The Tactic of Turmoil

Please stop saying that President Trump is the cause of the current unrest. 

While the election of Donald Trump/the Democrats’ loss of power may have had something to do with the Democrats’ nearly 4 year long temper fit, this unrest cannot be pinned on President Trump.

From the moment that Donald Trump was announced as the winner of the 2016 presidential race, the Left has been distraught.  They refuse to accept the election results, blaming one manufactured evil after another.

When things like the Russian collusion hoax and the impeachment circus were unsuccessful in removing the duly elected president from office, the Left increased its efforts to foment discontent among the people to the extent that now even their VP candidate praises the ongoing protests along with key promotors such as the BLM organization as “essential for change in the US.” 

The protests began when the Democrats refused to accept the duly elected president.  They have escalated over the past 3 plus years and are now becoming more and more violent.  The divide among us created by the identity politics of the Obama administration are a basis for fomenting discontent and fomenting “protests” about one grievance or another, protests that are more and more likely to turn into riots against our history, our institutions, and our country itself.

Kamala Harris is right – these protests (turned riots) are essential for the type of change that the Left is truly seeking.   In 1848 Marx stated, “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” 

Lenin, Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks recognized mass terror as a necessary weapon in the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.  Stalin wrote, "Terror is the quickest way to new society." 

In 1918 Bolshevik Martin Latsis wrote, “The first thing you have to ask an arrested person is: To what class does he belong, where does he come from, what kind of education did he have, what is his occupation? These questions are to decide the fate of the accused. That is the quintessence of the Red Terror.”

In his book Terrorism and Communism (1920), Trotsky emphasized that " We are forced to tear off [the bourgeoisie] class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish."

Today’s Left has created a class struggle of a different kind.  Not a struggle between working and ruling classes, but a struggle between those whom the Left has labeled victims and those whom the Left has labeled victimizers.  I do not know what the Left’s ultimate purpose is in creating this struggle other than its leading to their own power.  Perhaps their intentions are somewhere in the area of the idealism of some other socialist leaders and dreamers, perhaps they are more sinister. 

What is clear is that the Left wants to overthrow our current system entirely.  Not mend it, not use it as we have done in the past to move ever closer to the ideals propounded by America for the past 244 years. 

And, following the playbook of Marx and his followers the Left seem to believe that something akin to violence or mass terror is necessary to make those who support the current system succumb and make way for that new world that the Left will control. 

President Trump is not responsible for today’s unrest.  He is simply the excuse that allows the Left to stir up the discontent that is needed for their revolt against our current systems. 

Blaming others for any negative results of their own well-calculated actions just makes no sense.  The Left cannot blame the other side for their own tactics of revolt, whether those tactics involve the use of lies, unfounded investigations, frivolous litigation, or “protests” that turn to riots. 

These tactics are being used to remove from office someone whom the Left does not want there.  That is not how our system works.

The Left wants new rules that allow them to have whatever they want and to do whatever they want when they don’t get it.  Rather than looking to their own policies and possible inadequacies they just blame the other side.  Since November of 2016 they have been trying to  subvert our system and the will of the voters. 

Blame is just one more tactic that they are using to get their way and remove President Trump from office.   It is one more attempt to make him the bad guy.

To justify a temper fit by blaming someone else for causing it is just another example of the Left’s refusal to take personal responsibility.   Donald Trump may anger some people, but he did not make anyone throw this nearly 4 year long divisive fit.  He does not encourage the turbulent behavior (unless one believes that simply holding office and carrying out one’s duties based on policies promised during his campaign is somehow sufficient encouragement for those holding different policy views to create turmoil and strife).  The President does what he can within the bounds of our Constitution and our governmental system to stop the unrest.   

Those who do not like the President’s actions have many remedies other than displays, encouragement, and praise of unrest and those who carry it out.  Indeed, the very systems that this unrest is directed against provide civil means to oppose actions of the President or others with whom the Left disagrees.

The Left wants to remake America into a different place – they tell us it is time to “re-set”.  Unrest is a proven tactic to move towards that goal.  Regardless of how one feels about that ultimate “re-set” (to what?) goal, honesty requires that one admit that the actors and promoters of the unrest are the only ones responsible for it.

 

When Justice Disrupts the Narrative

"Justice is not often easy, does not fit the mold of public opinion, and it does not conform to shifting standards.  It answers only to the facts and to the law."                                                                                    -Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General

Breonna Taylor’s death was a tragedy.  In a way she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron presented a detailed account of the facts of this case, found after a lengthy and thorough investigation, in a news conference Wednesday.  That transcript can be found HERE 

Essentially, police officers were executing a search warrant at Ms. Taylor’s residence.  Note that the purpose, validity, and obtainment of the warrant are separate issues from the actions of the officers who were actually carrying out the warrant.  This investigation addressed the events that actually took place within Ms. Taylor’s apartment. 

Verified facts establish that the officers knocked and announced their presence and, when there was no response, they breached the door.  They were met in the hallway by Ms. Taylor and Kenneth Walker.  Mr. Walker had a gun and fired at an officer who was hit in the leg with the bullet.  Mr. Walker admitted that he shot first.  The wounded officer returned fire as did another officer.  Ms. Taylor was struck by 6 bullets, one of which was fatal.

This evidence in far more detail was presented to a Grand Jury whose purpose it is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and to protect the public against unfounded criminal prosecutions where probable cause is lacking.  The Grand Jury was comprised of fellow citizens of both Ms. Taylor and the officers.  The Grand Jury returned only an indictment against one officer for three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering the lives of three individuals in another apartment.   

No homicide charges were brought against any of the officers.  Such charges were found not to be applicable on the facts of the case because the officers were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Mr. Walker.

Those are the facts.  Yet some people are not willing to accept the facts or not willing to accept what the facts mean in our system of justice.  Justice requires that emotions be put aside and facts be examined objectively (often signified by blind lady justice holding the scales).  Justice is not achieved via emotion or mob rule.

I have no doubt that Ms. Taylor’s family, friends, and others are outraged by her death.  But that does not mean that they have the right to blame those officers who were only doing their job.  It does not mean that they have the right to seek revenge from those who are not responsible for her death.  It does not give them the right to act out their very real pain by destroying others.  And it certainly does not give anyone the right to form a destructive and riotous mob. 

