Lora and I had dinner the other night with the family of a patient. The patient had had alzheimer's disease and her husband had provided her care for well over a decade. Lora helped him through the final stages of her disease. As a consequence, he saw a side of her that other's rarely get to see, her compassion, her care, her tolerance. He called her his angel. Unfortunately, though, the dinner did not go well. There was another couple there, who have lived in the rural bubble their entire lives and represented well the sort of stereotypical thinking one associates with the poorly educated, rural westerner. Someone mentioned the current controversy over gay and transgender rights that has descended into the toilet, literally, and the conversation took a turn for the worse. Frankly, none of it surprised me. I had heard it all before. I was willing to do what I always do when confronted with unassailable intolerance and ignorance at this level, simply listen with "furrowed brow" as if concerned all the while thinking "what idiots."
Obama, of course, was to blame. He was "trying to wreck" this country, and the executive order that prohibited intolerance of gay and transgender students in public schools was just one more example of his active disdain for America. Lora later asked why he had done that, and I tried to explain that it was in response to the so-called "religious freedom" laws that allowed one to discriminate legally on the basis of "sincerely held religious convictions." One can debate whether private citizens in the private sphere can or should discriminate against gays and transgender people, but in the public sphere, including public schools, Obama attempted to foreclose discussion through an executive order. One can also debate whether Obama "over-reached" in his use of executive authority, but that is a matter for the courts to decide. In the meantime, if public schools wish to receive federal funds, they cannot discriminate against gay and transgender people.
The other replied "well, that's simple, the states should just quit sending them their tax dollars." He clearly thought that states "funded" the federal government, but that was just a matter of emphasis. I suppose the people and the businesses in the states do fund the federal government, and Lora thought he was saying that we should just "stop paying our taxes." At that point, I couldn't help myself. I had to bring something that resembled a fact into the discussion. I pointed out that most of the states (with the possible exception of Texas) who were suing the federal government to reverse Obama's executive order were "tax negative." In other words, they receive MORE in federal funds than they COLLECT in federal funds, so they would cut state revenues about in half. Most of the suing states can't afford that. Idaho, the same. (The next morning I looked it up to make sure, and yes, Idaho receives about twice as much in federal funds than it pays into system in the form of taxes, and the majority of that money goes to people like me in the retirement system.) They NEED federal funds to continue operating. The conversation ended with "well, if one of those queer's comes into the bathroom with me, I'll beat the piss out of him."
The facts did take the air out of the conversation, and the threat of violence seemed "last resort," but there it was. The facts didn't win any converts. They just looked at me with that blank stare, which, here, probably meant "I wish I had my pistol." The level of vituperation, the quick resort to a threat of violence, however, took Lora by surprise, in part because she had watched the same man sit for hours, holding the hand of his dying wife who could barely acknowledge him, and on the final day, she had cleaned her body so he could lie beside her and hold her "one last time." He wasn't a bad man. On the contrary, by every other estimation, he was a "good" man," but there's no doubt that he would have followed through with his threat to "beat the piss out of" the "queers." Lora succeeded in changing the subject, but it was clear enough that we didn't share their world view, most of which I find just plain incomprehensible.
There really was no possibility what so ever of a real conversation, a respectful conversation, on the subject. One can only hate Obama, along with everything he has done and everything he stands for, or one is what? I disagreed with almost everything "Bush," and there were occasions when I thought "the consequences of such and such will be disastrous," but I never once really thought that he was deliberately, with malice aforethought, trying to "wreck" the country. On what basis does anyone come to believe that Obama is trying to do so? I want to blame it on something simplistic like the steady stream of vituperation that fox news spews forth, but of course it goes deeper than that. I am not the first to recognize this phenomenon, and many have commented that we have more forms of communication available to us today than ever before. and we use them abysmally. Within seconds, I can bring forth Sascha Lobo's column in Der Spiegel, and read "anlass, reaktion, eskalation: Der politische Discurs ist unertraglich vorsherbar geworden. Das ist ein Geschenk fur recite Hetzer." Roughly translated, it reads, "initiation, reaction, escalation: the political discourse is becoming unbearably predictable. That is a gift for the right stalker." In the article, he references Trump, who he suggests we should watch, but already the watching is becoming a burden in its predictability.
