What if Nobody Came?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Questions Related to Charlottesville

 1.  Who had a permit to march in Charlottesville? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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