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.