This is an incident unique to itself.  It is not part of some institutional and calculated plan.  It has its own very unique facts which we now have before us.  To use this incident to justify a disregard of actual justice, to use it to justify a disregard of our Nation’s basis in the rule of law is wrong.  Yet the Left seems to have no problem doing this.

As soon as Ms. Taylor was pronounced dead the demonstrations began.  No facts yet, only raw emotion.  Stir up protests, some peaceful some not, around the country, claiming this death is one of many that are not seen as individual tragedies but simply as proving some point about some systemic failure.  That is not justice, not for Ms. Taylor and not for our country.

This evening the progressive Democrat mayor of Albuquerque made a statement about the case.  After saying he was not a lawyer and thus couldn’t comment he then went on to comment.  He asserted that the Brionna Taylor decision is “out of step with what we’re trying to do in America.”

What????  What exactly are "we" trying to do in this country?  If it is to follow the rule of law, let objective facts determine justice, then this case was absolutely in step.  It is not the decision that the mob wanted, it is not the decision that the Left would like to see, but it is the honest decision when one looks dispassionately at the facts.  That is justice.

So what does he mean when he says it is out of step with what we want to do?  And, who is “we”?  I hazard a guess that “we” is the progressive Left that is not interested in rule of law, but rather rule of passion or emotion.  The Left wanted the facts of this case to create a narrative of systemic police brutality against Blacks.  But the facts did not cooperate.

Perhaps the “we” is trying to create a new system governed not by equal justice for all, but rather one in which some people are excused or manufactured into victims based on race while others are condemned based on occupation (in this instance police officer).  Perhaps the decision here is out of step because it does not further the divisive identity group hatreds continually being fomented by the Left.

Real justice does not bend to political desires.  It does not bend to threats and violence.  It does not bend to the will of the mob.  It bends to the law and to the facts.  When the real and honest people of the Grand Jury reviewed the facts of this case, they returned their decision.  It is a just decision, regardless of what the Left would like or the mob demand. 

So now we will watch Kentucky burn as too many people act out their anger and their hurt that they did not get what they wanted, that the decision did not find the police or anyone else guilty for Ms. Taylor’s tragic death.  Justice is not always satisfying; it is not a means of revenge nor an antidote for the deep pain of seemingly senseless loss.  Justice is impartial.  It is based on law, fact, and reason. 

This decision represents a victory for justice, a victory for the rule of law, and as such it is a victory for America.  And when those unhappy with the decision finish acting out, I hope they will be able to objectively realize that it is very much in step with America and her ideal of equal justice for all.

 

What Prevents Civil Discourse

 

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that this is pretty much what political discussions sound like these days.  No facts, no explanations of factual interpretations, just name calling and lies.

To be clear, if the disagreement is about facts alone, then only one can be correct.   The other may be lying, or simply misinformed, or without a thorough factual investigation.  However, if the disagreement is about one’s viewpoint or opinions, or factual interpretations that support those opinions, then neither can be absolutely correct, and neither can be lying.

And herein lies a key problem with today’s political (as well as other) discourse.  We seem no longer able to distinguish facts from opinions.

Facts are what they are and we cannot change them.  We can often interpret them in more than one way and can use them to support more than one viewpoint.  But interpretations, opinions, viewpoints are not facts and cannot be lies.  They can be based on lies, but they themselves are individual interpretations and in this country we are allowed to have our own opinions. 

This is why the distinction between fact and opinion is so important.  It is also why, until we can once again make that distinction, that our discourse will never return to the civility that once was and will instead continue to look like the above cartoon.

We also are living in a post-fact world where one’s feelings, hopes, desires – their narrative – rather than facts seem to be the “reality” that many prefer. Although living in a post fact world we still interact as if we were not, as if we were living in a reality governed by facts. 

Yet, in today’s times the narrative, not the fact is king.  For many today, if one believes something to be true, because it is their narrative, then it is so.  Inconvenient facts that do not fit one’s narrative are often ignored, and the bearer of those difficult facts is called a liar or worse and often silenced.

While issues can and often do have more than one viewpoint and more than one reasonable solution, we have gone beyond tolerance of opposing viewpoints to a belief that there can be only one.  That one is the one that one’s own controlling narrative says is the one.

We have confused fact with narrative and while someone certain of their facts can claim to be right and try to silence incorrect factual presentations, one cannot attempt to silence other narratives than their own.    To do so is to confuse reality with one’s own opinion or hope or emotional experience or other unverifiable information.  This confusion is not only present in today’s uncivil discourse, we see it all around us.

If one wants to check oneself and one’s beliefs against reality, against actual and complete facts, where do they go to find those facts?  Because it is only with a complete picture of the facts relevant to an issue that one can form an honest opinion about that issue.  And it is those real and complete facts that allow one to build arguments in support of their preferred resolution to the issue and then build a real world narrative based on those facts.

Today one has to spend hours going from news site to news site to try to ferret out the actual and full picture of any issue.  The line between news and opinion and propaganda has become so blurred that one must at a minimum check at least one source from every aspect of the political spectrum.  This takes a lot of time and few are able or willing to spend that necessary time on this task.  Others still have a sadly misfounded belief that they can trust their usual news source to give them a full and unbiased report.

The press currently fails us in its responsibility to report unbiased facts.  The many forms of media bombarding us 24 hours a day are mostly there to entertain and to make a profit, not to provide us with a fair and unbiased report of some occurrence.  Those who seek power are able to take advantage of the medias’ failings and of our confusion or ignorance of them.

This leaves the two political sides to each create their own story and assert that narrative as true.  And the supporters of each side are often more than willing to accept that narrative on face value and call those who don’t agree liars and disrupters.

I was recently told that this is a partisan world and how dare I take a partisan view (with which the speaker disagreed) and therefore further the partisanship.  There was a time when people with differing opinions could present them, question one another and discuss those views.  Unless we have the state mandating what we think we will always have a partisan or multi-opinionated society.  That is not a bad thing.  It is how we learn and grow and move forward.

Compounding the problem of inability to distinguish fact and opinion is the fact that the two political parties and their followers seem to have two very different and indeed opposing opinions of this country’s past, present, and future. 

These two distinct views of America cannot coexist in any unified form.  There are those, mostly on the Right, who generally like and believe in America as she currently exists.  While accepting her faults and working to correct them, they believe that the country and form of government created by our Constitution and developed over the last 240 plus years is good.  They do not believe it is static or that it should be so, but they do believe that it is worth preserving and changes to it should occur within its proven systems, governmental institutions, and Constitutional provisions.

