Dear Anarchists

Americans are good people.  America is a good country.  Please stop poking and prodding to try to continually find something wrong.

Case in point:  The people of Texas dealing with Harvey.  These people, many of whom are the “deplorables” and the conservatives who are accused of being bigots, racists, and worse, are out helping their neighbors.  Whites (those called racists) are carrying Blacks on their backs and in their boats.  Conservatives and liberals are stepping forward to help one another without inquiring into race or creed or culture or other politically correct determinations.  Police officers are helping people not shooting them.  People of all faiths are helping people of other or no faith.  The victims of the hurricane are for the most part being kind, civil, and orderly.  The President is standing behind these victims – all of them – with his verbal support as well as that of the federal government. 

This is America – a country of good people all pulling together to help those faced with a tragedy.  And yet, there are those who must find something to complain about, so, what do I read but that Mrs. Trump wore high heels to board the plane to Texas followed by all sorts of name-calling about her and then attaching that to her husband.  These folks did not even wait to see that Mrs. Trump indeed changed into flat shoes by the time she deplaned in Texas (so, apparently, she is not an idiot after all). 

I once had a friend who seemed to never be angry (this was a black man in Detroit in the late 60s and early 70s, so he had much he could have chosen to be angry about).  This man did not give in, and was not shy about standing up for his and others’ rights, but he was not angry.  He said being angry wasted too much time and energy.  Instead, he used that time and energy to see the good in all mankind and work with others to make our world a better place.

There are many today who could take a lesson from that friend.   Instead of fomenting anger – their own and that of others – why not see the good in those with whom they disagree and try working with those others to make this world a better place.  Rather than spend their time looking for things wrong with America and with opposing views and those who hold them, why not look for all the good in all the people around us in this country?  Why, I wonder, is that so hard?

America is a good country with a long history.  Like all history, some of that is good, some not.  But it is the history of a country that respects humankind and encourages the individual to be all that he or she can be.  Please stop poking that history apart to find only what can be complained about.

Second case in point:  In 1892 Italian immigrants pulled together to fund the statue of Columbus that stands in Columbus circle, but is now under threat of removal.  The history of the statue reveals the strength of the Italian-American community, a group that still honors Columbus despite his imperfections.  And, isn’t that the key to understanding this country:  It is not a perfect place filled with perfect people, but it is a place that honors all those people with all their imperfections.   

Yes, Columbus, in addition to awakening Europe to this new world, brought with him much sickness and death.   We can all wish that had not happened and hate that it did; we can blame Columbus for his actions and then for those of many others.  But, if we look fully, we can also see in Columbus an example of someone with a new idea who did not give up in his hope for exploration.  It took him years to convince someone to fund his voyages, and those voyages were not easy.  Here is an example of a relentless human spirit that will not give up.  So, we can simply hate him for the hurt he brought to this land and its native peoples and tear down his statue, or, we can look not with hate but with an open mind and consider his example as one that shows us what the human spirit can do (for if we tear down every dreamer that was in any way imperfect, then we will have no examples of dreamers to show our children what the human spirt can do).  And, should someone dream and succeed in setting off in new explorations, we can look to Columbus’s imperfections to teach how not to behave (for without that example as well, we are likely doomed to repeat the errors). 

Our history is not perfect, but it is our history, and even the darker moments have lessons to teach us.  So, let me suggest that instead of seeking always to find fault and as a result seeing only the bad, that those inclined to do so take a moment to see the full and total picture of America and its people and to view that picture with an open mind of hope, not hate.

America is a good country.  Our history – our full history, not one that is cleansed or one that is shaded only with our mistakes and imperfections – teaches us that;  it should not take a disaster to remind us that America is filled with good people and that there is more to do with our energy and our time than to spend it on hate and anger.

What Does the Time Matter?

As one justification for tearing down statues commemorating people associated with the Confederacy, much is being made of the time the statues were erected.  Apparently if you do not erect a statue immediately following a conflict, then the statue has some other, likely evil, ulterior motive. What does this mean for the World War Two memorial which opened in 2004?

As noted by an historian on the PBS news shortly after the Charlottesville and Durham incidents, often it is when soldiers age and begin to die off that their families seek to have their memories preserved and memorials are built.  He pointed to a group named Daughters of the Confederacy that worked to have memorials and monuments built to commemorate their fathers and brothers as those fathers and brothers reached old age and began to die off.  (I note this historian has not been invited back as the narrative is now that all monuments not erected immediately following the end of the war were done to insult and intimidate people of color.)

This does not mean that some statues may not have been constructed as some sort of in-your-face statement.  But, even if that is the case, so what?  In the words of Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make?”  Isn’t the argument that these statues, regardless of when erected, are a discomforting reminder of racism in this country?

And, doesn’t taking them down have the likely potential of preserving the status quo?  That is, if we erase our history and all reminders of its dark and ugly parts, then we stop any dialog about that history.  And without dialog, how are we going to improve things or even reach any understanding that they should be improved?

