Stop Calling Your Brother Names!
by John Weckerle
Lacking any significant local messes on which to comment, at least for the moment, we turn out attention to a situation that is often seen locally, and yet is symptomatic of factors at work nationwide – the nature of discourse on public issues. In a commentary posted last week that I cannot find at present, a CNN reporter bemoaned the deterioration of the way in which public debate is being conducted on a wide variety of issues. The piece was not partisan, and gently chided both sides for their behavior. It is disappointing to see how far this business can go. As the author pointed out, those holding a right-of-center view are often branded by their opponents as fascists or right-wing radicals; those to the left are likewise vilified as socialists or elitists. Especially over the last couple of decades, we seem all too eager to abandon the real subject at hand, refuse to listen to any viewpoint other than our own, accept opinions as fact, and descend immediately into name calling and accusation. We are losing our ability to listen, and replacing it with a talent for shouting.
The Washington Post reported this morning on the resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones over what many would consider repugnant remarks made prior to his employment by the current administration, and his signing of a petition suggesting that the Bush administration might have let the September 11, 2009 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon happen to provide a pretext for attacking Iraq. Mr. Jones had apologized for both indiscretions. He resigned, despite calls from various quarters to remain, for the stated reason that he did not want to see the green jobs effort damaged by a focus on his mistakes. I suppose we could argue whether this was the right thing to do, or whether poor past judgment (to say the least) was enough to justify a call for his removal from the job, but that really is not the focus of today’s article.
What I find disturbing about this is not what Mr. Jones said or did, but this quote from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana): “”His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.”
Hang on there, Mr. Pence – the last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, and we do have a little thing we call freedom of speech. There are quite a few people in this world who hold views with which we may not agree – and which may not even have much relationship with reality – but they are certainly free to express them as part of the ongoing discussion of issues facing the very complex world in which we live. They also have the right to participate in government and to hold jobs in it. This business of attacking people with whom we disagree has gotten out of hand. Where we should be having discussions, we are instead having witch hunts.
I know, do business with, and respect many people across the entire political spectrum, and that includes those with whom I don’t always agree. There is one very important reason for this: That, while I may differ with many people on many issues, I nearly always find that what we have in common outweighs what sets us apart.
Think about it for a couple of minutes. Think of someone with whom you disagree intensely on some political subject – perhaps so strongly that you hold them in contempt. Do you really think they get up in the morning thinking “How can I destroy America? How can I take away people’s rights? How can I bring a Stalinist (or McCarthy-ist) regime into being in the United States? How can I erode the moral or ethical underpinnings of our society? How can I enrich myself by hurting others?” Of course you don’t, not if you think about it rationally (setting aside the fact that there are likely a very small number of people who actually do that in the morning). All of these people with whom we disagree are passionate about doing what they perceive is the right thing for the country; it’s just that we all have our own individual visions for the nation. Then again, I wonder just how much more these visions have in common than otherwise. Most people seem to want law and order (differing on the nature of a few of the laws); most want the best education possible for themselves and their children (differing on the means of getting there); most want affordable health care for the most people practicable (differing again on the means of providing it); and so on. In fact, we seem to agree reasonably often on the basic concepts, and most often disagree on the details of implementation. Perhaps if we were to begin by focusing on those points of agreement, we might find agreement, or at least reasonable compromises, on the details that follow from the basic premises.
I think it’s about time to start at least attempting to work with one another in good faith, and let terms like “fascist, nazi, extremist, socialist, communist,” etc. assume their appropriate place in the debate – which is nowhere. Sure, there are some sociopaths out there, but not nearly as many as one might expect from all the name calling. We’d be better off if we worked to share the part of the vision we all have in common, and work out the details together. We are all Americans; let’s start from that position, and work our way forward, onward, and upward.