The Left’s view, in contrast, paints a negative picture of America as she currently exists.  People holding this view do not think of America as a good country, they do not believe in her system of government and actually they do not trust the people to make the decisions about themselves and their country that our Constitution allows.  Many holding this view believe that problems in America’s systems should not be repaired or improved, but rather that the entire structure of America should be dismantled and completely rebuilt in a manner that conforms to their vision of what she should be.

The Left’s vision for a future America is unclear.  Like Obama’s promise of “hope and change”, no one can or will really articulate what the Left’s vision means – what it will look like in the larger picture;  instead it holds a different form in each believer’s heads.  (And this is the problem with narrative when it is not tied to actual and specific facts.)

We can, generally, distinguish the restructured view of America from that which currently exists.  It far more resembles socialism than anything we have today.  It includes a large government and would allow those in power to make many and significant decisions over the individual lives of the citizenry. 

Each side feels very strongly about its view.  The belief in a governmental system is far more deeply seated and passionate than a position on this or that issue; it affects the individual’s entire world and the world of their future generations.  It is not a wonder that passions are elevated when one is talking about their view for their very existence.

Both sides often assert the other is destroying the country.  Indeed, each really believes this.  But the destruction that the Left sees is often more a destruction of their narrative than an actual destruction of what in reality exists.   When the President does not do what the Left wishes he would, when his actions conform to our laws and our Constitution, he is not destroying the country; rather, his political positions,  policies, and opinions are not those of the Left and their narrative. 

Interestingly, this country, in its current form and with its current Constitution gives the Left legal and civil processes to challenge actions they do not like.  But in the Left’s narrative world, rather than follow these processes, their remedies are to break faith with the Constitution and do such things as silence the opposition, interfere with the administration’s performance of its Constitutional duties, and look to some form of mob rule for a remedy.  Their narrative allows – indeed they believe it mandates – that they do this.

This is what happens when narrative clashes with fact, or narrative with narrative.  There can be no civil discourse nor can there be a civil resolution because the rules are different depending upon on which side of the divide one stands. 

We have always had partisanship in this country as any free people should, but our debates were based on shared rules and an understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.  We were all playing by the same rules.  

Only when we once again respect the reality of facts and are able to distinguish factual reality from narrative will we be able to find our way back to some sort of civil discourse and debate and with that a way forward from the anger and hate that surrounds us today.

 

Facts, Conclusions, and a Suggestion

This is my second post following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing.  It further addresses the issue of filling the vacancy created by her death.

Fact:  There is a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. 

Fact:  It is the President’s job to appoint a justice to fill that vacancy. (Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2)

Fact:  It is the Senate’s job to advise and consent in regard to that appointment.  (Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2)

Fact:  The Democrats say that neither Trump nor the Senate should go forward with this Constitutionally mandated process and that they will use whatever they can to stop him including attempted impeachment and threats of Court packing.  (See, e.g. Nancy Pelosi’s statement on ABC’s This Week, 9/20/20; Rep. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass, Tweet, 9/19/2020)

Fact:  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), said “The Supreme Court handles ‘the people’s business,’ ... Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people’s business is not getting done.” (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.6116, 9/27/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated “The court needs nine justices to function properly. It is vital to our judicial system.” (CNN, 2/25/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) stated “This is not just some TV show, right. ‘Eight is Enough.’ Eight is not enough on the United States Supreme Court. (Press Conference, 9/07/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “With only eight justices instead of nine, the Court's decisions can deadlock with a 4-to-4 vote…. [T]here is a responsibility that we have in the Senate to ensure that we, in fact, have a full Supreme Court.” (Congressional Record, S.982, 2/24/2016)

Fact:  In 2016 Justice Ginsburg said that senators refusing to vote on President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court should recognize that a president is elected for four years not three. (Wash. Post, 9/7/2016)

Fact:  The U.S. Supreme Court is “the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution” (Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)

Fact:  Without all nine justices the court is not fully functional.

Fact:  If questions about the November election go to the Supreme Court, with only 8 justices the Court could deadlock in a tie, leaving the Nation in a Constitutional Crisis.

Fact:  Ours is a government of, for, and by the people. (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, Nov. 1863)

Fact.  The People voted for the current President and current makeup of the Senate. (2016 and 2018 election results)

Fact:  The People also voted for the makeup of the Senate that existed in 2016. (2014 election results)

Fact:  The Democrats seek to block action by the people’s representatives to move forward on a justice to fill the current vacancy.  (See numerous Democrat statements demanding that any nomination and vote wait at least until November)

Conclusion:  The people are entitled to a fully functioning court as part of their government for which they voted through their representatives.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ actions are attempts to block the rights and the will of the people.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ current position is inconsistent with their 2016 assertions, indicating they will use or misuse the Constitution to serve their own purposes, not those of the people.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ current actions do not support our Constitution or our form of government.

Conclusion:  The Democrats cannot be trusted to protect and preserve our Democratic Republic.

Suggestion:  We the voters should not vote to support giving any more power to the Democrats.

RBG – First post after her passing

 Here is my statement on Ruth Ginsburg’s passing:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg definitely led an amazing life. Her many accomplishments are deserving of respect.   Many call her brilliant and she may have been.  She was certainly a good advocate. But, in my opinion she was lacking in judicial temperament.   And she did a terrible disservice to the country by not retiring when she knew she was dying, especially given the likely importance of SCOTUS in deciding this year’s election. May she rest in peace.*

*NOTE: I wrote essentially this same comment in response to a Facebook post that touted RBG’s talents as well as those of the poster.  My comment was deleted.  I’m assuming my opinion was not sufficiently gushing with adoration as apparently is expected when a Left icon passes. But neither is it disrespectful. Just honest – something of which the cancel culture does not approve when it does not mimic their voice.

We have all known since before the 2018 midterms that RBG likely would retire or die before the 2020 election.  That was a campaign point during those midterms.  Those who did not want Trump or a Republican Senate to be the ones to replace RBG had the right to vote for Democrat senators at that time.  The current makeup of the Senate reflects voter choice.

At least until January 2021, Donald Trump is still our president.  In 2016 RBG asserted that there should be a vote on then President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because “a president is elected for four years.” Similarly, Donald Trump should nominate and there should be a vote on RBG’s replacement as soon as possible.

