One of the more civil people to respond to last Friday's post on Trump has asked me what is, in truth, a very fair question: When does mere political heterodoxy shade into boorishness? Where, exactly, do I draw the line?
Allow me to offer a set of contrasting examples to help facilitate discussion:
A politician observes that a porous southern border puts undue strain on our law enforcement agencies, our job market, and our social services -- and then presents facts to bolster his case.
Politically Incorrect, But Defensible
A politician states that he will force another sovereign nation to pay for our border security.
Boorish -- And Also Profoundly Unserious
Will the left portray both of these politicians as bigoted nativists? Indubitably! But that does not erase their qualitative differences. In the first case, the politician presumes his audience is capable of at least semi-rational discussion. In the second, the politician has jettisoned reason in favor of ginning up the crowd.
When you get right down to it, what bothers me about Trump is his apparent assumption that his listeners were all born yesterday. Did you see the word salad that was his interview with The Washington Post? I'm no fan of the Post; all the same, Trump's refusal to offer straight answers to many of the questions posed - particularly vis-à-vis the freedom of the press - should be alarming to anyone who cares about the foundational principles on which our country was founded.
That Being Said...
My antipathy where Trump is concerned does not extend to excusing the illiberal left and their repeated attempts to shut Trump down. Blocking traffic on a main thoroughfare -- and potentially preventing needed access to a hospital in the process? That's not exercising one's freedom of speech; that's breaking the law. It's a pity only a few of those protesters were arrested.
Additionally...
A proposal to blackball anyone who has publicly backed Trump is perhaps the dumbest thing a professed conservative could ever support. That's not who we are, people. We don't hound people out of "respectable" society for the sin of being wrong. Shit-listing and shunning are tactics of the left. Leave such antics in the gutter where they belong -- or get off my side.
Meanwhile, Let Me Address One Final Note to the Crybullies:
Pro-Trump chalking on a campus sidewalk does not make you "unsafe" in any way -- nor does the availability of Trump merchandise on Amazon. You people are the reason why Trump has fans. Stop conflating disagreement with harassment and violence. We are all sick of your playing the victim.
A politician observes that a porous southern border puts undue strain on our law enforcement agencies, our job market, and our social services -- and then presents facts to bolster his case.
ReplyDeletePolitically Incorrect, But Defensible
A second politician says “Look at those people who care more about ‘strain’ on their services than they do about a mother feeding her children”. “They want to keep you out because you are different”. “They talk of ‘strain’ and ‘job markets’ but we all know what their coded language means”.
Politically effective as an appeal to emotion.
As you observed earlier with the Elephant and the rider, it’s not often that the rider will make the elephant go where the elephant doesn’t ‘feel’ like going.
Stephanie, your first ‘acceptable’ example is fine as it goes, but I assume we would agree, it is flat and carries no emotional force. If you pit the two politicians against each other, the first will stand there observing the Queensberry rules, while the other gains the power of office. One motivates people to act, the other calls for contemplation and reflection. One asks for facts and logic while the other makes you care.
My challenge to you is to present an emotional appeal, for controlling the border, that doesn’t cross the line into boorishness or assholery. Maybe you can do it but I doubt it. This is the double bind the left has constructed for us using our own code of propriety. They will call you uncaring, self-interested, nativist, racist and even evil but the most your code will allow is to accuse them of ‘straining the resources’.
A politician observes that a porous southern border puts undue strain on our law enforcement agencies, our job market, and our social services -- and then presents facts to bolster his case.
DeletePolitically Incorrect, But Defensible
A second politician says “Look at those people who care more about ‘strain’ on their services than they do about a mother feeding her children”. “They want to keep you out because you are different”. “They talk of ‘strain’ and ‘job markets’ but we all know what their coded language means”.
Politically effective as an appeal to emotion.
"Wait a minute, Mr. Leftist Politician. I wasn't finished. You say you care for mothers trying to feed their children. Well, you know what? So do I. As a matter of fact, let me introduce you to Tom and Nicole. This couple right here live in the great state of Michigan. They have three children under the age of ten, and right now, they're really struggling to make ends meet because they're having trouble finding work that truly pays the bills. Tom's good with his hands and is willing to do any work he can find, but few employers are willing to hire him at the wages he and his wife need. Why? Because he's too expensive. He can't compete with immigrants who are willing to work under the table for a pittance.
Economic migrants may indeed be largely well-meaning, but all those facts and figures I mentioned before? They're not just numbers; they're real people with struggles of their own. I understand that migrant mothers want to feed their children -- but so do people right here. So let me ask you this, Mr. Leftist Politician: Why are Tom and Nicole less deserving of your compassion? How are you going to balance caring for all the people who want to come here with caring for all the people who are already here? Do you mean to argue that we are not responsible for what happens to Tom and his family?"
Yes, we do need to utilize all three legs of Aristotle's rhetorical triangle. But do you notice what I did not do? I didn't make ridiculous promises that are impossible to keep -- and I refrained from over-sensationalizing the negative.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that appealing to the emotions of the populace necessarily involves throwing all rules out the window and fighting dirty. Needless to say, I fiercely disagree.
Nice answer, maybe you should run for president.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you owned ‘care’ in your answer and then made an appeal to ‘fairness’ as an important moral virtue.
No, I am not proposing we should have ‘no’ rules, but I am suggesting we should re-examine the one-sided set of rules that limit the right but place no similar limits on the left. Those on the left are free to call you a long list of names that boil down to calling you a hater,evil or a moral reprobate. They can appeal to the ‘dark side’ and motivate their people to get out in the streets, to make the ugly faces, but if anyone on the right pushes back they are roundly condemned by all. I would be happy to be on the side of the angels here and say ‘we are better than that’, but sadly we are losing this culture war, so I am concerned that staying the course means continuing the trajectory.
