Expressing and Being Open to Diverse Viewpoints Are Essential for Democracy

“When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen”

                -Ernest Hemingway

Silencing, dehumanizing, and erasing of opposing views are at odds with the tolerance necessary for a free and democratic society.   While many assert that we have to “listen to one another,” it becomes harder and harder to believe that is what they really want.  I am more and more of the belief that the Left’s goal is not just to silence those with more conservative or less socialist leanings than their own but to completely erase all differing views along with those who hold them.

In my experience, those on the Left, rather than listen and learn, often prefer to isolate, shame, and silence those with whom they disagree.  Their methods of doing so range from simple mean-spirited name calling to more aggressive forms of harassment and sometimes even to violence.  All, I believe, are intentionally hurtful.  But all also reveal an immaturity and a lack of self-control in the same way that a schoolyard bully throws a rock at someone who doesn’t do what he wants because he has not yet learned a better way to deal with his emotions and a more civil way to communicate.  He has not yet learned tolerance for differing viewpoints or that simply disagreeing is not an act of aggression to which one responds with an attack. 

Also like a schoolyard child who has not yet learned to probe below the depth of situations to understand more complex ideas, my experience is that many on the Left are either unwilling or incapable of having any sort of dialog that goes past the restatement of buzzwords, memes, and memorized phrases.  That is, the depth of thought needed for adult communication is not apparent.  

In an excellent opinion piece Nolan Finley of the Detroit News, calls out those on both sides of the political aisle. In part of the piece he states:

“Public shaming of [political] opponents is easier than engaging them in persuasive debate. Better to harass them in public, threaten their families, troll them on the Internet and violate their right to privacy than to prevail on the strength of earnestly expressed ideas.

Disagree with what someone is saying? Shout them down. Chase them from the podium. Go after their jobs.

The catch phrase answer to all of our problems is, "We need to have a national conversation."

But we are as far from a constructive dialog as a nation can be. Conversing requires listening. And we don't want to hear what the other side has to say.

Winning is all that matters, and we're so convinced we hold the keys to wisdom that we think it's OK to do so by any means necessary.” 

(See https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2018/10/28/finley-honest-we-hate-each-other/1773954002/).

In what seems to be a futile attempt to have conversations with those of differing, usually Leftist, opinions, I have many times been the recipient of such harassment, verbal assault, and public shaming.  I have written about some of those experiences in previous blogs.  Last week I faced two such incidents, One was in person, during a lunch, and I included that in a blog last week.  The other was an incident in which I was unfriended on Facebook for a fairly innocuous comment responding to a meme attacking Trump.  To summarize briefly: before the serial bomber was arrested, a then Facebook friend posted, in a series of quite hateful and ad hominem attacks on Trump and his supporters, a meme that asserted that asking Trump to go after and arrest the bomber was like asking OJ to go after his wife’s killer.  Later that day, after the arrest was made and Trump had spoken and denounced him and his acts, I posted a comment to the meme which said “But he did, didn’t he – caught him, condemned him, condemned the acts.  Now if only the Democrats would condemn the Democrat who shot and almost killed Scalise, the Democrats who assault Trump supporters for wearing Trump hats/shirts, the Democrats who call for assaults and harassment of Trump supporters and the Democrats who answer that call.”  Without further comment, and without any notice or communication with me, I was unfriended - erased from this person’s world.

Now, while I admit my comment may have been a bit snarky, it was nothing like the hateful speech regularly appearing on this person’s page attacking conservatives.  It was, however, the only comment that expressed any disagreement with the Leftist views on this person’s page.  But, this is simply one more piece of evidence in my growing exhibit folder (and shrinking “friend” folder) that many on the Left cannot deal with anyone who does not parrot their own positions.  There is no room for conversation in their world.  There is no desire to listen to other views.  Rather, many on the Left would simply erase all who do not think like them. 