The Supreme Court belongs to the people, not to one or another political party.  We the people have a right to have a fully functioning court.  This is especially important this year when it is very likely that the Supreme Court will have a decisive roll is who wins the election Nov. 3.  Without RBG’s replacement the Court will have 8 members and could easily split 4-4 leaving us with no decision and a Constitutional crisis.

Is that what the Democrats want, or perhaps hope for? They certainly have little respect for our Constitution or our rule of law.  I find the Democrat threats of violence if President Trump moves forward to be if not treasonous, a clear betrayal of their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the people.  So too are their assertions that if the position is filled before the election then they will begin efforts to pack the Court so that they will never lose again.  Could it be any clearer that they are more interested in their own power than in preserving and protecting the United States of America?

Just a reminder here that Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires the President to appoint judges of the Supreme Court.  To not move forward to fill this vacancy would in essence be a shirking by the President of his duty under the Constitution.

I am not optimistic about the upcoming behavior of the Democrats as President Trump moves forward to fill the vacancy and give to the people the fully functioning Court to which we are entitled.  I suspect that in addition to encouraging violence and other mob actions, the Democrats will use everything in their power to stall the process. 

For the Democrats everything is political and politics is all about their own power.  We have seen already the extent to which the Democrats will go to get what they want.  Who can forget the Kavanaugh hearings, the lies and the destruction of innocent lives and reputations? 

Indeed, that is all we seem to see from Democrats these days – hatred and a clear doctrine that the end will justify using any means necessary (for example, silencing opposition by denying their rights such as free speech protected to the people under Constitution; misusing Congressional powers and taxpayer money to conduct disruptive and frivolous investigations in a variety of attempts to overturn the 2016 election; and of course fomenting hatred for the duly elected President with full consciousness that such hatred can and does promote and result in violence). 

I have often argued in this blog that the Left is not interested in making our government and our country better; rather their goal is to completely dismantle it and rebuild it in a way that gives them absolute power and control over our entire way of life.  This Supreme Court vacancy provides them with another opportunity to further their cause.

Of course, the Democrats and their handmaiden the mainstream media will make every effort to turn public opinion in their favor and against filling the Court’s vacancy.  They will play on our emotions.  RGB’s final request to wait on her replacement will most certainly be used.  But this was a political request. 

RGB was a political player – the only reason she did not retire under Obama is because she thought Hillary would win.  Then, stuck with a Republican president whom she knew would not nominate a fellow liberal, she refused to retire despite her failing health.  She knew exactly what she was doing and had no problem creating this nightmare for the Court and for the people of this country.

The Democrats will tell us that the Republicans are hypocrites because they opposed Obama’s lame-duck nomination of Merrick Garland.  They will not mention the fact that the political makeup of Congress then was a different party from the Executive and as such reflected a different voter voice than does the current makeup.  They will not mention the many election year appointments and confirmations that have occurred in the past.

It is simple.  There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court that must be filled.  It is the President’s job to nominate someone and the Senate’s job to bring that nomination to a vote.  Simple as that.  That is our Constitutional process, what our rule of law requires.   

But watch the Democrats try to turn this into some sort of unconstitutional and evil power grab by the Republicans and the President.  It is not.  The only ones not reading their Constitution here are the Democrats.  Don’t listen to their rhetoric as they attempt to turn our legal processes and our very government into one of mob rule.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong American woman, has died after leading a full life, much of it within and a part of our legal system.  Let’s not allow the Democrats to use her death to further attack that very system that allowed her to become whom she was meant to be.

White Privilege, White Guilt

 History often provides lessons for the present.  Herein are some snippets of Russian history that have sparked my thoughts about privilege and guilt.  (And, as an aside, this is just one reason why we need to read and understand history rather than cancel it).

I was recently reading about the Populist movement in Russia in the late 1800s in which students and others involved in the movement picked up and moved from Moscow and St. Petersburg to the countryside to live with the peasantry.

These young [Populists] were riddled with the guilt of privilege.  Many of them felt a personal guilt towards that class of serfs – the nannies and the servants – who had helped to bring them up in their families’ aristocratic mansions.  They sought to free themselves from their parents’ sinful world, whose riches had been purchased by the people’s sweat and blood, and set out for the village in a spirit of repentance to establish a ‘New Russia’ in which the noble and the peasant would be reunited in the nation’s spiritual rebirth.  By dedicating themselves to the people’s cause – to the liberation of the peasantry from poverty and ignorance and from the oppression of the gentry and the state – the students hoped to redeem their own sin:  that of being born into privilege.  (Orlando Figes, Natasha’s Dance, A Cultural History of Russia, 220)

One can’t help but see parallels to America today.  Today the woke Left has discovered the useful concept “White privilege” and demands that White individuals admit their privilege (which may or may not exist) and proclaim their guilt.  Their sin is that they may or may not have benefited from the status of Whites throughout history; their privilege may or may not have had some negative impact on non-Whites. 

The Left, using a selective reading of history, portrays this country as full of sin due to White Privilege.  The sins of the ancestors now fall to present day Whites.  This sin must be redeemed.

Sure, we hear words like reparations as a form of retribution for the sin, but what is this really about?  Is this White privilege/White guilt about concern for those who are not White, or is it really about furthering a socialist agenda while making oneself feel good?  Like the Russian Populists, are today’s White penitents, convinced that they should feel guilty, simply trying to “redeem their own sin”? 

The sin itself does not make sense.  Just as the Russian students were not complicit in their parents’ choice of a peasant nanny, today’s Whites were not complicit in any possible sins of their ancestors.  The Russian Populists were not guilty simply because they were born to aristocracy any more than today’s Whites are guilty simply for being born White. 

Yet, convinced they are sinners, both the Russian Populists and the woke Whites do penance.  This penance is done for absolution of the sinner – to remove the stain of the “sin” of privilege; it really in the end has nothing to do with non-White victim identity groups.   Those groups are created by the Left to make one group feel guilty and in need of absolution while furthering the Left’s power over other groups whom they have made dependent upon them and their promises of a better life.

Like the Left, the Russian Populists promised a better life.  They were going to liberate the peasants from their “poverty and ignorance.”  Ignorance is a significant word here.  It suggests that the Populists believed in some way that the peasants were less than their Populist saviors who believed it was their right or duty to do for the peasants what the Populists believed they could not do for themselves.    