The history of this country is complex.  It has many great and wonderful moments and it has some dark and ugly ones.  That history cannot be changed, and, like all histories it is multifaceted and nuanced.  We cannot erase that history or the emotions and views underlying and stemming from it by tearing down statues and pretending they and the history of which they are a part does not exist.

And, the question of where will it stop is a valid one.  Today Time Out New York reports that the city will begin removing or reworking subway station tiles that “resemble the Confederate flag.”  An MTA spokesperson states, “the tiles were not originally intended to represent the flag but rather the area's moniker as the Crossroads of the World”; nonetheless, they will be removed in order to "avoid absolutely any confusion." The mosaics were installed in 1917 and allegations that they had racist undertones “have largely been debunked.” Nonetheless, they will be torn down as the mayor calls for streets to be renamed and “all symbols of hate” on city property be removed.  These mosaics (a mostly blue X on a reddish background with no other similarity to the Confederate flag) are apparently “symbols of hate.”  If we look hard enough, we can find offense in almost any graphic we see.

History has many aspects, many moments, many reminders, and each and every moment or reminder is going to be offensive to someone.  George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did some amazing things in fighting for and shaping our democracy.  They also held slaves.  I cannot justify that.  I understand that this fact alone may make the thought of them so repugnant to some that they would like to see their images and their names removed from sight and from memory.  But, they are a part of our history; they lived their lives in a time very different from ours and those lives were far more complex and encompass far more than the fact that they held slaves, repugnant as that fact is.  If we erase them because they held slaves, do we also then erase all else they did, including writing the Declaration of Independence and their many acts in shaping our country and our Constitution?  Do we erase the Constitution?

History must be understood in context.  At one time, the law of some states did not allow women to become lawyers and women were not even allowed to serve on juries.  This stance is shocking and unacceptable today, but was fully accepted in the past.  Should we condemn the judges who enforced these rules which made sense in the context of their times, regardless of what other accomplishments these jurists had?  And suppose we erased them and the past treatment of women from our history:  how would that affect the conversation about women’s rights today?   

Does it matter when or why the memorials were erected? Not really.  Tearing them down is an attempt to cleanse us of the history that made us all who we are today.  Essentially it is an attempt to cleanse us of our country and ourselves.  And how is this much different from a conquering Taliban attempting to cleanse a region it has conquered from all signs of Christianity, something which it views as repulsive.  Does it make a difference if the church they destroy was erected to stand as protection from the Taliban or whether it was erected 500 years ago or yesterday?  The goal is to cleanse all thought and memory of these structures and what they represent, period.

Our history is complicated and difficult; we cannot erase it nor can we make it perfect.  Rather, we must preserve our memory of both the moments of greatness and those of darkness. It is those dark times, and our ability to deal with them, which make us stronger.  It is the lessons that we learn from the ugly times that make us grow, as people and as a nation.  Understanding the complexities of our history and the people involved in it help us to better understand ourselves and those with whom we live together within today’s world.  Erasing our history because parts of it are horrifically upsetting to some only leaves us without the ability to understand and learn from that history so as not to repeat it again in the future. 

Destroying all reminders of our past is essentially an effort to destroy who we are as a people and as a country.  I realize there are those who might think that is a good thing, but I, for one, would rather have us face our history, unpleasant as parts of it may be; rather than stopping any dialog with destruction and erasure I would have us face head on that which some wish to erase.  And if a monument was erected to intimidate, then let us not remove it in anger it in the middle of the night but let us face it in full sun-light and talk about what it is and what it means to everyone and what best to do with it.  Let us understand the complexities and the strengths and weaknesses of our history and let us grow together as a nation from that understanding. 

What if Nobody Came?

There is a letter in my local paper today that suggests “what if there were a White Supremacist rally and nobody came?”  That may sound silly or superficial, or even stupid on its surface, but beneath that surface is some wisdom, for within those naïve words lies a truth.

White Supremacists need non-Whites over which to claim their supremacy.  Similarly, Anti-Fascists need fascists to be against.  In both cases underlying the proclaimed ideology lies simply a thirst for power – on both sides.  Anyone who believes that their ideology should be imposed on all others is someone who needs, and hence seeks, the power to do so.

So, what if there was a march to proclaim hate and no one but the haters showed up?  They would have no one against whom to assert their power.  No one but themselves would hear their words.  They would have nothing to do but march home.  And, the anti-marchers?  Many are using their “noble” goal of silencing the hate to rile up their base to accord them more power to hate the haters or others.  They need the haters for without them the anti-haters too would simply have to march home.

I hate to break this to the Pollyannas of the world, but, as long as there is humanity there will always be some hate.  People will always be wary of those unlike themselves (there is plenty of anthropological studies that will establish this basic instinct which stems from earliest man and his efforts to protect himself).  While some will recognize and overcome that ancient instinct, in some cases that wariness will turn to fear and hate. 

Which haters are seen as “good” and which as “evil” can and often will change as the attitudes towards the underlying beliefs and values change.  Hence, silencing the “evil” today could result in silencing today’s “good” tomorrow.  And, here lies the beauty of America’s First Amendment. 