Here's how he sees it working. First, we have the "anlass" or initiation. Someone, often an extremist, lets loose with an intentionally provocative statement. Often this occurs within the hinterland of social media, but now we have a well-known figure, running for the presidency of the United States making such statements -- build the wall, (temporarily) ban muslims, kill the queers, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. In the hinter lands of social media, or in the local biker bar, it is easily dismissed as "thoughtless" or "ignorant" speech, but how should we take it? At some level, it doesn't matter how you take it. If you dismiss it, and assume it will not get traction, then one has lost "a teachable moment," the ability to elevate the level of discourse and correct the ignorance. If you do take it seriously, however, and adumbrate the costs and consequences of such an act, one looks as foolish as the high school nerd who fails to "get" a dubious sexual double entendre and goes on to explain why gravitational forces make it impossible to "enter the black hole." There is text and sub-text, and it's sub-text that resonates, the attitudinal world view that sent out the dubious double entendre in the first place. At the textual level, the trumpeter makes no sense at all, but he plucks the base string and lets it buzz.
Second, comes the initial report. In the hinterlands of social media, or in the local red-neck bar, the provocateur is likely speaking within the bubble to their friends, others who respond to the same base frequency. You don't friend those who might "think otherwise," and you certainly don't share a beer with them, but social media does have the effect of putting air into the balloon -- the friends of friends of friends, none of whom you've ever met face-to-face, but who share your "feed." With the trumpeter, however, it is impossible to ignore. He is a presidential candidate, after all, and the comments are so vituperative, so provocative, so unlike-any-candidate before, that one could feel their glee in bringing it forward. For the most part, the liberal media initially positioned themselves as the local nerd, offering the American public a teachable moment. The conservative press, dominated by conservative economic interests, tried to divert attention to more acceptable candidates, those who would not go out of their way to build walls both physical and fiscal and impede the global flow of capital. Both missed the point. There is text and sub-text, and it's sub-text that resonates. Not unlike the nerd explaining "black holes," or the retired academic explaining tax policy to someone who might as well have been a high school drop out, the joke really was on the media. They failed to hear the base buzz of the sub-text.
Third, comes the escalation. As Lobo put it, again roughly translated, "the interested public sets the prevailing interpretation, as well as the outrage level in social media." If you doubt this, just pull up the latest story or commentary on the trumpeter in the Post or the Times and read the commentary. It is likely mild compared to what circulates "privately" on more personal social media "feeds," but the divides are clear and predictable enough. Within the conservative party, I had always thought there were basically three (somewhat incompatible) strains: the global economic strain that supports lower taxes on corporations and the so-called one percent, the evangelical strain that supports an incipient theocracy for the legislation of biblically based social law, and finally the miscellaneous republicans. The miscellaneous, I thought, were single issue folks who yada-yada-yada the core republican talking points, but who passionately support, for example, their gun rights. I was wrong, and the trumpeter has revealed my error. The third strain in the republican party is not so much neo-nazism, per se, but a hyperbolic neo-nationalism fueled in part by failing economic circumstances of the under-educated white, in part by the displacements of a changing minority to majority/majority to minority demography, in part by a pace of (mostly incomprehensible) social change that allows little time for assimilation. They're being left out and behind, and they'll be damned.
I won't follow through on all of Lobos steps, but from here there is a sort of escalation that comes when groups begin reacting to one another, each trying to outdo the other. The first and second strains within the conservative party have been more or less normalized within our political discourse. At the moment, I am mostly concerned with understanding the third strain, in part because such thinking almost always escalates beyond words, even violent words, to actual violence. It now seems like ancient history, but it seems clear enough to me that the trumpeter "started it." The protesters entered his rallies peacefully enough, and violence was tacitly encouraged against them as protestors, as haters. This included a female reporter, who was man-handled, literally, by the trumpeter's campaign manager when she attempted an escape from the media containment area.