Not unlike the many programs created for today’s minority victim groups, “a whole range of institutions” were set up to improve the Russian peasants’ welfare and to integrate them into national life.  The attitude towards these peasants was one of “paternal populism.”  The peasants, however, were angry with those socialist ideas and with those who were trying to take control over their lives.  They did not want to be patronized; the paternalism was offensive to them.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines paternalism as “the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.” 

The essence of paternalism is that one group is seen as “less than” another, as unable to exist without the paternal assistance.  While paternalistic handouts may be useful, they rectify nothing.  Paternalism does not provide the tools or education that would allow those being helped to actually improve their status and no longer need the paternalism and its welfare. 

For the past 50 years the Left’s paternalistic entitlement programs have kept the minorities they are allegedly designed to help in minority ghettos.  They have not made the minorities “better off,” nor have they “protected them from harm.” 

What this paternalism has done is keep the alleged victims right where they are – less than those who are their paternal keepers.  It intentionally creates an underclass that is dependent upon their paternal keepers.  This benefits only the Left which gains power by maintaining the dependence of this underclass.

As the Populist movement in Russia collapsed, it became clear that the idea of the peasants that the Populists had in their minds did not exist.  Placement into an identity group in no way correlates to actual understanding of that individual or his needs.  Indeed, one can never know another group better than the group knows itself.  To pretend to do so is to believe one is superior to another.

In large part due to their lack of actual understanding of the peasants as people, things did not go well for the Russian Populists.  Their movement ultimately failed.   However, the idealism of the movement remained, and Lenin used it to bolster his revolution not many years later.  And that certainly did not go well for the peasants!

Perhaps at least some of the White Privilege-Guilt is, like that of the Russian Populists, based on some idealistic belief in a better world.  I tend to think that it more likely results from the Left’s manipulation of basically good emotions.  Perhaps some of the “guilty” feel their unknown sins have been redeemed.  But in the end, it is the Left, not those labeled victims of the privileged, that actually benefits. 

The Left is creating and fomenting the divisiveness that any good Marxist knows is necessary to bring about socialism.  They are also creating the idealist fairy tale about how their progressivism will heal all.  

The victims having been determined and guilt having been proclaimed, the Left provides the way to assuage it:  support their paternalistic institutions and organizations that will “take care of” the victim group and your guilt will be redeemed.  In essence, give power to the Left and they will fix the problem.  The Left will anoint the woke as both redeemer and redeemed.   Of course, nothing goes unrewarded; the Left will expect gratitude in the form of power.

I’m not buying it.  The Left belies the supposed noble concern of its guilt based calls for more paternalism when it sees only useful groups rather than individuals and when it treats those groups as some underclass whose dependence is cultivated rather than as equal individual humans who are due respect. 

Even the most noble sounding cause must consider not just the cause but the actual and complex individuals whom it will affect.  Lenin’s motivations for socialism were for the most part based on idealistic beliefs.  The ideal did not become a reality because it failed to understand the effect that its “I know better than you what you need” attitude would have on real individuals and their spirit.

Failure to see people as more than some identity statistic demonstrates a lack of real compassion for those people as individual and equal human beings.  While useful in fomenting revolutionary change, identity groups are destructive to the lives of real people. 

Everyone in some way has been lucky through no fault of their own and in other ways unlucky through no fault of their own.  Experiencing something better than another in some area does not create some privilege-victim relationship.  The unfairness of life does not mandate victim status for some and guilty status for others.

The Russian Populists ultimately realized that “they were cut off from the actual peasants by a cultural, social and intellectual abyss that they could not hope to bridge.” They then accepted that within their many differences they were all Russians. 

So too are we all Americans.  The Left would divide us by placing us into competing groups.  The division benefits none but the Left.    

We can learn from history that concepts of privilege, guilt, and their cohort paternalism do not end well for the real people seen as needing the interference of a paternalistic savior.

Guilt that is real should be redeemed.  But guilt belongs to the one who actually committed the sin.  Sin and retribution are not group holdings.  Retribution for actual sin should not be some form of paternalism that only furthers the sin.  Do not let the Left’s need for paternalistic power interfere with our individual yet united humanity.

 

Question 4 - Appearance or Substance? Talk or Action?

This is the 4^th in an intermittent series of questions to think about before casting your ballot in November.

Today I want to encourage everyone to really think about why they are voting for someone. 

Can you vote for someone you don’t like as a person if their policies benefit you and your country (or, can you vote for someone whose policies will likely hurt you/your country just because you like their personality/dislike the personality of their opponent?

This is a critical question this year.  First because the perceptions of the two men running for president differ at the superficial (likability) level.  Secondly, the reality of the actions that each will take as president are substantially different and would have significantly different consequences for this country and the individuals living within it.

I understand that many people do not like Donald Trump’s rough-hewn nature; they do not like his “tell it like it is” way of talking – no couching things in niceties, no euphemisms, no  politically correct terms, etc.  I also understand that many folks like Joe Biden’s “nice guy” image, his big smile, his ability to say what his audience likes to hear. 

I also know that some people object to Donald Trump, saying they cannot vote for him, because they claim to be offended by his “character flaws.”  I don’t believe this excuse because if one is going to be offended by the idea of character flaws  then they would certainly be equally offended by those of Joe Biden:  rape charges against him; verified unwanted touching and hair sniffing of innumerable women and young girls; verified use of his government position for personal and family gain; lying about when he met and began a relationship with his current wife; proven repeated acts of plagiarism to name just a few. 

So, what is it?  Many people say they want their president to act “presidential.”  But what does it really mean to be “presidential?”

We live in an age of appearances.  For many it seems to be all about playing the part, not about who you really are or what you really stand for.  Most of our presidents have been politicians before taking the office;  certainly that is true in the recent past.  Politicians have learned the rules of politi-speak, of how to sound like you are saying something when actually you say nothing, how to talk big but accomplish little.

Donald Trump entered this political world of appearances as an outsider.  He doesn’t fit the mold.  But does that mean that he is not presidential?

Personally, I am far more concerned with actions and accomplishments than with whether someone fits the mold of the stereotypical politician.   What someone does will tell me much more about both the individual’s character as well as what sort of a president he or she might be.  So, with that in mind, let’s look at some of the actions and accomplishments of likeable Joe and rough-hewn Trump.

● Prison Reform:  Biden talked about the need for it for 40+ years, but despite his political influence as senator and vice-president, nothing was done.  Trump got it done – maybe not everything that everyone would like, but a huge step forward.