The Left’s response to anything or anyone that challenges their viewpoint is to shame and silence.  I have previously discussed how this is a brainwashing tactic (See Blog dated 8/19/18, https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/08/a-suggestion-of-mind-reform-are-you.html ).   They even want to silence the President, to turn him into someone closer to the sort of politician that, if not one of them, they can at least control to some extent with traditional political games.  Anything he says which they do not like they claim is adding to the problem of violence in this country.  The unspoken demand is that he simply stop speaking – be silenced.  Meanwhile, they have no problem with their own leaders and their supporters encouraging and specifically directing people to harass and silence those with whom they disagree.  The hypocrisy is truly deafening.   

In this environment it becomes harder and harder for someone to reach out to those with differing positions to try to have a conversation, to try to listen and learn about differing views.  Many on the Left seem unable to deal with differing views.  Simply stating one’s position or asking a fair and legitimate question is often perceived as some sort of attack.   It is far easier to just label those views and those who hold them as one or another form of deplorable.  In the true form of identity politics so favored by the Left, that allows the dehumanization of those holding other viewpoints; and, when dehumanized, one needs no longer be tolerated or understood and harassment or worse of that dehumanized identity group becomes perfectly acceptable and often even viewed as necessary (not unlike the sorts of dehumanization that has led to various forms of “public cleansings” in the past and that is often the justification in one’s mind for hate crimes).

Sadly, fewer and fewer of those whom I once called friends are a part of my life today, simply because they will have nothing to do with one who does not walk in lock step with their views.  I can count on one hand people who hold distinctly diverse political views from mine who still interact with me as a true friend, and, our means of doing so in most cases is not to share and discuss and learn from our diverse political ideas, but to have an unspoken agreement to simply not discuss them.  Yet, without dialog and discussion with those who are not just mirrors of ourselves, we cannot grow as individuals or solve problems that face our community and our world.

It would be easy to retreat to a bubble where I would only interact with those who think just like me.  Sadly, that is what many people do.  I will not do that.  For that only furthers the division of our country into differing identity groups – tribes at war with one another.  Instead, I choose not to be dehumanized by those who would place me into one or another identity group.   I will not be silenced. I will not be erased.  I believe that I, like every other individual in this country, have a right to express my point of view.  I also believe that I have a responsibility to listen to the views of others.  That is a basic premise of our democracy, a premise with which the dehumanizing of opposing views is in direct conflict.

In America, we aim to tolerate and respect one another.  That includes one another’s differing political views.  We listen and we argue and in so doing we learn and we grow and we and our country move forward.  Expressing one’s views is not an act of aggression, it is not something for which one should be attacked, shamed, or silenced.  The unstated premise of those who would do so is that they prefer something other than the democratic republic that has served us well for the past 242 years. 

The Deeper Meaning of the Blame Game

The Tree of Life massacre was the act of a person filled with hate.   He alone is responsible for his horrendous acts.  Similarly, the person who sent the bomb threats did so due to whatever was going on in his own twisted mind. 

No one representing the Left or the Right condones these horrific acts.  But some choose to turn their focus from the acts and the individual perpetrators; rather than mourn the dead and injured, they look for ways to turn tragedy into political gain, often by placing responsibility not on the perpetrator, but on their own political enemies.

To attempt to blame someone else (as the Left is blaming Trump) is to deny that people have control over their own behavior – that they have individual responsibility.  Yet, that is exactly what much of the Democrat policies do – take away both the rights and responsibilities of the individual, implying that the individual is dependent on some Other for his or her behavior.  So, no wonder they immediately find someone else (in this case their nemesis Trump) to blame rather than the actual individual who conceived and carried out these heinous acts.

There is harsh political rhetoric on both sides.  This is not new; it has existed as long as our Country, though the actual language used may change with the times (and in our current times harsh, obscene, offensive language abounds in every venue, not just politics; such language has been with us long before the 2016 election cycle).  Similarly, an irrational hatred by some against Jews is nothing new.   Today, in our media glutted world, we are all bombarded with words of all sorts.  We all grasp onto some of these words to encourage and support our own behavior.  But the words are there for everyone; it is the individual who choses what to listen to and how to incorporate that into his or her own behavior.  That is, we each are responsible for our own acts; to think otherwise is to deny the individual.

