There's a guy who stops by periodically to leave nasty comments on my blog. I have no idea why he does it: I mean, if you don't like my blog, don't read it. But he likes to keep reminding me that "the left" is ruining America, and that my blog is just a bunch of "liberal garbage." Of course, he's entitled to his opinion about "the left" in general and my blog in particular, but I still find both comments puzzling.
As I see it, there's no such thing as "the left"-- not every Democrat or liberal marches in lock-step, and no, we don't all take our cues from the (gasp) Saul Alinsky playbook, the way Newt Gingrich and other Republicans say we do. (I must admit I was unfamiliar with Mr. Alinsky until about a decade ago. I mean, yes I heard the name before, but he wasn't someone I studied in college or even in grad school. I guess I received an inferior education in what Democrats allegedly believe.) My point is, there's a wide range of beliefs on "the left," as I am certain there are on "the right."
When I first began blogging several years ago, I hoped that I'd be
able to do two things: thing one was express my views on various
current issues (and for Rush fans, that included talking about our
favorite rock band now and then); but thing two was to create the
possibility of dialogue between folks on the left and folks on the
right. Of course, I never expected that my little blog would bring
about world peace, though that would be nice to accomplish. I just
hoped that maybe some folks who don't talk much to Democrats might come
to the conclusion that this Democrat isn't such a horrible person after
all, nor are most other Democrats. Both political parties don't always
agree on issues, but at least I hoped we could have an exchange of ideas
and seek some common ground.
Ever since Mr. Trump took office, however, I've noticed a change in tone, both in our politics and in how we communicate. Day after day, I read endless postings on social media that demonize "the left." They say we're all violent (umm, I thought we were all a bunch of too-sensitive snowflakes; now suddenly we're violent?). Or they say we're all fascists. Or Mr. Trump says that Democrats are keeping him from moving his agenda forward (Democrats find this a bizarre claim, since Republicans control all three branches of the government. If things aren't getting done, don't blame us.) Meanwhile, every conservative I know is firmly convinced that the media are liberal, and college professors are liberal, and anyone whose views they disagree with must be liberal, and every problem in society was caused by someone liberal. In the age of Donald Trump, it seems more people than ever believe the big problem in life is the existence of liberals.
I know how much conservatives love that Mr. Trump is a "fighter" who "punches back" when people "insult him." But as Democrats like me see it, he's not a fighter; rather, he's an autocrat who doesn't like criticism of any kind. Of course, this is a major difference in our two parties, but at least we always used to have a president who acted with courtesy. This one does not. Whether it's a cable news commentator on MSNBC or a member of the White House press corps or Democrats in general, Mr. Trump is always ready with a rude (or sometimes crude) comment. He shows no interest in staying above the fray or acting in a way that historically was considered presidential; nor does he show any interest in bringing both sides together. He seems perfectly happy to perform only for his base and say what they want to hear. Everyone else is just "the enemy."
More and more, I see many of Mr. Trump's supporters modeling his behavior-- they see no need to talk to anyone on the other side, and they not only applaud the president each time he makes another combative or insulting remark-- they also emulate his way of speaking. And if the folks who are on his side regard everyone else as dishonest, terrible people, it does not bode well for the future of our country. As a professor of communication, I worry when people praise a man who believes name-calling is a good thing; and who believes it's okay to be lash out at anyone who disagrees with him.
It's not just that I don't like many of his policies: I respect that he won the election, and I've disagreed with presidents before. But what I really don't like is how he talks to people. Rather than bringing out what Lincoln called the "better angels of our nature," he is empowering the worst in many of us. And in a world where angry and impulsive behavior is considered normal (and even admirable) by his followers, what's the end-game? Are we becoming a country that is re-segregating itself, not by race this time, but by ideology? We already have a country where people watch/read/listen to media that reinforce what they already believe. Should we now have a country where opposing beliefs aren't wanted?
That's not a vision of America I'd welcome, and it's not just because I'm a Democrat. I would hope there are some Republicans who also don't like the way things are going. Showering insults on those who disagree with you may be comforting; but it's no way to solve the problems our country faces... And no, the problem is not too many Democrats. It's too little kindness, too little empathy, and too little commitment to following the Golden Rule. I admit I don't know what to do about the ever-widening divide between us. But I still want to believe there's a positive discussion we could have-- although lately, that seems like less and less of a possibility.
Opinions and commentary about politics, the media, history, religion, and current events.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
The Conversation We Never Seem to Have, Revisited
It goes without saying that the man who shot at Republican members of Congress, while they practiced for a charity baseball game, was a disgusting human being; I don't know anyone who would defend what he did. But here's what else was hard to defend: turning a tragedy into more of the same old politics. Almost as if on cue, some of my conservative followers on Twitter, along with several Republican pundits, immediately blamed "the left." Excuse me, but the last time I checked, "the left" didn't shoot any congressmen; one angry loner with an assault rifle did that. (Note to my Republican friends: given all the violence in our society, I strongly doubt that only Democrats are guilty of it; and I also doubt that Republicans spend all their time reading the Bible. Truth be told, there are violent and hateful people from both political parties; so don't be so quick to assign blame.)