● Veterans and the VA:  Biden talked about it, Trump got it done.

● Poor economic status and joblessness of minorities:  Biden talked about it, but it was Trump who raised the unemployment status of Blacks and other minorities to the lowest ever in the nation’s history while providing a positive job climate that raised minority economic status to heights not seen before.  While Biden continues to say he will do something, Trump says he will continue to act as he has, continuing to improve the situation.

● Peace in the Middle East:  Biden may have talked about it, Trump just negotiated an historic peace accord between Arab nations and Israel.

● Trade:  Trade deals, including those supported by Biden, were hurting our small businesses, our farmers, and Americans generally.  Trump renegotiated trade deals that are favorable to the U.S.

● Foreign policy:  Biden as part of the Obama administration spoke from a position of apology and weakness whereas Trump speaks from a position of strength.  Trump is fully funding our military and is actually ending the years of foreign wars and bringing our troops home.  He also opened relations with North Korea and likely averted nuclear conflict there.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden was and is using foreign relationships for his own and his family’s personal and financial gain.

● Middle East:  Biden opposed the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.  Trump sent successful missions against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani.  The Trump administration has effectively eliminated ISIS.  

● American Embassy in Israel:  Biden talked about moving it to the capital, Jerusalem.  Trump actually moved the embassy to Jerusalem, leading the way for some other nations to do the same.

● Health care:  Biden of course was part of the Obama-Biden healthcare plan that resulted in Obamacare.  The mandates (taxes) under that plan were untenable for many.  Penalties required those who did not want insurance to pay anyway, often outrageous amounts for insurance they did not want or need.  People lost the ability to choose or keep their doctors (despite promises to the contrary).   Biden has said he favors national healthcare and has also said he doesn’t, but it seems clear that he is likely to support at a minimum an Obamacare type plan, a plan administered by government bureaucracy.  President Trump has managed to remove some of the most burdensome parts of Obamacare and expand options and quality of affordable healthcare.  He indicates a desire to do more to provide more affordable choice to Americans.

● Prescription Drugs:  Biden talked about problems of cost and availability.  Trump has reduced the cost of prescription drugs, made them more available, and has given terminal patients the Right to Try Act.

● Immigration:  Obama-Biden actually did put kids in cages but did not even-handedly enforce immigration laws.  Trump enforces the laws on the books (his duty as president), is clear about the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, has taken many actions (including the wall) to reduce illegal border activity such as child and drug trafficking, and is working to improve access to immigration based on merit.

● Black colleges:  Biden talks about the importance of Black education.  Trump restored funding to Black colleges. 

● Race relations:  Biden believes in identity politics and their divisive effect.   Like many on the Left he likes to make promises and even throw money at minorities, but he rarely shows respect for them as individuals.  Trump’s policies do not pick winner and loser identity groups; instead they equally apply to all Americans. 

This list could go on and on.   I suspect that since the media is more concerned with providing superficial pictures of a likable Biden and an unlikable Trump that some of the above may come as a surprise. 

There are indeed many more that suggest how busy our President is and how much he has gotten done for this country and its people in just 3 ½ years.  His actions have angered some, but, not being a typical politician, he is not in it to be liked, he does not play political games, he just gets things done.  He has kept just about all of his campaign promises. 

Beyond actions, the policies supported by each candidate and his party are important and, in this election year, if not polar opposites, they certainly reflect vastly different views of this country and what it will become.

President Trump’s actions suggest that he believes in the capitalist system, he believes in America and its Constitution, and is generally a conservative.  He supports policies that provide equal opportunity to all Americans, he believes in individual responsibility and choice, he is pro-life, he believes in small government and follows the Constitutional limits on the federal government respecting the rights of the states and their governors to make decisions about such things as using the national guard to quell riots or mandating masks. 

Joe Biden’s actions in the past have suggested that he believes in big government and is willing to accept significant government control over the lives of the populace.  He believes less in individual responsibility and choice and more in government regulation and direction over individual lives.  Like many on the Left he believes that he knows what is good for you and that you should simply leave it up to government to both provide for you and decide what you should say, believe, and think. 

If not a socialist, many of Biden’s handlers are.  There is little doubt that what he now has referred to as the Harris administration will heavily lean socialist.

In a capitalist democratic republic, one is free to make their own choices and to become the person they were meant to be.  In a socialist world, the government makes the choices and the individual will only become the person that they are allowed to be.  It is a significant difference.

So, back to today’s question.  It is unlikely that you are ever going to actually meet Joe Biden or Donald Trump, let alone sit down with them as friends.  So why does it matter whether you like one or dislike one as a person?  Shouldn’t it be more important to look at the actions of each, not what they say or how they charm you?  Wouldn’t it be better to make your choice based on the America that each foresees for your future? 

Joe Biden is a charming talker.   But in 40 plus years of public service he has done little to better the life of Americans or to further the stature of America itself. 

Donald Trump does what he says he is going to do.  In the process he may not be the likable charmer that most politicians are.  But he is direct and honest, whether you like what he says or how he says it.  And his actions in the short time he has been in office have done enormous good for the country and its people. 

As I have said previously, I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  So, for me it is about substance, not superficial appearance when I consider what makes someone “presidential.”  

Superficial Appearance or Substance.  While for many Joe Biden may win the superficiality contest, when I look at the substance the scale tips heavily in favor of President Trump.  He has my vote for another 4 years.

 

Of Dogs and Cats and Politics

 

The following is from Parade Magazine today, 9/13/2020:

 

 

As I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the Left.  As they tell us what to say, what to think, what to eat, what to wear, etc. aren’t they doing to us what has been done to dogs?  Aren’t they in essence trying to domesticate us to be obedient to their commands?

And, as people become more and more “domesticated,” just like domesticated pets they lose their innate ability to think, to question what is happening to them.

The Left and the socialists and their colleague the media would have us obey their commands:  speak only approved thoughts, perform only approved activities.  

Like dog owners who “discipline” their animals, the Left “disciplines” those who do not speak or behave “correctly.”  They call them names and scream at them, and just as a dog owner sometimes resorts to physical punishment, the Left can be seen doing the same as they beat those proclaiming or wearing a political position of which they do not approve.   

Abusive dog owners will try to beat their dogs into submission; some of the Left takes the same approach toward those who will not submit to their dogma.