The acts of violence should be condemned, and the individuals perpetrating them should be condemned.  Not just those that make the news, but the lesser acts of political violence that occur daily.  When someone seizes the hat of someone and destroys it just because it endorsed a political rival, the acts of that person should be condemned, not cheered or excused.  Yet, sadly, we hear Democrat leaders condoning, encouraging, and excusing acts of harassment and violence against Republicans.  This is very different from the heated political rhetoric that will always be part of a democracy in which opposing political parties are able to seek election.

I am saddened that rather than mourn the dead and condemn the killer, Democrats have chosen to weaponize the Tree of Life massacre as just another piece of their arsenal against the President and his supporters.  Yet, what else might we expect from those who deny the power of the individual and believe that the state has the power to control all.

Battle of the Bands

So much is going on in politics these days, so you may wonder why I have not written – about the upcoming election, the Democrat mobs and Republican jobs, immigration, Khashoggi, and the wealth of other issues currently in the news.  It is not that I am no longer interested.   I am what some might call a political junkie or obsessed with politics, but mainly I follow these and other stories with a passion because they have a significant effect on the country that I know and love.

So, why haven’t I written?  Well, actually I have.  You can scroll through the last couple of years and find blogs on immigration, MeToo, abortion, various political races, the courts, socialism, lack of civility, lack of communication, education, the constitution, the economy, jobs, Democrats, Republicans, the Left, etc., etc.  So, I have written and what good has it done other than to allow me to vent my opinions?  Those who agree may think I have articulated their thoughts well, but they have those opinions already. 

Those who hold other views likely do not read these blogs, or, if they do, likely dismiss them as the ravings of a crazy deplorable.  Why do I say that – because that is the reaction from the Left whenever it is revealed that I do not hold their viewpoint.  Revealing one’s “deplorable” status to a “friend” who holds Leftist views is a good way to lose that friendship (but, then, was it really ever a friendship if it ended when it was no longer an echo chamber for the supposed friend’s views?).

And the issues persist; the blogs from past days/years could just as easily be written today.

What we need is not more blogs or blog posts; what we need is actual interactive conversation between individuals who are willing to listen to one another, use their minds, think, ask questions, and not pre-judge based on memorized memes or otherwise simplistic characterizations of complex issues.  Written conversation is very different.  One can imagine blogs by different authors as various voices in a conversation, but those voices are not interactive in the way that an in-person conversation can be.  Rather, they are more like speeches directed outward, with no openness for hearing other views and no ability to question and alter positions in light of new information or other views that might prompt a second look at one’s own thinking.

So, we have blog or opinion piece upon opinion piece, like a battle of the bands, each shouting its own sound from its own little space.  But, sadly, even in person conversations these days are more like that battle than an actual interaction and thoughtful exchange of ideas.  I have previously written blogs about such conversations.  I had yet another today, this one about immigration. 

When my lunchmate in an otherwise to that point pleasant, non-political, and non-controversial conversation suddenly said she believed we should just let all 7000 migrants coming our way into our country without question, I said I disagreed.  I was immediately called a racist.  I suggested that I simply believed in immigration laws while she believed in open borders and that those were two distinct viewpoints but that holding a view against open borders did not necessarily make one racist.  That comment prompted her to call me inhumane and ignorant; I was told that I did not understand that people want to come here because it is better than their country.  I agreed America was a better country than many and asked if, since America is better than most countries, would she let everyone in?  If not stopping at 7000 would she stop at 20,000?  100,000? Where would she draw the line, if ever?  And if never, what would she do when this country reached a population that meant it simply could no longer be the country it is today?  She did not answer these questions, nor did she want to know why I held my position.  She was not interested in discussing the pros and cons of open borders vs. those with laws limiting immigration.  Instead, she told me I was crazy, an idiot, stupid, uneducated (no matter my graduate education), and other names I will not here repeat.  That was the end of the discussion, the lunch, and most probably our friendship.  It was not a conversation.

