  We have a 24-hour news cycle with traditional media and on line media always competing to get the news out first and always have a new story.  This does not leave a lot of time for substantive research.  Closely related is the seemingly endless need to be entertained.  Entertainment is generally a passive activity.  One watches or listens or reads, but one does not really do much work on one’s own.  And yet, to truly understand substance one must struggle with one’s own grasp of facts and ideas and do one’s own analysis.  These are just some of the most obvious reasons for a focus on form over substance.  We have and are training ourselves to look at the world that way - to allow form to be our substance.

Some may want the pleasant passivity of a form driven view of the world.  But I think most people would find that not only does a substance driven approach make life more meaningful individually, it also makes for a better society overall.  Substantive understanding leads not only to better, more well thought out decisions and actions, it also leads to a better understanding of one’s fellow human beings, even those who disagree with one’s substantive positions.  Entertainment and superficiality certainly have their place, but not in the policy decisions and positions that we take both about our individual selves and about our country and our world.  Those require us to dig beyond form and find real substance to guide our positions.  We need to separate form and substance, understand both, and realize when we are letting form cloud our substantive understandings.

Violence against words?

So this is where it leads.

Watching the news about the Berkeley riots in response to the speaking engagement of Milo Yiannopoulos, I saw one of the rioters interviewed. She stated, “We have a right to defend ourselves against his speech.”  She did not see the behavior as unlawful or destructive, but rather the violent and destructive demonstration was just their defense – to words!  Is this, then, the ultimate result of safe spaces and the right to be protected from micro-aggressions? That people can silence with violence those words that upset them?

Where, oh where are the adults?  Those we often look to – our national heroes and leaders - are in large part encouraging this behavior.  Please Stop!  Violence will not stop people from having views that differ.  But, listening and having a dialog might stop the hate for those differing views and the people who espouse them.

For the record, I really know very little about Milo.  My impression is that he is an entertainer who spouts forth some pretty obnoxious words.  But they are just words and he has the right to say them.  I remember many years ago when one of the examples given of the importance of our right to free speech was that the ACLU fought for the right of the Nazi party to march through a Jewish neighborhood that housed many Holocaust survivors. It is not that the ACLU didn’t understand how upsetting this march would be to those Jews.  It was not that the ACLU believed in or agreed with the Nazi views.  But the ACLU did believe in the U.S. Constitution and the sacred right to free speech of everyone, even those with hateful or offensive words.  But now, it seems that at least some people think that freedom of speech only applies to certain views – views with which they agree.  And, they seem to think that they have a right to silence, in any way possible, those who speak words that they find repugnant. 

This is not the United States that the Constitution and its first Amendment right to free speech envisioned.  Such beliefs are more appropriate for a totalitarian regime where only certain thoughts, views, and words are permitted.  Please do not accept this type of behavior because where it leads is likely not the country that any of us really want.

Let’s once again teach our children to be tolerant of views with which we do not agree.  Quietly and peacefully protest speech that you find repugnant, but let that speech be heard, just as you want speech with which you do agree to be heard.  You do not have the right to silence words just because they offend you, and certainly do not have the right to do so with violence.

Subtle Division

Recently I saw an advertisement for a youth group of performers.  The notice identified children as from this or that country/culture and this or that religion and even as refugees.  It commented how they were all going to beautifully perform together.  It seemed like a very politically correct notice and the togetherness was a very beautiful sentiment.

Sadly, when one looks deeper, one sees the problem with this.  Identifying the children individually with a cultural or religious label signifies that is how the child should be perceived first and foremost. It allows people to attach their preconceived notions about that culture or religion to that child, and in so doing the child begins to lose his or her individual identity.  He or she will not be seen as the individual person each is, but rather will be seen as a part of the labeled group with whatever beliefs and characteristics are attached to that group.  Those might or might not be appropriate for the particular individual being so labeled.

Labeling a child with a specific group identity is especially onerous, because it is likely that the child him or herself will begin to identify with that group and in so doing will lose some, if not all of his or her individuality.  Children so labeled may begin to allow the group to determine who and what they are, make key decisions for them, etc.  That is, they may give up their responsibility, their individuality and their identity to the group.

Labeling and identifying a person in this way actually demeans the individual because it assumes that the person is nothing more than the group.  It is especially troubling when this labeling is done to children.  Moreover, this labeling, either intentionally or unintentionally, furthers the existence of identity politics; that is, in the end, it further divides us.