I am puzzled by your two examples of Political Correctness. I don’t see either one of them crossing the line so to speak. The first, ‘we should build a wall’ mildly hints of correctness because it suggests there is something outside the wall that is undesirable but that’s about as close as it gets. The second, ‘have another country pay for our border security’ seems totally disconnected.
What do you mean by Political Correctness?
Nice answer, maybe you should run for president.
DeleteI am just barely old enough -- and I know of at least one disaffected voter who might write me in. :)
No, I am not proposing we should have ‘no’ rules, but I am suggesting we should re-examine the one-sided set of rules that limit the right but place no similar limits on the left.
Oh, I think we're in agreement that this double standard freakin' sucks. Indeed, in my own circles, I point it out as frequently as I possibly can. My goal, though, is to force the left to play by the rules -- not to get down in the mud with 'em.
I would be happy to be on the side of the angels here and say ‘we are better than that’, but sadly we are losing this culture war, so I am concerned that staying the course means continuing the trajectory.
On this, though, I think I'm a little more optimistic. We certainly struggle with real disadvantages -- but the left is also overplaying its hand big time, and it's evident that ordinary Americans are getting sick of it. So yes -- push back, but don't match the left in ugliness. Politely highlight the injustice of its worldview instead -- and be a happy warrior in the process. If we're more fun, more vibrant, and more stimulating than the moral scolds of the left, I think, over time, our neighbors will notice - and appreciate - the contrast, and the pendulum will swing back.
What do you mean by Political Correctness?
Do you mean political incorrectness? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.
The difference between the two examples I used is the difference between truth and dishonesty. In the first example, the politician is discussing facts regarding unchecked immigration that our so-called "cultural betters" would like to keep shoved under the rug. By the standards of our clerisy, he is being politically incorrect and almost certainly racist -- but he is also discussing things that are true and demonstrable. Truth, for me, should be an airtight defense against any charge of bigotry.
The politician in the second example, meanwhile, is being dishonest. He is telling the audience what he thinks they want to hear instead of leveling with them. That's what I find offensive. I want my politicians to be straight-shooters. Is this so much to ask?
To clarify what I am getting at with the idea of Political Correctness:
DeletePolitical Correctness or PC is the code the left uses to assert their preferred orthodoxy and insure its enforcement. The code is rooted in the victim-oppressor-champion worldview where it is asserted, that those who are the losers in the race for material success, are losers because they are victims of the selfish behavior of the oppressors. The central tenet is that ‘you never blame the victim’ and the first corollary is that the left decides who will be the designated victims.
The double standards we see from the left flows directly from their worldview. Victims are noble by virtue of their victimhood. Any actions they take in opposition to their oppression – lie, cheat, steal, burn down buildings, stop Trump rally’s – is justified as a response to injustice. Any action taken by the oppressors in opposition to the left is cast as an evil attempt to maintain their oppressive ways. Champions – liberals -gain their virtue by acting as the agents of the victims and gain the same latitude of action.
A few examples:
When someone writes in chalk on a wall at Emory “Trump 2016” the university treats it as a civil rights violation and they start an investigation and label it ‘hate speech’.
When Larry Summers – then president of Harvard - suggests that women may be under represented in the SEM fields, because of some preference or attribute of the women themselves, he must be fired.
When Theodore "Theo" Olson, a special education teacher, questions the ‘student to prison’ orthodoxy of the left by posting on Facebook, he is placed on administrative leave.
When a UK man tweets “... a mealy mouthed reply” in an exchange with a Muslim woman following the Brussels bombing, he is arrested and charged with “inciting racial hatred via social media.“
Stephanie, I like the fact you believe that truth is an absolute defense against blasphemy, but those professors are still on suspension, and the UK man is still under arrest. To the left, ‘truth’ carries no power of persuasion. According to their orthodoxy, truth doesn’t exist as an objective reality but only as a tool of the oppressors. According the left it doesn’t matter if Larry Summers was telling the truth, or if Theo Olsen was making a valid argument, it only matters that they can use the power of ‘taking offense’ to punish and silence their opposition.
DeleteHave you noticed that when you call the left on their double standards, it doesn't’ slow them down or have them reconsider their positions? That’s because they truly believe that morality demands a double standard. Why should you treat the victim of an injustice with the same standard as the perpetrator of the injustice. Why should ‘rape survivors’ be subjected to the same scrutiny as the ‘rapist’ when trying to determine ‘the rapists’ culpability. For the left it is not about truth, it is about ‘social justice’, or making up for past crimes, where they know a priori who is the guilty party.
The fundamental problem, we on the right have, is the left demands that we ‘act in a way that doesn’t give offense’ or they will ‘burn our house down’ – metaphorically speaking of course, don’t want to give them ideas – When we ask that they be nice also, they take offense and ‘burn our house down’, which leads us to think we must be careful about giving offense. I am sure you can see the problem.
I agree with your observation that the left is pushing further and further and that the America people are sick of it and ready to push back. The problem is that the push back has taken the form of Donald Trump. It would be nice if we could just logically explain why the victim-oppressor worldview is deficient but you and I both know that will not stop the left. They will push until they meet forceful resistance. So far, The Donald is the only leader willing to challenge the orthodoxy in a direct way, and not back down when challenged. He may not be our ideal champion but sometimes you have to go to war with the army you have rather than the army you prefer, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld.