Of Kneeling, Screaming, and Debating

Last night, I laid in bed and thought about life.  It was an important moment in my life. I had a lot of turning points in a lot of my life stressors last night.  However, after this, I had a time where my mind was running 100 miles a minute about different things.  And I was thinking about this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/opinion/dying-art-of-disagreement.html.  This summarized so well my thoughts about recent events, and helped me bring together my logic, and here's the thing:

Disagreement is a part of our culture as Americans.  It's well-documented that the Continental Congress often devolved to fisticuffs, and the Constitutional Convention had physical casualties.  However, this is still different from what we have today, of not even being willing to let someone who we disagree with have a moment to speak.  And that's because the discussions aren't about pros, cons, logic and conclusions.  It's about showing "how right" you are.  People don't debate with the intent to convince, they debate with the intent to get their way without convincing anyone.  And the fastest way to do this is to label the other person as morally degenerate.

I miss The Federalist Papers.  Logical arguments of their positions.  They may label the other side's logic as ridiculous, but never the people as bigots.  Last night, I couldn't fall back asleep until I had sated my appetite for reading The Daniel Leonard Letters and John Adams' responses to them.  Because even though John Adams thought that Daniel Leonard was not only wrong, but dead-wrong, he responded logically, respectfully and with thought.  

Now, I'm not trying to glorify the Founding Fathers beyond what is fair.  The Sons of Liberty were not up for listening to the British side.  They weren't too big on reasonable debate.  But the Sons of Liberty were seen as the extremists.  And what was being published in the civilized side of society was the Daniel Leonard Letters.

The other day, I was reading a liberal response to someone who was discussing homosexuality.  The liberal response didn't actually debate the points, but simply said that the author was a bigot and had "prehistoric views."  First of all, homosexuality was actually very common in ancient society and even acceptable, and probably the only ancient civilization that didn't find homosexuality to be morally okay (even commonplace and recreational) was Hebrews.  Second of all, "prehistoric?"  That's just trying to make people angry.  You are free to disagree with someone who doesn't agree with your views, and maybe you're even right.  But you can't call a concept which only twenty years ago was the majority opinion "prehistoric."  It reminds me of when my brother and I, at the Hill Cumorah Pagent, had a conversation about how ridiculous religious protesters were.  Because when was the last time you listened to someone screaming at you through a bullhorn and, instead of immediately feeling attacked and defensive, thought, "Great Scott!  You're right!  I am going to hell!" 

People look at the healthcare debate and say that if you disagree with PPACA, you are immoral.  Really?  I'm not saying that argument hasn't ever been used, or that it's always inappropriate.  William Lloyd Garrison pretty much said, "Slavery is wrong.  And if you disagree, you're immoral."  But is disagreeing on the accounting of who pays the doctors equatable to slavery?  That's really all the healthcare debate is about right now.  It's not about if people should have access to healthcare, it's about accounting.  Does that have anything to do with morality?  It's essentially just economy at this point.  So, why don't we discuss economy?

With all of this taken into consideration, I want to move to a issue of the day: the NFL kneeling.  

First, let it be said that I was taught to stand when The Star-Spangled Banner played, to put your hand over your heart during the pledge of allegiance, and to shut up and watch when the veterans brought out the flag at the Fourth of July parade.  I'm a sworn Daughter of the American Revolution, and part of that oath is to protect the flag from disrespect.  And I take oaths seriously.  I will teach my children that there isn't a reason to not stand when The Star-Spangled Banner plays.  But, the NFL players aren't my children.  And it isn't my place to say what they may and may not do.  Because I believe in a beautiful little document called the Bill of Rights.  

I even kind of support their motive. That being said, I don't support the continuation of this.  They say that they're trying to start a conversation about race issues.  That's an admirable objective.  And I don't disagree with the goal.  But the thing is, you didn't start a conversation about race issues.  All of the discussion is about an abstract code of flag respect. I don't disagree with your motives, but your protest was wholly ineffective in achieving your stated end.  So, find a new way to protest.  Find a new way to start this conversation.  Because this one just fostered anger.  And I don't put that on you.  That's the fault of those who got angry, not those who meant no offense.  But I do put it on you to find a new way.  

Find a new way to protest. And I know that that sounds a lot like the call to action of Malcolm X when he essentially told the South, "You might want to listen to Martin Luther King, or I'll come down there, and you may not like the way I get things done."  I'm not calling for violence.  I'm not calling for screaming.  I'm calling for rhetoric.  And that's what's wholly missing.  Civility has always been hard-pressed in politics, though it had its safe-places (usually universities, though unfortunately that safe-haven is gone).  But, rhetoric.  That's what I call for.  Civility is necessary too, but without rhetoric, the entire protest to start a "dialogue" is pointless.  A dialogue without rhetoric is a shouting-match, and those don't ever get anywhere.