Just as dogs are trainable, the Left would make people trainable to their views.  And the more those people become “domesticated” the less innate sense they have to question what is happening to them – like domesticated dogs, they lose brain power “in favor of obedient behavior.”

Dogs are wonderful creatures, but regardless of how much they may become a part of our families, there is no question about who is in control and who is subservient to and dependent on that control.

There is no question that the Left, in their ideal world, would hold the same sort of power and control over the rest of us whom the Left would make dependent on and hence subservient to their power.

I often wonder why people are not asking questions, especially “why?”, when the Left makes its many assertions and demands, when it tries to conform us all to their thinking and ways of acting.  In many ways the above article answers my question:  the domestication by the Left is already well in progress and numbing individuals' innate powers of thought.

The Left's handmaiden the media tells us what to think, whom to like, how to vote.  The loud voices (and sometimes violence) of the Left enforces those commands.  We are being domesticated.  We are being trained.  Trained to allow another to think for us, to make our decisions for us, to tell us what to do and in the end to tell us who we are.

And once that domestication process is complete, once we have been well trained and have given up our innate brainpower to our trainers, we will be completely dependent upon them and their power.  This is the socialist dream.  This is the Left’s ideal.  They believe that, being somehow superior to the rest of us, that they can and should be the masters of our lives.  History shows us that never ends well.

Perhaps the Left is the thunder and we should be afraid, for once we have lost our innate ability to ignore their attempts to control us we are indeed in grave danger.  Only when we refuse to be domesticated to their will can we survive as the independent and thinking individuals that we are capable of being.

Next time the media asserts its opinion, next time the Left tells you what to think or why your opinions are wrong or don’t count, ask “WHY?”  Be the independent cat in this story who will notice but ignore the thunder of the Left.

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Humanity - the Real Win

I understand team rivalries.  I grew up in Michigan where you are either for U of M or MSU – there is no in between.  But, despite what the media and perhaps your neighbors or Facebook friends would have you believe, politics is not a team rivalry.  It is not simply Red vs. Blue.

If one is really going to take a political position, one must understand more than what color their team wears.  One must delve into the issues, understand their history, their facts and falsities, and the consequences both short and long term of any action or proposed action taken in regard to those issues.

What true understanding requires is that one touch the humanity and not just the uniform worn by someone who represents a different side on an issue.  One effective way for individuals to recognize their shared humanity despite policy or political differences is to actually interact with one another.  That is what happens when people have a real conversation.

A conversation is “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.”  The key word here is “exchanged”; the conversants share and exchange ideas.  They are not in it to win, but to understand the ideas of another and to broaden their own perspective about that person or an issue or whatever might be the topic of the conversation.  A conversation is not simply a game between two different teams in which the players’ primary goal is to win, not to learn.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have such real conversations on Facebook.  I have followed many and participated in a few Facebook “conversations” and have yet to see or experience one in which there was actually an exchange in the sense of sharing and listening and actually considering one another’s ideas as a springboard to new ideas and deeper understandings. 

No matter how civil the discussion (“I understand what you are saying, but….”) they all really go something like this:  The initial Poster presents something which is open to more than one viewpoint but which takes or at least leans to one view only which is the view in which the Poster believes.  There will be some responses in the form of “likes” or similar acceptance of the view presented.  This of course satisfies the addictive sugar of Facebook for the Poster.  Eventually someone will either disagree or point out additional or contrary opinions or facts, all of which are inconvenient for the Poster and those aligned with the Poster. 

While one might call that an exchange of ideas, it is not.  It is a presentation by the other team.  An exchange requires more than presentation.  It requires an acceptance (though not necessarily an adoption) of the other side’s presentation.  It requires a desire to understand the contrary or inconvenient presentations. 

That exchange does not exist on Facebook.  Rather, once inconvenient information is presented the “conversation” becomes not one of exchange and sharing but one of each side trying to win their point.  People with inconvenient information for that point are sometimes ignored, sometimes deleted, and often called names that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (things like “you must be a nut job”; “only an idiot would post that”; “no one cares what you think”; “you should get your information from [my team’s news] since [your team’s sources] just lie”; “your offerings are both wrong and worthless”; and much worse). 

The “conversation” becomes simply about showing the other participants how right one’s comments are, as well as collecting those “likes.”  It is about winning.

A real conversation, rather than devolving into deaf assertions of righteousness of each side, grows into a new and shared understanding.  How does that happen and why is it impossible on Facebook or similar impersonal social media venues?

When we meet face to face we are looking at another person, not some posted words on a page.  Recognizing our shared humanity provides the participants with some humility.  In social media posts, even when many posters are involved in a conversation, each poster is really only talking to him or herself.  The addictive “likes” encourage each poster to repost essentially the same view over and over.  Those “likes” solidify the self-righteousness and, like cheerleaders at an athletic contest, encourage each poster to try even harder to win.  There really is no reward for listening on Facebook because the venue obliterates the shared humanity that is essential to any real conversation in which ideas are actually exchanged, thought about, and discussed.

Humanity is “a virtue associated with basic ethics of altruism derived from the human condition. It also symbolizes human love and compassion towards each other.”  If the humanity of conversants is obscured, the compassion necessary to respect and listen to those involved in a “conversation” is also obscured.  Rather than a time of sharing and understanding the “conversation” becomes a contest where participants choose their teams and their sides; it becomes about winning and perhaps also about demolishing the opponent.

It is not just social media that is obscuring humanity with the result of more animosity and hatred.  Indeed, the team spirit of winning at any cost seems to have taken over far too many of our once more human interactions.  Politics:  red or blue and beat up (literally or figuratively) the opposing team.  Identity politics:  the identity group must demolish all other groups (opposing teams) in order to win.  Life style:  no tolerance for anything different because the favored life style must win against all others.  Even history:  its complexities and nuances are no longer allowed as opposing viewpoints each must win rather than use the complexities to elucidate and accept varying views.

I was thinking about the ways that people really help others who are struggling in some way.  Every truly effective help that I can think of involves the helper reaching out and touching the shared humanity of the one being helped.  There is a difference between that and drive by “help” that sees some problem “over there” with this or that identity group or cause and simply throws money or support at it.  That is not that different from throwing “likes” at a Facebook post. 

Such drive by help fails to stop and recognize the humanity of the other.  It is that kind of help that leaves those being “helped” demeaned and dependent.  It does not see those being helped as equal in their humanity.  Causes and drive by help might be based on a positive idea, but they do nothing.