The First Amendment demands that we silence no one.  People are free to spew hateful words from all sides.  But, we also do not order anyone to listen to those words:  we have no state sponsored speeches that you must attend and applaud.  You can go quietly away, or you can listen and then counter with better, more sensible, more reasonable words.  What you cannot do is demand that the words you dislike be silenced or try to silence them with violence.

Demanding silence does not end hate.  Indeed, it may leave it to quietly fester and grow.  Demanding silence is just another form of hate: a hatred of ideas that are not your own.   And silencing disagreeable ideas reveals either a lack of understanding or a hatred of the First Amendment.

Giving attention to hate makes it stronger in the same way that one pays more attention to a 3-page story than to one sentence buried in one small paragraph. When we have 24-hour coverage telling us about the haters and how hateful they are, it only serves to broaden their own platform for their hate.  Violent clashes may be great video for the news, but it does nothing but feed the thirst for power on both sides. 

If the anti-marchers waited until the day after the march to present their opposition with more reasonable and persuasive words they would far better reveal to the public why their position is better than that which they protest.  And, that is indeed what the First Amendment envisions:  a market place of ideas where all are welcome to speak their views and where the people will listen and determine for themselves which speakers and which words make the most sense and which are the better views for our country.  And, some views will then simply die-out or at least become completely side-lined and ineffective due to lack of interest.

So, maybe the naïve statement “what if there was a hate rally and no one showed up?” is not so naïve after all.

Two Questions, One Answer

Are we, is America, really as far gone as it seems?

Or, from another perspective, are we really as close to the goal of remaking America as it seems?

And, in these two questions lies much of the problem.  Ignoring the fringe elements that exist on all sides, there is a view from one end of the spectrum that sees America and its way of life, including traditional values, being thrown aside as it reels out of control trying to satisfy every self-centered and hedonistic demand, demanding political correctness that has the effect of condemning and silencing those who disagree.  On the other side is the view that the traditional America and its traditional values and structures do not well serve the 21^st century.  It sees those values as limiting, discriminatory, and bigoted and believes that only by remaking America and its traditional values can those negative aspects be eliminated.

We seem to have reached a point where both sides feel significantly threatened by the other.  So threatened that they believe that in one way or another the other side should cease to exist.  How do we resolve this? Can this be resolved?   

Politicians are unwilling to discuss and compromise for the good of the country.  We cannot look to them for role models.  The people have consecutively elected two outsiders, very different but both sent to Washington in part to shake up the existing power structure.  So far this has not worked.  The first Black President who had little Washington experience only succeeded in making race relations worse and in intensifying hatred from both sides.  (And I do not want to get into a discussion of who started it and who is simply reacting, nor do I accept that it is somehow all based in racism – in my opinion it is far more complicated than that).  Nonetheless, during Obama’s term in office the country moved significantly to the left, especially in social values.  This delighted some while terrifying others.   The people then elected a complete outsider, some in the hopes that he would move the country back to its center.  President Trump has indeed accomplished much while in office, but his every word also inflames the Left who, on a daily basis, try to gin up hatred against him.   

I am unwilling to believe that the only way this can be resolved is to completely change our form of government from a democratic republic to something else.  Nor do I believe that traditional America must be locked in a specific time warp never to evolve.  

Here is what I believe.  I think that a big part of our country’s current problem is that a large part of our citizenry have no understanding of our country – its history and its government and how that government works.  Our Constitution is an amazing document.  If we would all take the time to read it, understand it, and try our very best to follow its directives I think that would be a strong beginning to solving the serious divide that currently exists.  At least we would all be on the same page about what our country is and what it is not, how it and our system of government works.  If there are changes desired or needed, the conversation has to begin with what is the current actuality.  But, more importantly, I believe that if everyone was schooled in the Constitution and if citizens believed that as an American that Constitution must be respected and supported, then I think we would be closer to bridging that which divides us.

And, note, that understanding, respecting and supporting the Constitution does not mean that we all must agree or hold the same views and values.  That is the beauty of our Constitution and the form of government it engenders.  It insures a tolerance and a respect for many diverse views.  It provides means for us to address differences and to resolve those differences in a way that is healthy and good for everyone and the country, regardless of individual preferences or values.  It prohibits the imposition of just one point of view on the entire citizenry.  Perhaps we should all reread it and give it another try.

The Silence is Deafening

Where are the demands for the president to “call out” the Workers World Party and others who organized the destruction of the statue in Durham yesterday?  Why did law enforcement just passively stand by and watch? 

“Sheriff’s deputies recorded the event but did not intervene as a protester climbed a ladder and slipped a yellow, bungie-like cord around the soldier’s head and arm and a group pulled the cord.”  These people were breaking the law and destroying property – in this case a statue which is an art work.  They chose to do this violently rather than follow legal processes and the rule of law.  Why were they not arrested or at least cited for laws prohibiting moving or destroying the statue and for property destruction?

After toppling the statue and continuing to kick and destroy it, the group marched and blocked traffic.  They then returned to the statute. “The line of protesters walked back to the old courthouse. Some took photographs with the fallen statue. Sheriff’s officials continued to take video.”  Again, I ask, why no arrests?  One of the protesters waved a sign in front of the police that said “cops and clan go hand in hand” on one side and “Black Lives Matter smash white supremacy” on the other.