The liberal media, predictably, was outraged and equally quick to point out not only his encouragement of violence, but it's racist and xenophobic sub-texts. When the protests outside the rallies became incipiently violent, when the protesters began meeting the incitement to violence on the trumpeter's part with a reciprocal violence, the liberal media -- I'm thinking of Bill Maher -- did warn against the escalation of violence in "free speech" terms. He suggested, as I have suggested, and as others have suggested, predictably, that "free speech" is contingent upon a "duty to tolerate." If I want to freely express myself, I must tolerate those others who express sentiments and ideas that I find repugnant, just as those on the other side must tolerate my sentiments and ideas. If either party "fails" in their "duty to tolerate," then free speech collapses.
The protests outside the rallies have now become actually violent and you have Post stories like "ugly bloody scenes in San Jose as protestors attack trump supporters outside rally." As the Post goes on to report, "the incidents were the latest in a series of increasingly violent altercations between protesters, Trump supporters and police at the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign events. A week ago, it was Albuquerque descend into chaos as the city was shaken by raucous riots and arrests outside a Trump rally. A month earlier is was Cost Mesa California. Thursday was San Jose's turn to take center stage in what is quickly becoming a traveling fiasco." As one might imagine, there is plenty of video. In one case, a trump supporter is surrounded by protestors. A few of the protesters, mostly female, are attempting to "protect" him, getting between him and those attempting to get at him. There is much incomprehensible shouting.
I don't want to over-state the case, but there is little cause for optimism in our current malaise. It was, perhaps, astonishing how easily the trumpeter, as a candidate for our highest office, was able to demonize and dehumanize other human beings. There was no remorse. Indeed, he seems to be doubling down on his characterizations, demonizing and demeaning a governor and a judge for their hispanic heritage, in the first case because she was reluctant to support his candidacy and in the second case because he is hearing a class action suit against the candidate. The videos are there for all to see. It was, however, utterly predictable that his characterizations would elicit protest, particularly within an open society, and so there were protests, initially peaceful, but then it was astonishing how casually and cynically the trumpeter issued an unveiled call for violence against those who protested -- how casually and cynically he gave his tacit approval to those who rose to the call. The infamous video of the protester being sucker punched circulated to millions of viewers, and the trumpeter's smug shoulder shrug of a response.
Beyond the few who might have known either the protester or the puncher, it was simply emblematic of the man and his followers. For those sympathetic, as one commenter put it, "the establishment is just jealous of the enthusiastic mods that Trump attracts. It takes leadership to incite a mob. That is what this country needs -- a leader" followed by eight exclamation points. For those antipathetic, it was a call for indignation and outrage, and for some, it was a call, as the trumpeter himself would put it, to "counter punch.: It is utterly predictable that some would rise to the call, and from there it escalates, all to be captured, once again, on video. It probably doesn't help much that the supporter is white, the protesters hispanic. Of course, as the Post goes on to point out, "many of the protesters were peaceful. Some waved Mexican flags in a apparent response to Trump calling Mexican immigrants 'rapists.'" Violent protest will always over-shadow peaceful protest, and in terms of symbolic verities, waving the Mexican flag and shouting obscenities simply adds credence to the trumpeter's narrative that American is being over-run by alien others intent on violence and rape.
It is utterly predictable that the great leader, the one who has incited a mob, suddenly becomes the victim. He can claim, as another of his sympathizers put it, "Trump is the victim here. Trump is the one whose 1st amendment rights have been denied by violent protesters. Therefore Trump and each of his supporters who were denied an open exchange of views are the victims." It probably doesn't help much either that "the ugly scenes of violence toward trump supporters Thursday appeared to be the inverse of similar incidents earlier in the campaign in which trump protesters, not supporters, were targeted." The defense of "he started it" is a playground defense, not the defense of an adult, and the trumpeter's supporters DO have a point when, as the Post put it, "blame for the attacks circulated almost as rapidly as images of the violence, with Trump supporters accusing democrats and members of the media of having a double standard."