If people are inclined to just yell epithets at those who hold different views (in the above case, the preferred epithet for those not in favor of open borders was racist, followed by the more general epithets of various forms of stupidity), then there can be no conversation, no understanding of differing views, and no road to compromise and resolution of difficult issues.

So, the question then is what does one do when one is opinionated on certain issues and wants to have a discussion with others who may or may not hold the same views in order to better understand the many different ways that always exist to look at complex questions?  A battle of the bands may be a fun diversion on a warm summer night, but using that model for what should be difficult but productive conversations is not a way to encourage the tolerance and understanding necessary for a free democracy.

So, as this blog evidences, I will continue to write.  I will put my opinions out there and maybe they will prompt someone to think more deeply about why they hold a similar view or someone else to understand why someone would hold a view that is different from theirs.  Perhaps they can be a model that deeper thought than simply repeating party lines or memes is necessary to understand and solve the complex issues with which our country and our world are faced today.  I can always hope.

Why the Temperament Argument Is Another Red Herring

The latest argument against Judge Kavanaugh is that he was overly angry when defending himself against unsubstantiated allegations about which he asserted his own innocence.  Somehow, defending oneself when faced with life destroying accusations is a sign of poor judicial temperament.  Everyone should realize how ridiculous this argument is!

First, the hearing in which the Judge’s temperament is criticized was one where he was fighting for his very life and that of his family.  He was not deciding a legal issue.  If he had been a judge in this case he would have recused himself.  But he himself was on trial – a very public and very unfair trial in which he was essentially being asked to prove his own innocence.  Yet, in asserting that innocence strongly and firmly he is now told he is guilty of bad temperament.  Essentially, this is a catch-22 in which one is guilty if they say they are innocent. 

Secondly, throughout his years on the DC Circuit the Judge has exhibited fairness and judicial temperament of the highest quality in every case that he has decided.  In the first hearing on his nomination, when his qualifications and not his alleged high school antics, were the subject, there was no issue of his temperament, no allegation that he did not have proper judicial temperament.  Indeed, there has been no question of his temperament until he was placed in the untenable position, following weeks of a politically motivated smear campaign, of proving that he is innocent of unsubstantiated accusations.  Even then, the temperament issue did not arise until it was clear from both the testimony of the accusers and further investigation that the allegations would not destroy Kavanaugh as intended.

Third, the attacks on his temperament generally refer to his “performance” and argue that this is not how one should react in the face of such allegations.  How should one act?  That question cannot be answered because we all will act differently in the face of such attacks.  Yet, we are holding the Judge to some sort of standard that is certainly not clear, at least to me:  When one is charged with something that he claims is false, and is faced with more biased questioning from those who participated in the smear campaign, is he supposed to simply sit back and take more, or is he not entitled to feel the very personal wounds of the political assassination attempt and stand up for his own innocence?  Apparently, in the eyes of his opposition, that personal defense from their attacks is enough to disqualify him.  This was a personal attack on the judge and his life; it had nothing to do with his judicial temperament.  He was angry; I suspect most everyone would be angry in this or similar situation.  Did he not have a right to defend himself without being condemned for doing so?

Fourth, we demand that this man act in some one specific way or we will continue to destroy him, but throughout these weeks of smear campaign we have been told that women act in all sorts of ways when they make accusations and we are supposed to accept that without question and bend over backwards to accommodate their behavior, whatever it is.  This certainly sets up two very different standards for two different identity groups. 

The attacks on Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament are just one more weapon that the Democrats are using in their attempt to keep this highly qualified jurist from the bench.  It is one more red herring, designed to distract us from the actual qualifications of this fine jurist.  One should be entitled to defend oneself, to assert one’s own innocence without that defense being used to find new guilt.  No one should be distracted by the opposition’s latest red herring.