I understand that arrests are now being pursued by law enforcement, but why not when the acts began?  Why not when they put the noose around the statue?  Why not before the statue was destroyed?  And, why today are there protests and marches all across the country in solidarity with the lawless acts of the Durham demonstrators?

The Workers World Party states “Workers World Party is a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party dedicated to organizing and fighting for a socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.” The WWP member who helped to organize the violence stated that “Conversations about loving your neighbor have not worked” and thus “people need to embrace multiple tactics.”  Apparently these tactics include non-peaceful demonstration, breaking the law, and destroying property.  Does it also include violence against humans who hold differing views as the WWP pursues its revolution against our form of government?

Antifa also participated.  As seen recently at Berkeley, they do not hesitate to commit violence on people who disagree with them.  They are described by the BBC as “anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies are often perceived as more closely aligned with anarchists than the mainstream left.  Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence.”

Nazis and racists and certain far Right groups often spew anti-American rhetoric and violent acts by people associated with those groups threaten our way of life.  But so does anarchy and violent acts by people associated with groups on the Left advocating the overthrow of our government.

So, why the deafening silence demanding condemnation of these groups?   Why not denounce “all sides” as our president originally did?   I acknowledge that the Durham statue was offensive to some, but even assuming it should have been taken down, why not follow legal means to do so? Or, do the ends justify any means necessary? Are we at a point where it is OK to ignore the law if we think our cause is just enough?  If so, who makes that determination?  And if it is OK (and sometimes it is) the laws must still be enforced.  That is, for example, during demonstrations in the 60s I knew I might be arrested or worse, but I also expected law enforcement to do its job and enforce the laws until the voices of the people were heard and the laws were changed.  When laws are only selectively enforced we are on our way to anarchy.  Is this really what people want?

Ten Questions Related to Charlottesville

 1.  Who had a permit to march in Charlottesville? 

(The answer here is interesting.  Jason Kessler, the organizer of the protest against removal of the statue had a permit, the city revoked that permit, but, thanks in part to the ACLU and their recognition and assertion that “the First Amendment applies to everyone regardless of their views,” a judge granted an injunction and reinstated the permit allowing the group to have their demonstration in Emancipation Park. 

In reinstating Mr. Kessler’s permit, the Court determined that he could likely prove that the revocation of his permit was content based (thus in violation of the First Amendment).  Supporting that finding was the fact that the city, while revoking the permit of Mr. Kessler, left in place the permits of the counter-protesters.  The Court further stated, “The disparity in treatment between the two groups with opposing views suggests that the defendants’ decision to revoke Kessler’s permit was based on the content of his speech rather than other neutral factors that would be equally applicable to Kessler and those protesting against him.  This conclusion is bolstered by other evidence, including communications on social media indicating that members of City Council oppose Kessler’s political viewpoint.  At this stage of the proceedings, the evidence cited by Kessler supports the conclusion that the City’s decision constitutes a content-based restriction of speech.”)

2.  How many understand the importance of not restricting speech based on its content?

(Note:  restricting speech the content of which you find objectionable today sets a precedent for restricting your speech tomorrow if that becomes objectionable to someone in power.  That is how a totalitarian regime operates, not our democratic republic)

3.  Why is the media primarily focused on turning this into a story about why we should dislike Trump based on exactly what he said when?  Why not focus on, or at least report, the positions of both sides involved in the conflicts and why they feel the need to march and counter-protest?  

(Hint:  the media is generally focused on Trump-bashing.  What passes for news reporting in the main stream media is little more than propaganda and is woefully biased and incomplete.)

4.  What is wrong with a president saying that violence from all sides is unacceptable?  Why must he single out one group while ignoring others?  

(Suggestion:  A president should not single out one group or another, but should be the president of ALL Americans and certainly, like all government employees, should fiercely defend the First Amendment along with the rest of our Constitution. People should not encourage the president or others to do otherwise.)

5.  How many Americans really believe in free speech for ALL ideas and not just those with which they agree?

(Thought:  this should be 100%, but sadly, I fear the number is relatively small.)

6.  For that matter, how many even know what the first amendment says or how and why it is a part of our constitution?

(“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment is a part, was added to the Constitution to protect the citizens from government interference with their basic rights.  The Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments via the 14^th Amendment and various Supreme Court decisions.)

7.  Does the Left understand that not all white conservatives are Nazis or White Supremacists? Do they understand that one can be a nationalist without being a racist?

(Observation:  many people today simply place people in boxes based on superficial characteristics and assume that all those given a particular label or placed in a particular group think and behave exactly alike.)

8.  Does the Left understand that by labeling people and putting them in boxes they further the discord between their identified groups?

(Thought:  placing people into categories divides them, weakening and ultimately destroying any notion that we are all one.)

9.  Do they understand that such discord is tearing this country apart?  Do they care?

(Hint:  this is seen by many to be an actual goal of identity politics, an approach used by the Progressive Democrats for the past several years)

10.  Is there a double standard regarding appropriate reactions to violence against the Right and violence against the Left?  Is all political violence provoked by the Right or by President Trump?