Calmer heads could prevail, but predictably they don't. As another commenter put it, "I can't wait for Hitlery [sic] to come to my town. This use of violence cuts both ways you f'n progNazis. We conservatives own more guns. Better think of that next time you try to riot in a state that doesn't ban all guns as KKKalifornia does." The level of confusion here is, perhaps, astonishing. The centrist left paradoxically becomes the far right and a whole state is identified with the KKK? It has been said too many times that the trumpeter actually DOES invoke white nationalist symbolism and support, but then this too is an argumentative tactic from the playground of the "me? yeah? you too [explitive deleted]" variety. The level of vituperation, however, is far from astonishing, and the threat of violence explicit. It would not be surprising to see the trumpeter's supporters more prepared to meet violence with violence at future rallies. Rational discourse is no longer possible. Political discourse has degenerated into bellicose posturing, the irrational equivalent of gang signs, all of it amplified on what has become "anti-societal" media. There is no longer a sense of "we the people," only me and those who like me on my side, you and those who like you on your side, and the empty battlefield between.
Calmer heads could prevail, but that would mean re-invoking the duty to tolerate. At the risk of redundancy, free speech is contingent upon a duty to tolerate. If I want to freely express myself, then I must tolerate those others who express sentiments and ideas that I find repugnant. Those on the other side must tolerate my sentiments and ideas. As one commenter put it, "the fact that people ... don't agree with you ... doesn't mean that they're taking your rights away. Protesters have a right [to] express their opposition to Trump. The only times free speech is being denied is when the police or the Secret Service get involved in attempts to deny people the right to protest." If either party "fails" in their "duty to tolerate," then free speech inevitably collapses.
Violence is always the ultimate "fail," not simply because the perpetrators are no longer engaged in discourse of any sort, but because, within any civil society armed with coercive power, will react to protect itself, to "pacify" the crowd. It probably doesn't help that the police are called in, not against the "leader" who "incites" the mob, but against the agitated mob itself and the agitated mob responds in kind against the police. As the Post characterized it, "the situation escalated when a protester smashed the back window of a police cruiser. Soon after, someone jumped onto the vehicle and aggressively stomped on the top. Others began to jostle the car back and forth as people in the crowd egged on the action." Violence justifies further violence to quell the violence. As another commentator put it, "typical Mexican trash behavior. They have been given the wrong impression by Barack that they can come here to our country, illegally of course, fresh out of ignorant school and show that Mexicans are stupid, at least these Mexicans are stupid. The tide will turn and when it does, it will turn hard, fast, brutal and quick. "
If the trumpeter has accomplished anything, he has accomplished this: he has revealed how deep, how intractable, and how intolerant we have become of one another. I could point out, of course, that there probably is no more "typical Mexican trash behavior" than there is "white trash behavior." I could point out that Mexicans probably share with whites the same spectrum of mental capacity, running from the imbecilic to the brilliant with most somewhere in the middle. I could point out that "deportations of illegal immigrants" is fraught with record keeping challenges, but that the left is rather chagrined at Obama's record as well, not because he deported too few, but because he deported too many, over 2 million, more than in Bush's entire tenure. I could point out ... but why bother? It wouldn't help. The "Mexican" is now in scare quotes, and the violent protests now justify further violence against the "Mexicans" to quell the violence. As the same commenter put it, "peace once again will be restored or we will be in a civil war with the government and their cockroaches." The implication, in context, is that the trumpeter will restore the peace. It is an irony that the great leader, the one who incites the mob to violence, is now seen as the potential savior, the one who will restore peace he disrupted with "hard, fast, brutal and quick" action against the alien other in our midst, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the queers, the transgender, and lest we forget, the blacks, none of whose lives will matter. It is an irony upon ironies that anything less is a call for further violence, for outright civil war against the government. One might ask, if Clinton is elected, can someone of this sort shrug and say, "well, I guess the American people have spoken. Hooray for free speech!?" Or will he continue his war against the democratic government -- democratic in both the small sense of party affiliation and in the larger sense that demands of us a "duty of toleration?"
No comments:
Post a Comment