Why Every Senator Must Vote YES

Every Senator who cares about this country must vote Yes on the Kavanaugh nomination.

At this point if his nomination fails they are authorizing the sort of smear campaign against any and every future nominee that we have seen play out against Judge Kavanaugh.

What we have is a good nominee who was faced with unsubstantiated accusations the investigation of which (along with the search for dirt) may have found some less than honorable episodes or words in his youth (throwing ice in a bar; perhaps becoming over intoxicated; using sophomoric jokes in yearbook; etc.)  Let’s remember that we are all human, none of us is perfect, and if we search hard enough we will find some less than honorable event in the life of everyone, even a saint.

Now having been accused of poor character and his character smeared beyond belief, we are told he cannot be a judge because of that character.  We are told that righteous indignation in the face of allegations which he claims are false is sufficient to keep him from the Bench – essentially that his claims of innocence are proof of guilt, or should at least disqualify him from this nomination.  This is a catch-22 that is not democratic, not the way this country operates.

We cannot let the screams of hatred and anger intimidate the country into complicity with and authorization of this horrendous political assassination tactic along with its obvious use of troubled individuals for nothing more than political gain.  We cannot let the stall tactics of the democrats continue as they now attack the investigation that they called for.

I understand that Judge Kavanaugh might not be the individual that some would pick for the Supreme Court if their role was to nominate, but that does not mean that he is not highly qualified for the position.  The Senate’s role in confirmation is not one of personal preference.  In its role of advice and consent I would hope that the Senate would look to those legitimate qualifications and not at the distracting political circus and its many red herrings that have been produced over the past few weeks.

I will not rehash all the appalling events and red herrings of that circus.  Let me just point out a few that are most troubling:  the disregard of our Constitution, the rule of law, and core principles of democracy such as innocence until proof of guilt; the callous use of a clearly troubled woman for political purposes and with little if any regard for that woman herself, despite Democrat claims of this being about protecting women; the inflation of this nomination into a representative battle of various identity groups; the complete failure to focus on the qualifications and record of the nominee that are relevant to his service as a justice and failure of the Senate to properly carry out its role of Advice and Consent; the effect that this willingness to use smear tactics reminiscent of the Inquisition, McCarthyism, and Communist Russia will have on the likelihood of qualified individuals entering public service in the future.

The bottom line is that the tactics used by the Democrats to stall this nomination should be unacceptable to every American.  The end does not justify by any means necessary.  To accept that premise is to deny the importance of the principles of our Constitution and our democracy.   It is those principles that allow for an honest and fair opposition, not the Stalinesque tactics that we have seen employed over the past few weeks.  A no vote on Kavanaugh effectively endorses those undemocratic tactics.

We have a qualified candidate for Supreme Court Justice.  Personal preferences aside, there is no reason not to vote YES.  In this instance, that YES vote will further indicate a stand against the unsavory tactics demonstrated by the Democrats over the past weeks. 

Anyone who believes in fairness and justice must now stand up for what is right, renounce the political assault we have been witnessing, and urge the Senate to confirm this highly qualified jurist.

The Play Book Is Truly Frightening

So, here is the play book:  Accuse a good man of poor character, based on unsubstantiated allegations and his denial, then, argue that the man is not qualified because of his poor character.  Continue to demand investigation upon investigation, forever if necessary, until he is eliminated. (Even before its release, the Democrats claim that the FBI investigation is not sufficient and demand more)

I can think of several labels for this:  Catch 22; Salem Witch Trials; McCarthyism; Kafkaesque; Black lynchings in the segregated South; Stalin Show Trials; the Inquisition.  None of these should be part of America in the 21^st Century.

Perhaps the political assassins don’t think we will notice.  They distract us with all sorts of red herrings (A “red herring” is defined as “something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.”).   Failure to produce classified documents; questionable and unfounded allegations; media frenzy about whom to believe and who put on the better “performance.”; juvenile humor in a high school yearbook; claiming outrage of a man who claims his innocence is proof of his poor character; the need to believe women and treat them with special care; etc. etc. 