(Clue:  There was political violence before Trump was elected.  There is violence perpetrated by individuals associated with all sides of the political spectrum.  Violence is not OK just because its purpose is to silence views found hateful or distasteful.  When one only calls for condemnation of violence or speech by those with whom they disagree, they are hypocrites seemingly ignorant of our Constitution, and likely more concerned with themselves and their power than with taking a stand for the good of the country.) 

The Square World

When I was very young my father would read me a story about a leader who wanted everyone to be square and so he would force everyone to line up, enter a machine, and when they exited they were all square.  He loved squares so he turned everything square.  I remember vowing to never let anyone force me to be something I was not, to fight any effort to make everyone the same.  This was the early 1950s, so I assume that thoughts of communism had something to do with this story’s publication.  A few years back my son was able to find a version of the story I was talking about – it is called The Square World.  It was created in 1944 by Dick Huemer and Joe Grand and was a proposed short film or cartoon that “would have satired the conformist society of Nazi Germany.”  Sadly, it is as relevant today as it was in the 50s.

The story begins by telling the reader “IN THE beginning, the people in the land of What’s-Its-Name looked just like the people everywhere else.  Some had short shapes and some had tall shapes. Some had round shapes and a few were rather square. Everyone seemed quite content with these many different shapes, everyone except one man. This man was a rascal. This man, alas, was the Mighty-Highty-Tighty, the ruler of the land.”   We learn that he was only content with his own shape:  “I do not like so many shapes,” he growled. “My shape is the right shape. All other shapes are wrong. I do command that henceforth everyone be shaped like me. And that means square! Ha ha!”  And then "He chuckled with horrid glee.”  We then learn how Mr. Highty-Tighty first turned all the people into squares and then everything else as well.  “At length, the great task was done. Life itself now seemed completely square. Each family breakfasted on square poached eggs, square sausages, and square pancakes. When each square father went off to work, he gave his wife a sad, square kiss, and strode off blowing square smoke rings from the end of his square cigar. When the square children went off to their square school, they rode on a square school bus that bumped along on four square wheels. And when people met their friends along the street, they didn’t bow or shake their hands; they  sighed, and hailed them with the sign of a square.”  The story ends, however, with the failure of Highty-Tighty’s plans for the future when he learns that he cannot make new born babies square.

I’m not sure exactly what the moral of the story is intended to be, but I can tell you what lesson I learned as a child, and what remains true for me today:  We must stand up and fight against any person or government that demands that we all look, think, act alike.  We must rebel against any such mandated conformity. 

As I grew older and learned about our constitution and our form of government, I realized how important the first amendment is and how it is a true ally in any fight against such conformity.  For one of the first things that anyone seeking a rule like Mr. Highty-Tighty must do is to remove the protections for free speech.  That is, part of any mandated conformity will of necessity require limiting what people can say and making sure that all speech conforms to the approved structures and views. 

Thus, you will understand why I become uncomfortable with political correctness which is easily the first step towards a land of conformity with no room for opposing views, or even, today, anything that any one finds the least bit unpleasant.  You will understand why I become uncomfortable when people are told that it is not enough to be tolerant of the views or lifestyles of others, that you must accept those views as your own.  That is, I am uncomfortable when anyone believes they are a Highty-Tighty who has the right to tell everyone else what to eat, what to say, what to think, what to believe and I am uncomfortable with the Highty-Tightys who believe that it is government's job to do so.

My hero in the story was a rebel (who apparently did not really exist, at least not in the version of the story recently found, but whom I and my father must have concocted).  That rebel refused to be turned into a square and led some sort of revolt against Mr. Highty-Tighty, ultimately shutting down his square making machine.

It is that rebel within me that can’t help but speak out against the intolerance that is growing almost daily in this country.  People are not free to say anything that others might find offensive; if they do they are labeled as haters or bigots or racists or some equally offensive term.  I see this intolerance and this disregard for the rights of free speech of all coming most frequently from the leaders and others on the Left.    They have a vision of the world which is really not that far removed from that of Mr. Highty-Tighty.  They believe that everyone should think as they do and if they do not then it is OK to silence them; that is, put everyone in the machine so that we all come out just the same.  We can eat the approved foods, we can hold the same values, we can say only what offends no one, we can all be just alike.

What I don’t understand is why the Left does not see what it is doing.  In trying to create its brave new world it is destroying the key freedom necessary for any such world.  With its underlying attack on free speech it is creating a conformist world where the one in command determines the manner in which all must conform.  That is indeed a brave new world of the type envisioned by Aldous Huxley in his novel of the same name and the "World State" described therein; a world I think most of us would choose not to inhabit.

So, you see, I am not going to conform.  I will rebel.  I will stand for free speech for all, even for the most disgusting ideas with which I do not agree.  I will tolerate other views, but I will not be forced to accept those with which I do not agree and I will stand for that right for everyone.  I accept that means that the Left will likely call be a bigot or racist or worse.  But I will demand free speech for all and I will speak out against the Highty-Tightys and their Leftist square-making machine.