There was something else that bothered me about today's senseless violence. It's the fact that it happens so often. Sadly, violent episodes such as workplace shootings, which are often perpetrated by a lone gunman, have become so common that many of these incidents don't even make the national news. We don't always know why these gunmen decide to do it, just like we don't always know what their politics are. Some of these shooters have been mentally ill. Some were religious zealots. Some were just angry about whatever (a boss they hated, the unfairness of life in general). And contrary to internet myth, few of the mass shooters of the past several decades were immigrants: most were born here, and a majority were white males.
But whatever the race or color or ideology of the shooters, we find they all had one thing in common: they all had NO trouble getting guns, whether assault rifles or handguns; and these mass shooters all had NO trouble getting lots of ammunition. But every time some of us try to discuss what could be done to prevent further mass violence, the conversation goes nowhere. Why? In large part because our country and its politics are dominated by a small but influential group of "Second Amendment Absolutists." Encouraged by the National Rifle Association, these are people who believe there should be no limitation on gun ownership, and they reject even the smallest restriction on what they see as their total right. No matter how much gun violence out there, their answer is that more "good guys with guns" are the solution.
Of course, this answer is very beneficial for the NRA, and for the small percentage of gun owners who share the view that more is better: I read one report from 2016 that said only three percent of American adults own half of America's guns. Meanwhile, as soon as anyone dares to ask why the average person really needs assault weapons and high capacity magazines, the Absolutists scream that their rights are under attack. And as soon as any politician dares to question why more and higher-powered weapons are a good thing, the NRA spends its money (and its considerable influence) making sure that politician is defeated in the next election.
No, I am not opposed to gun ownership, and no I am not against the Second Amendment. I am, however, against the current extreme interpretation of it. I have never heard one good reason why anyone other than a member of law enforcement or the military needs an assault rifle. When such weapons were briefly banned, somehow the republic did not fall. Sport shooters continued to compete. Hunters continued to hunt. I agree that banning assault weapons is not a magical cure, but when it was tried, some studies suggested it did reduce certain kinds of violent crimes. (Common sense would dictate that not having access to semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines would result in fewer people get hit by someone attempting a mass shooting.)
But people who love their guns don't want to have a discussion about reducing gun violence. Any time such a discussion begins, it usually ends with both sides being incredibly frustrated. One thing I do know: encouraging more gun ownership is no guarantee that there will be less crime. And another thing I know: unless our politicians begin to show some courage and not bend to the will of the NRA, violent incidents will continue. Pundits will choose sides, accusations will fly, and absolutely nothing will change. Evidently, that's okay with most people, but it's not okay with me. And what about you, dear readers? Is the status quo okay with you? And why is discussing ways to reduce gun violence the conversation we never seem to have?
There was something else that bothered me about today's senseless violence. It's the fact that it happens so often. Sadly, violent episodes such as workplace shootings, which are often perpetrated by a lone gunman, have become so common that many of these incidents don't even make the national news. We don't always know why these gunmen decide to do it, just like we don't always know what their politics are. Some of these shooters have been mentally ill. Some were religious zealots. Some were just angry about whatever (a boss they hated, the unfairness of life in general). And contrary to internet myth, few of the mass shooters of the past several decades were immigrants: most were born here, and a majority were white males.
But whatever the race or color or ideology of the shooters, we find they all had one thing in common: they all had NO trouble getting guns, whether assault rifles or handguns; and these mass shooters all had NO trouble getting lots of ammunition. But every time some of us try to discuss what could be done to prevent further mass violence, the conversation goes nowhere. Why? In large part because our country and its politics are dominated by a small but influential group of "Second Amendment Absolutists." Encouraged by the National Rifle Association, these are people who believe there should be no limitation on gun ownership, and they reject even the smallest restriction on what they see as their total right. No matter how much gun violence out there, their answer is that more "good guys with guns" are the solution.
Of course, this answer is very beneficial for the NRA, and for the small percentage of gun owners who share the view that more is better: I read one report from 2016 that said only three percent of American adults own half of America's guns. Meanwhile, as soon as anyone dares to ask why the average person really needs assault weapons and high capacity magazines, the Absolutists scream that their rights are under attack. And as soon as any politician dares to question why more and higher-powered weapons are a good thing, the NRA spends its money (and its considerable influence) making sure that politician is defeated in the next election.
No, I am not opposed to gun ownership, and no I am not against the Second Amendment. I am, however, against the current extreme interpretation of it. I have never heard one good reason why anyone other than a member of law enforcement or the military needs an assault rifle. When such weapons were briefly banned, somehow the republic did not fall. Sport shooters continued to compete. Hunters continued to hunt. I agree that banning assault weapons is not a magical cure, but when it was tried, some studies suggested it did reduce certain kinds of violent crimes. (Common sense would dictate that not having access to semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines would result in fewer people get hit by someone attempting a mass shooting.)
But people who love their guns don't want to have a discussion about reducing gun violence. Any time such a discussion begins, it usually ends with both sides being incredibly frustrated. One thing I do know: encouraging more gun ownership is no guarantee that there will be less crime. And another thing I know: unless our politicians begin to show some courage and not bend to the will of the NRA, violent incidents will continue. Pundits will choose sides, accusations will fly, and absolutely nothing will change. Evidently, that's okay with most people, but it's not okay with me. And what about you, dear readers? Is the status quo okay with you? And why is discussing ways to reduce gun violence the conversation we never seem to have?