The Con Way

It happened, and on the day after the presidential inauguration (perhaps because of, or in response to the inauguration): the largest protest in United States history. More than a million people participated in the Women's March. People weren't just gathering in towns and cities across America, they were gathering throughout the world; Switzerland, France, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Mexico, England, Denmark, South Korea, Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, and even Antarctica. The attendance in our nation's capitol in Washington D.C. eclipsed that of the presidential ceremony the day before. Throngs of people took to the streets to stand up for women's rights, for equality, for love and fairness, respect and decency and, despite a global turnout, the protests were peaceable. There were no riots or deaths, just people coming together with a common goal and a shared sense of purpose. Hundreds of thousands of hearts beating as one. Through the jumbled voices and myriad chants a message did rise: we will not tolerate your oppression.

Women asserted themselves against the forces of oppression that actively seek to control their bodies, paychecks, and their choices. In the bleary-eyed dawn after a night of back-to-back-to-back inaugural balls, the newly elected President of the United States woke to a world that didn't want him. Confused, he picked up his phone and took to Twitter to express his exasperation. In one of his typical 140-character soliloquies, he contemplated how such a protest was possible, especially in the aftermath of a national election he had won. The 70-year-old president, perhaps showing early signs of dementia, had forgotten that he'd lost the popular vote in that election. The logical conclusion suggests that much - if not most - of the nation does not want him as their president. He then proceeded to Tweet lies about his television ratings to make himself feel better. 24-hours later, however, he did acquiesce, slightly, and granted that peaceful protests are the hallmark of democracy - even if he doesn't agree with them.

But then something strange happened. Something stranger than living in 2017, where Donald Trump, reality-TV star and real-estate mogul, had been elected as the leader of the free world. He became fixated on a petty triviality involving his own ego. The day after his inauguration, photographs began to surface, showing that Trump had clearly exaggerated the number of people in attendance at The National Mall. He said that the crowds stretched as far back as the Washington Monument, when clearly they hadn't. He said there were easily over a million people present, when clearly there weren't. Obviously frustrated by the circulation of these photos - and the knowledge that he'd failed to attract bigger crowds than president Obama - he had White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, come out and address the American people. Spicer claimed the media was attempting to make the president look bad by using misleading photographs to distort the truth about how many people were actually on The National Mall. The only person distorting the truth, however, was Spicer. Conveniently (and also conspicuously), he took no questions from the press after making these allegations...against the press. This punitive message alone is rather concerning, but it didn't stop there. Later, Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, delivered a threat to the press by saying, "if we're going to keep referring to our press secretary in those types of terms, we're going to have to rethink our relationship here." She also used the phrase "alternative facts" to describe Spicer's lies to the American public. Anyone paying attention should be deeply aggrieved by these occurrences. Here's why:

1 - The administration is lying to you (read that again, slower).
2 - They think you're easily fooled.
3 - Threats to the press are threats to free speech.
4 - The president's priorities seem dubious, at best.

Constitutional rights are being threatened by the current administration, not only for women and minorities, but for every American living in this country. It reads like hyperbole, but these are the precursors of treason. Their proliferation of lies serve only to throw more doubt, uncertainty, and misinformation into the political debate. The effect, at least ostensibly, is that people are divided, confused, and fighting amongst themselves. In an age where information flows fast and freely, drowning the population in a sea of facts - both true and untrue - effectively creates three groups of people; those with the right information, those with the wrong information, and those who don't know. We can imagine that the vast portion of people will fall into the third category: uncertainty. This group is rendered motionless via information paralyzation or generalized apathy. Confusion, helplessness and futility are the hallmarks of this type of existence. They will not take to the streets or have a firm opinion one way or another, making them the least threatening to the power structure - at least at first. Then, at one end of the spectrum, we have those with the wrong information, rivaled by those at the other end, with the right information. These two groups will war relentlessly with one another, each trying but failing to convert the other to their idea of "right." This battle not only keeps these groups distracted, but the deluge of sound-bytes, articles, and memes that are borne of their discourse trickle out through the tributaries of modern media drowning the middle group in still more information and rhetoric. The system reaches an easy equilibrium without demanding much effort from the power structure. What's worth mentioning here is that everyone, no matter what group they are actually in, believes they are in the group with the right information - even if they are in the third group. In the third group they are sure of their uncertainty, of the hopelessness of it all, how no one really knows what's going on or how to stop it. But it is this group that is the most important. Because if someone from one of the other two groups is able to reach this group and wake them up, they stand to convert untold numbers to their side. Instead of arguing and bickering with those who don't (and won't) revise their viewpoints, the only sensible alternative is to appeal to those who will. We need to talk to each other.