Speech, Violence, Many Sides

Let me begin by saying that I think there is no excuse for someone intentionally driving their car into a crowd of people and that the death of the young woman yesterday in Virginia is a tragedy. Assuming there is no justifiable reason (such as the unlikely sudden onset of a medical episode), then the driver should be punished to the full extent of the law.

The driver.  Not everyone in Virginia or elsewhere who was exercising their right to free speech.

In this country people have the right to express their ideas, regardless of the idiocy, or hatefulness, or un-American sentiments contained within those ideas.  What people may not do is violence against others whose ideas they do not like or who disagree with their own point of view. 

There is a difference between speech and violence.

Many people in this country hold ideas that are offensive to others.  Not everyone agrees with the anti-white rhetoric expressed at some Black Lives Matter rallies.  Not everyone agrees about whether or not statues of Confederate leaders should stand or be taken down.  Not everyone practices the same religion, and some seriously disagree with the beliefs and views and ideas held by religions that are not their own.  Yet, in this country, all those views and more are allowed and can be spoken. 

One basis of this country and its freedoms is the right for people to have differing ideas and beliefs.  When people are allowed to speak these ideas then we have a free marketplace of ideas.  The theory is that the citizenry, being reasonably intelligent human beings, will become informed and will be able to assess these many ideas, understanding which are better and which are worse.  To silence any one viewpoint not only closes the free marketplace and the open-minded freedom it engenders, it also sets the country on the road to a place where only one view, only the “correct” view is tolerated.  That, my friends, is a form of dictatorship.

Today, many points of view become movements.  And no matter how noble the original idea may have been, there are going to be people who attach themselves to the movement whose views and purposes are less than noble.  Those individuals should not be used to condemn an entire movement, nor should any acts that they take be necessarily attributed to the entire movement.

Sadly, we see people today using yesterday’s death to further their own agenda and attempt to silence all those with views not matching their own.  Thus, I have seen photos of the young woman killed by the car posted on social media with words urging retribution against all conservatives, all whites, etc. and many today are demanding that white nationalists and others not be allowed to speak at all.  And yet, I wonder where these same people were when people who had attached themselves to the Black Lives movement assassinated police officers.  I wonder where these people were when someone attached to the Democrat party decided to take target practice on Republicans on a baseball field.  Should then the entire Democrat party be silenced due to that act of violence by one man?  To follow the logic of today’s reaction to yesterday’s act by one man, the answer is Yes.

There are indeed many sides to this culture of violence which, by the way, began well before President Trump took office.  It’s just that during the past many years of the Democrat’s identity politics the hatred seemed to be directed against those with more conservative views and those who were not minorities. Their attempts to speak up were often dismissed as they were labeled as bigots and racists.   And now, when some of those people decide that they, too, have a right to speak, the call is for all to be silenced.  That is as un-American as the hate that many claim spews from their or every privileged white person’s or conservative’s mouth.  Dislike of an idea does not give anyone the right to silence that idea.

Violent action is a different matter.  When words turn to violent acts, those acts must not be tolerated and the perpetrator must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  This includes violent acts coming from the Right and from the Left.  Yes, the blame for our violent culture rests with “many sides.”  When students at Berkeley asserted they had a right to do violence in order to silence conservative speakers, they should have been prosecuted for each and every such act.  And, if a conservative turns words into violent action, he or she too must be prosecuted.  There must be zero tolerance for acts of violence.  But, there must be full tolerance for speech, no matter how distasteful.  A lack of such tolerance can in itself lead to violent reactions from those silenced.  Hence, many sides, indeed all sides, hold some responsibility and some blame.

It seems as if for some time we have been willing to tolerate at least some violence to silence views that are not popular, especially those views that have been unpopular with the Left over the recent years.  This must stop, just as we must stop placing the blame for the criminal act of one on an entire group which happens to hold an unpopular view or to which the criminal actor has attached him or herself.

All sides are to some extent guilty of using rhetoric that is sometimes intense and vicious.  Personally, over the recent years continuing through today, I hear that far more from the Left than from the Right.  I wish that it would stop.  I also understand that in a twisted mind any words can become twisted to justify most any behavior.  But, that does not outweigh the crucial importance of free speech to our democracy. 

This is America.  All ideas are welcome and must be tolerated.  We are free to accept or reject the viewpoints of others, but all those viewpoints have a right to be heard.   What must not be tolerated is any act of violence in the name of an idea, whether that act is spitting on a speaker, or destroying their property, or shooting or stabbing a speaker, or running down a group of followers of an opponent.  In America, free speech is a right of all citizens.  To maintain our democracy we must let others speak and not agitate when they do.  We must listen.  Then, we can speak our own views, including opposing ones if we wish.  And, we must not tolerate violence in any form, even in the name of silencing speakers whom we find offensive.  We must demand that any such violence be prosecuted.  From this peaceful marketplace of ideas and its tolerance for all sides, comes the strength of our democracy.

What Happened to the ACLU?