These questions are red herrings.  The country’s obsession with them is distracting us from the violation and rape of the Constitution that is occurring under our noses as the Democrats turn their role of Advice and Consent into an inquisition designed to serve their own political agenda to the detriment of our Country and with the destruction of a man and his family as some sort of collateral damage.

What we have is a good nominee who was faced with false accusations the investigation of which may have found some less than honorable episodes or words in his youth.  Let’s remember that we are all human, none of us is perfect, and if we search hard enough we will find some less than honorable event in the life of everyone, even a saint. 

What we are witnessing is political assassination by a group of people who are unwilling to accept the fact that they are not in power, that the people of this country elected a president the Democrats do not like and that the election was a signal that their policies were not the direction that the country wanted to go.  This assassination attempt in itself is bad enough, but it sets a precedent for future behavior as well as a warning to anyone who might seek public office in the future.  This smear and scare campaign is detrimental to us all.

It is apparent today that many are willing to ignore the Constitution when they believe that it furthers their political or social agenda.  There are many pretexts for this act of ignoring the constitution, all of which are nothing more than excuses that boil down to justifying “by any means necessary” to get one’s way.  There are small excuses: “this is just a job interview” (of course, questions such as many of those being asked of Kavanaugh would be impermissible and often illegal at a job interview).   There are the rumblings of underlying revenge:  for failure to put Merrick Garland on the bench, for the nomination of a constitutional conservative, simply for the fact that the country elected Donald Trump.   And, some come from the “social justice warriors” who in the case of the Kavanaugh hearing seem to less concerned about the questionable allegations here than in fighting for justice for all women or against all men or at least powerful men.  The problem with ignoring the constitution in this social justice battle is that it is that very constitution that allows those warriors to fight their battle.

Our country is far from perfect, but it is our country’s democracy and its Constitution that allow us to improve ourselves.  It was the 1^st Amendment and its freedoms of speech and assembly that allowed the suffragettes to be heard and gain the vote for women.  Similarly, it was our Constitution that allowed the civil rights movement to arise and become successful.   It is the Constitution that allowed the President to enforce the orders for school desegregation.  Without the freedoms and the rights provided to the people in the Constitution these movements and many others could have been stopped before they even began.

In this era of the 24-hour news cycle, of social media, of the need for instant gratification of every desire, it is hard to have the patience that a democracy requires.  On top of that, people are encouraged in intimidation tactics when, because of those very tactics, even our representatives are afraid to stand up to them and for what is right.  We must not let the screams of hatred and anger from his opposition intimidate us into complicity with and authorization of this horrendous political assassination tactic.  We must remember that we are a country with a constitution and the rule of law and basic concepts including innocence until proof of guilt.

Changes happen, but they happen slowly.  Most importantly, they happen via and because of the rule of law.  Those who want to rectify all the wrongs instantly and without the process that democracy requires are making a huge mistake.  I can perhaps understand the emotional need for instant results, but that need is complicit with those who would change our constitutional democratic republic to some other form.  The red herrings that they conjure and present may seem to be the key issue but they are not.  They distract those who, in the passion and sincerity of their plea for change, fail to look beyond those red herrings and see the bigger picture along with the underlying and real issue of the method by which they are seeking change.

In the case of Judge Kavanaugh the tactics used from the beginning have not been for the people, not for the accusers, not for women, not for justice.  They have been only for political power of those who now find themselves out of power and are hoping that will change with the midterm election.  No one should stand by and let this happen; no one should stand by as if this were OK. We are seeking a qualified jurist.  Judge Kavanaugh is that.  It is because he is that, because he cannot be challenged on his credentials, that the smear campaign was undertaken. 

At this point, anything other than a Yes vote on his nomination sends a frightening message to our leadership – that all the stops are out, all systems go – assassinate at your will, ruin families and lives, all for your own power and with complete and total disregard for the people whom you were elected to represent.  This is not the playbook that we should be using in America.