What does help, what does lead to productive conversations as well as productive betterment of society requires a recognition of everyone’s shared humanity.  That of course requires both work and humility.  The humility of accepting that we each are no better than the other.  Yes, different skills, different places in life, different minds, different in every aspect of our individuality, but at the same time no better than others.  That is our humanity.

And it takes work.  It is easy to post something on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed.  It is harder to open one’s mind and really listen to someone who does not think as you do.  It is easy to drive by and throw money or support to a cause; it is much harder to do the actual work to improve a situation or move society forward.

In the end, we can work to win, or we can work to find our shared humanity.  Elections may be about who wins, but the underlying policies, like life itself, must be recognized as far more complex than just some team rivalry.   Life is far more than a team sport and those who are not us are not our opponents against whom we must win.

*Addendum 9/11/20:  Apparently this quote needs some explanation or context.  It was written by Anton Chekhov in 1894 during the height of the industrial revolution.  He was pointing out that those who actually work on things that help to better society for all mankind show more humanity than those (often wealthy or elites) who sit home and proclaim their support of and need to work for particular causes but actually themselves never do anything for the cause or toward the betterment of humanity.  The specific items (electricity, steam, chastity, vegetarianism) are simply chosen from the times (electricity & steam from work of the industrial revolution; chastity & vegetarianism from common popularly proclaimed causes).  The context of an example of love for humanity is the intention of placing this quote here; it is not intended as support of or antipathy toward any of the particular words used.

 

Does Anyone Still Care About Objective Truth?

In today’s world it seems like the driving force in any conversation, discussion, not to mention argument is to WIN, not to search for and perhaps even find the TRUTH. 

Facts are out the window.  It is all about NARRATIVE.  That is, what is the story one wants to tell that will serve the teller’s purposes – that purpose most often being to win.  The end seems to always justify the means.  Lies are not prohibited; challenging lies is an impermissible attack. The teller’s story must be believed so the teller can win; questions are not for discussion but rather seen as attacks.

Mature discussions used to also include some element of humility which resulted in actually listening to the assertions of the other side and accepting questions about one’s own beliefs and assertions with a humble dignity and acknowledgement that they might be wrong or open to revision.  Both sides were not only willing to listen to verified facts but were also unwilling to assert as true or factual opinions or allegations that were not verified or that came only from “unidentified sources.”

Not so today.  Humility gets in the way of winning.  It is inconsistent with the assertion that one is absolutely right, no matter what.  No matter what the facts might be or what a full evidentiary examination might prove.  Egos seem unable to take any sort of challenge.  It is all about winning and in order to “win” too many people think that they must be right no matter what and any contrary fact or point of logic must be repelled and denied.

This is at least in part why people believe that they are justified in denying the First Amendment rights of others.  This is at least in part why people assert that information published by news outlets that do not concur with their Left or Right leanings are simply not worth reading, even if they provide verifiable facts on a topic.  This is why when one narrative is repeated by other outlets that have the same leanings that those who accept that narrative believe that it has been verified and not just repeated. 

This is how false allegations take wing.  Opinions become fact.  An unverified statement by an unidentified source becomes truth.  In reality, neither is so, and yet we let such narratives ruin the lives of so many people:  think about the Kavanaugh hearings for example; think about a justified – and there are some – police shooting where the officer is crucified rather than appreciated for doing his or her job; think about FISA warrants to spy on American citizens and on a Presidential candidate that were granted on what have now been proven to be false statements.  These are just a few of the more egregious false narratives that far too many are willing to accept simply because they support the triumph of their own narrative. 

It is all about winning.  But once upon a time it was more about finding an objective truth.

There was an interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 by Tony Woodlief titled “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech.”  In it he argues that too much free speech has led to the cancel culture.  Essentially his position is that when we have open speech and the full exchange of ideas (which were originally believed by Mill and others to be the way to ferret out the objective TRUTH), that no idea is refutable, and ultimately leads to the belief that no truth exists. 

“When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.”

This well describes a reason for such things as free speech being driven from campuses, threats and attacks directed towards those who do not support the favored position, acceptance of unverified facts or opinions and “news,” etc. 

But this reasoning is flawed.  It is not free speech itself that leads to this place of dogma over truth.  Rather it is the current inability or unwillingness of people to use their critical thinking skills – to use reason as well as emotion in assessing the speech that they hear.  As Mr. Woodlief writes, “Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.”

When did we decide that we are no longer allowed to question speech put forth if it might be in the least bit upsetting to the mob of public opinion?  I think there are two areas that are in large part responsible for this:  A loss of shared values and a loss of an educational system that teaches us to think.

Both require not just listening, but listening and then holding the ideas and ideologies presented accountable.

As Mr. Woodlief states, “the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings.”  It is the responsibility of educators to not present one viewpoint alone, but to present several and then help the students to conduct their own inquiry and evaluation into those viewpoints – questioning the adequacy of sources, the completeness and objectivity with which facts are presented, etc.  It is the job of educators to teach students how to assess a variety of informations and then make up their own minds.

Yet too often educators try to instill their beliefs into their students by presenting only their ideology.  Academics and those who hold themselves out to be scholars have an ethical responsibility to promote free and open inquiry as well as practice intellectual honesty themselves.

Combined with the loss of critical thinking in the classroom has come a change in what Americans value.  We have become a “feel good” society.  Everyone must get a trophy; no one should be made to feel uncomfortable -ever; if it makes you feel good, do it; etc.  Questioning someone’s point is seen as an attack, not on the point being argued, but on the person.  We have lost the ability to distinguish that.  We have silenced our reason for our emotions. 

When everyone is right, when everyone expects the trophy, we essentially silence both our humility and our critical thinking ability.  It is not free speech that is the problem, but our inability to listen to that free speech without feeling threatened and without the ability to assess the many ideas we find in the marketplace and hold them accountable.

We have lost the belief in an objective truth; it has been replaced with a belief in individual narrative truth.  When that is the prevailing belief, there will be no assessments of ideologies as part of the search for that objective truth.  Instead, truth will become the fickle assertion of the mob majority and opposing ideas will be silenced, not because the ideas in vogue are not refutable, but because we are afraid to refute them.

Only when, and not until, we relearn the humility of putting a shared search for objective truth above a personal desire to win, only then will we find the civility and tolerance that once existed in this country and be able to use it to overcome the hate and blindness to reason that is destroying us.