Once upon a time the ACLU looked out for everyone’s civil liberties; they were the number one defender of the first amendment, protecting even unpopular views and speech because the right to hold and speak even the most distasteful ideas is a basic tenet of our government.  The tolerance that such free speech engenders is a necessary ingredient of our democracy.  At one time I was on the board of directors of a local ACLU chapter in large part because I feel so strongly about these constitutional protections.  So, you will understand my dismay when I received the below described questionnaire (really a request for money) from the national ACLU.

The mailing begins with a cover letter that makes clear the ACLU’s complete loathing for President Trump.  (Actually, they seem unable to even refer to him as President).  While once upon a time the ACLU only took the side of free speech and the constitution, it now appears to take sides with the anti-Trumpers and the Progressive Left agenda to stop anything Trump, regardless of the fact that some actions that they may find distasteful are fully constitutional and reflect the voice of the people who elected President Trump.  While the letter claims to request money to help the ACLU “defend the Constitution and the rights it protects,” a look at the detailed text of the letter and the questionnaire that accompanies it reveal that what the ACLU really wants to do is suppress any free speech that is contrary to the positions of the Left and in so doing suppress the tolerance for other and opposing views that is the embodiment of the first amendment and of our democratic republic.

The mailing requests my support because I am “alarmed” by Donald Trump’s “abuses of power” and the “deep and lasting damage” that he will do to our democracy.  They give no specifics.  But I wonder why they are focused only on such abuses by President Trump.  If indeed he has abused power, so have many others, both Democrat and Republican.  Why is the focus only anti-Trump?

The mailing suggests that “voter suppression laws and baseless claims about voter fraud” will impact the 2018 elections.  Well, on what evidence do they find these claims baseless?  Just today I read of an individual who was sentenced to jail time in Virginia for registering dead people to vote as Democrats.  Was that baseless?  Or is the wording of the questionnaire simply to stir up some anti-Trump sentiment since it is the position of the Left that any attempt to insure that only legitimate voters vote is somehow considered an affront to our democracy?

The mailing suggests we must now be concerned because we will now see immigration raids that are racist and that will tear families apart.  Again, what evidence?  And, hasn’t deportation always had the potential to “tear families apart”?  Actually, enforcement of any law has the potential of tearing families apart.  And, calling such enforcement racist just perpetuates the Left’s use of identity politics which has succeeded only in tearing this country apart and in justifying suppression of free speech.  It is appalling that the ACLU, once the defender of free speech for all, would engage in the use of this tactic.

The mailing suggests we must be worried because the President and Congress “will succeed in defunding Planned Parenthood and passing a federal abortion ban.”  This statement assumes that we all agree with the pro-abortion position and implies that there is something wrong with those who don’t.  Again, there are many in this country who would applaud such a move; does the ACLU disregard their view?  The intolerance here is obvious and, from a group that claims to represent the civil liberties of all it is most disappointing.

The mailing asks if the reader agrees that banning refuges and others based on their religion violates our principles.  In the context of this questionnaire the question expects the reader to assume that is what the Trump administration is doing and thus prompt the answer of agreement.  But, the Trump travel bans on their face are not based on religion, so the entire premise of the question is false.  And shame on the ACLU for using this tactic to again support the Democrat agenda.

Finally, the mailer asks if the reader is concerned about “the disregard for the First Amendment and the suppression of free speech and protest that is emanating from the White House?”  Why, I wonder, is there nothing about the disregard for the First Amendment and the suppression of free speech and protest that is emanating from the Left, from the Democrats, from all the anti-Trumpers who believe that any speech favorable to the President or in disagreement with the views of the Left should not be tolerated and can and should be suppressed with impunity?

The full questionnaire completely disregards any attacks on civil liberties or suppression of free speech that is furthered by the Left.   It incorporates unfounded statements about President Trump into its questions in a way that makes them appear as if they were established fact.  It reads like the sort of propaganda that one gets from a political party.  So, sadly, I must assume that the ACLU, once the defender of freedom for all Americans, has now become the tool of the Left. 

Who, then, is left to defend free speech for all?  Who then will fight against the suppression of free speech that is furthered by the Left in the name of “tolerance” but which is really a demand that only their views be tolerated?  This defense, this fight is crucial, for without this basic tenet of our form of government, without a tolerance for many diverse views, even those that are not popular with the Left and their power structure, without our constitutional freedoms our democracy is no more.  Now that the ACLU seems to have joined forces with the Left, those with opposing views must be vigilant, for the Left is more than eager to deny them the first amendment freedoms to which every citizen in this country is entitled.

Another Neighborhood Platitude

A new sign has cropped up in our neighborhood.  Written in 3 languages (Spanish, English, Arabic) it states: “No matter where you’re from, we’re glad you’re in our neighborhood.” Aside from the questionable grammar (better would be “No matter from where you are, …”), I have several questions.

First, why only three languages, and why only these three?  Why not Hebrew?  Why not Polish or Portuguese?  Why not French or German?  Why not Swahili?  Why not Russian?  Is it that Spanish and Arabic are politically correct, in vogue, prove something about you?  Or do you only welcome folks who speak one of those three languages? 