So, that's what must start happening now. The same way it's always happened: through conversation, the exchange of ideas. Respectful conversation is key here; conversation whose aim is to understand, not explain. We've developed a tendency in this country to need to be right, to avoid ideas that we don't agree with or conversations that are uncomfortable. It's no surprise that in places where a diverse set of ideas are exchanged on a daily basis (places like populous cities), ideas tend to bend in a progressive, compassionate arc. This is because these types of conversations depend on understanding of others' feelings and needs, and require a tolerance for views that may be different from our own. Here, ideas must be integrated and contextualized with a multitude of other ideas. This happens through conversation, because conversation facilitates understanding. I'd venture to say that hate groups like the KKK form more easily in homogenous areas where hateful ideas can go unchallenged. Often, the object of their hate is underrepresented in those areas, and consequently, the object becomes less human. It's easy to imagine an enemy you haven't met. Look at countries in the Middle-East where radical Islamic terrorism has taken hold. The only westerners these people have been exposed to are the soldiers killing them, or the warped portrayal of the West delivered by television and other arms of propaganda. They hate us and want to kill us for the same reason the KKK want to kill blacks in the South. We are not human to them. We are not real. And this is why we must be careful not to deny others their humanity. On inauguration day an alt-right activist was punched in the face by a protester who called him a Nazi. Because the event was filmed it quickly went viral on Twitter. Some defended the attack while others denounced it. This is very problematic. We must all recognize that violence does not belong in political discourse. It is, quite literally, an attack on free speech. To celebrate violence against those who hold opposing views is to sow the seeds of dehumanizing oppression and manacle the hands of our most vital constitutional freedom. We must remember this right belongs to all people, not just those we agree with. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Our current president, however, would have us believe that the only solution is to keep these perceived enemies out, to put up walls and block immigration, to bomb the hell out of them. But how does this help anything? Fighting and violence beget more fighting and violence. How can we be understood by or understand that which we do not truly know? Above I made the argument that people on opposing sides of right and wrong should try to convert those in the middle, but there is an obvious problem with this. It promotes polarization while encouraging moralistic entreaties and sanctions. At the end of the day it doesn't stop people from fighting. Ultimately, longterm, we need to move away from right and wrong - the words are too loaded. They have proven too liable to change over time and circumstance:

Murder is wrong, but maybe not in the case of mercy killings...or capital punishment...or abortions...or war.

Love is right, unless you're gay...or you're loving your neighbor's 11-year-old daughter...or someone other than your wife.

So let's start practicing. Let's move away from judgements of right and wrong. The next time we find ourselves having a disagreement, or feel our cheeks reddening as our views or values are called into question, take the opportunity to stop and actually listen. Even if you feel attacked. Even if you don't want to. By listening to each other, we are sharing ideas and growing. An evolution is taking place. Another person's thoughts don't need to make us feel threatened. Competing opinions won't automatically erase or invalidate the opinions we hold. In fact, exposing ourselves to ideas may make us more well-rounded, more socially literate, more in touch with the feelings, ideas and needs of those around us. To grant someone our attention and allow them to feel heard is to give a beautiful gift. Hate speech and intolerance pose unique challenges to this process, because they seem to undermine the very notions of understanding and empathy. It is best to remember that understanding is not acceptance, and allowance is not agreement. For these types of conversations, when it is clear that understanding or empathy is not the speaker's intent, one must know when to walk away.