My next question is:  who are “we”? Because while I may have no objection to someone because they speak one of those languages, I might not welcome one who is not a good neighbor because they have late night parties regularly or leave their trash on their lawn or perhaps because they place idiotic signs in their yard.  So, if “we” is just the residents of your house, then fine, but please do not presume to speak for the entire neighborhood.

I also wonder what your motives are for even planting this sign in your yard.  I note that it is accompanied by one of the signs that was the subject of an earlier post. (http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/02/a-note-about-memes-platitudes-and.html ) To whom are you speaking -  who is your audience for this clutter?  Is this your attempt to prove to the world, or at least to your neighbors, that you are one of the good guys? Perhaps an attempt to assert that you are superior to those who do not post such sayings on their homes?  Are you not secure enough in yourself to just be a good person?   Do you need, instead, to paste some label, some meme, on your house that lets the passerby know whom you supposedly are?  If it is respect that you seek, do you not understand that comes from within, from your character, and not from some label you place on your outside to try to prove to the world who you are?

Perhaps, rather than spending time planting signs you should take the time to consider some of the questions raised here and to consider who you really are.  Please do not extend a vapid bumper sticker mentality to your home for me to see every time I pass by.  Instead, think about what you are really saying, think deeply to understand the many facets of the complicated issues that you are turning into insipid memes. 

Elitism

When I was in high school I had some friends who were a year ahead of me.  Over the Christmas holidays during my senior year I went to a party where my older friends had just returned from their first semester in college.  As with most college freshmen, these students were alive with their new-found knowledge, both academic and of the world.  That is fine, but what I recall is being disgusted by the arrogant attitude that they had taken on.  Somehow they believed themselves superior to most of the world because they could discuss the intricacies of classical music and knew in detail the distinguishments of composers and their symphonies, that they could discuss the depths of Plato and Aristotle, that they could rattle off psychological or economic theories, etc.  Understand, I was not offended by the knowledge or the education, but by the condescending airs that the new holders of this knowledge had adopted.  For I did not then, and still do not believe that the possession of education and knowledge makes anyone person superior to another.

Sadly, though, so many who obtain some education believe that it makes them somehow better than those who do not have the same knowledge base.  How often have I seen my fellow professionals treat their secretaries or assistants as if they were simply another office copy machine and not a human being.  Perhaps this is why, despite my own professional status, I would prefer to spend time with those secretaries than the self-proclaimed elites.

What is especially annoying to me is that these elites not only think they have every right to look down their noses at and be patronizing to those who have acquired less than they have (be that knowledge or money or status), but that they also believe that they know better than the people themselves how those people should run their lives.  They speak without any knowledge or understanding of the circumstances of those different from them as they tell them how to raise their children, what to eat, and even what to believe.  They proclaim that they are helping those less fortunate than themselves by taking over their lives, but what they are really doing is showing their belief than these people are too stupid to manage their own lives, that they are second-rate or second-class and need those better than them, those first rate, first class elites in order to survive.  Gifts from the elite that control one’s life are not gifts of kindness, but a demand for love and a creation of dependence as a means to power for those elites.

Many in America understand this; they are the Americans who have been referred to as deplorables and worse.  The people who would rather have a casserole potluck in a church basement than attend a black-tie affair where they are served arugula lettuce, range fed filet mignon, and caviar.   These people would rather talk with plain (and sometimes colorful or politically incorrect) words than the ten-dollar carefully chosen and always proper language of the elite.  These are real Americans, not plastic people. 

And there is one thing that is especially notable about these real Americans:  they are tolerant.  Tolerant of everyone, not just those who have attained their status.  And, unlike those elite who think they have the answers for everyone, these real Americans do not demand that everyone think like them or do things their way.  They tolerate the lifestyles and views and values of others and assume that others will return the favor.  And, in their world, others do. 

But, the world of the elites is different.  They do not tolerate those who are different in life style or knowledge base or world view.  And, they take the very un-American position of demanding that all others accept and conform to their positions; those who do not are branded as deplorable, as less than, as lacking in education and understanding.  But the understanding that these elites see as lacking is really just a willingness to agree that they are somehow better and therefore should be in control, control of the country and all those who do not meet their standards. 

Personally, I detest this attitude.  But, let’s be clear:  I do not detest the education or the other successes that those with elitist attitudes often have.  Education is good.  Success is good.  Many people have these things without becoming the haughty and disdainful elites I here describe.  But to use those things to bolster a self-centered belief that one is somehow better than those who do not possess such education, status, or success is disgusting.  Worse yet is to believe that because of one’s elite status one has a right to power and even worse is to believe that power includes the right to direct fully the lives of those that one sees as somehow inferior.    

In Washington today, and on the East and West coasts, we see far too many elites of the type I describe.  And we have the rest of America and the president they elected who are trying to right the ship back to a country where all people are equal and where an elitist power structure does not try to rule every aspect of every person’s every day life.  Let’s just hope that America stays strong and that we can go back to a country filled with respect and tolerance for everyone, not just those who are members of the elite power class.