Walk for Respect

[joew]

Last Sunday there was the second annual Walk for Respect in a town not far from mine. It was sponsored by their Task Force for Respect. Coincidentally, schoolchildren from the area had been at the Holocaust Museum in Washington when the guard was killed by the anti-Semitic white supremacist, which added an additional element of significance to the walk. As a member of my town's Task Force Against Discrimination, I had the privilege of delivering our greetings as part of the opening remarks.

As I thought of the title of the event (and the difference between the names of the two Task Forces) it occurred to me that it is a good thing to have something to be for, not just to be against things. Of course, we are against bigotry, prejudice, and hate. And for a long time we have been for tolerance (but that sounds almost grudging) and brotherhood (although the word can seem sexist now, and I don't know of a suitable gender-neutral equivalent). But respect is a very good word for what we want. So in my remarks I noted that respect can serve as both an antidote and a preventive for bigotry and hate.

The principal speaker was a high school girl who has written a book about bullying, and she made the excellent point that respect doesn't necessarily mean approval. We can respect people of different faiths without agreeing with their religion. We can respect people of different orientations without approving of their lifestyle choices. When we respect people, we acknowledge that they have a right to be different from us both in things they cannot choose, such as ethnicity and country of origin, and in things that they can decide, such as religion and way of life.

I've been on my town's Task Force since it was created twenty years ago. A couple of years after it was formed, someone suggested that we should explicitly include sexual orientation as one of the bases of discrimination which we should oppose. At that time I thought that such a statement would imply official approval of same-sex sexual activity, and got them not to include it. But over the years I have come to realize that, for one thing there would be no implied approval, and second , there is so much unjustified discrimination and so much violence against gays, that it makes sense to include orientation along with religion, ethnicity, national origin, and sex as things on which there should be no discrimination. So I did not object this year when a proclamation was drafted for the Selectmen in honor of our anniversary and it included orientation. And the speaker on Sunday clarified the point very nicely for me.

I had the further thought that the respect which the girl called for must also extend to the bigots and racists, if we are ever to break through their hatreds and bring them into the community.

[doctork]

Hear, hear joew! Where is that thumbs up emoticon when I need it?

I hate it when people complain but then don't offer a positive alternative. There has been a giant loss of respect within our nation, and the loss of civility is one of the symptoms. An all around greater emphasis on respect is sorely needed. Positive action rather than constant negativity!

I'm very fond of the 4th amendment (freedom form unwarranted and invasive searches among others) and you've all heard me rant about the TSA in this regard. I write regularly to my CongressCritters with suggestions for improvement, so I do try to walk the talk. Recently I became aware of an Arizona pastor's catastrophic interaction with CBP (which makes a lot of random traffic stops far inside the US border in Tempe, AZ where Pastor Anderson lives), when he attempted to assert his 4th and 5th amendment rights by refusing to cooperate with the CBP's warrantless search and invoking his right to remain silent:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A

Pastor Anderson and his wife espouse some rather extreme evangelical fundamental religious views that are very different from my own, but I certainly resonate with his insistence that those 4th and 5th amendment rights must be respected.

And yes, we do need to respect the right of those bigots to speak their mind (even if we find them abhorrent), as that is another aspect of our very precious 1st amendment (freedom of speech, right? I'm not so good at history and civics), not to mention the heart of the Christian commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Respect for others is critical to our freedom as US citizens.

[liriodendron]

Jun 17, 2009 23:35:21 GMT -5 doctork said:

Hear, hear joew! Where is that thumbs up emoticon when I need it?

Right here!

[gailkate]

Good thoughts and things to puzzle over. I like the word brotherhood and don't know of an alternative. Humanity doesn't quite do it, although it's close.

But most important, I wonder how many things people have to tolerate/respect about me. I'm an opinionated Irish-mix female with very pronounced views on religion and all that's implied in
liberté, égalité, fraternité. It strikes me that a lot of the straight white people in such a march would never think there was anything to provoke discrimination about themselves.

_{~B~ thinks liberals taste like chicken.}

[doctork]

Well look at that firefighter case out of CT (?) about reverse discrimination that has been brought up in relation to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. The white firefighters are claiming they were treated unfairly because African-Americans were allegedly given an advantage. And then there are those who object to Sotomayor's status as a Hispanic: disadvantaged Ivy League educated white attorneys were held back in favor of powerful Puerta Rican women (or men for that matter).

Everybody claims being disadvantaged when it is to their advantage to do so! Get over it! Can't we all just get along?

And I am OK with brotherhood, as everyone knows what is meant, and political correctness can get so very tiresome.

[gailkate]

I guess I didn't make my point - am too inarticulate to make it.

[booklady]

I don't where to post this, but want to, so I think here might be a good place.

I don't have much appetite for modern politics, and Gershon expresses why. I was thrilled to see Tim Russert's name in there on somebody's hit list, because he was the last news person I could listen to without getting disgusted and upset.

I very often like what Michael Gershon has to say.

The Ugly Party vs. the Grown-Up Party

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- My political friendships and sympathies are increasingly determined not by ideology but by methodology. One of the most significant divisions in American public life is not between the Democrats and the Republicans; it is between the Ugly Party and the Grown-up Party.

This distinction came to mind in the case of Washington Post blogger David Weigel, who recently resigned after the leak of messages he wrote disparaging figures he covered. Weigel is, by most accounts, a bright, hardworking young man whose private communications should have been kept private. But the tone of the e-mails he posted on a liberal listserv is instructive. When Rush Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pain, Weigel said, "I hope he fails." Matt Drudge is an "amoral shut-in" who should "set himself on fire." Opponents are referred to as "ratf---ers" and "f---ing moronic."

This type of discourse is an odd combination between the snideness of the cool, mean kids in high school and the pettiness of Richard Nixon rambling on his tapes. Weigel did not intend his words to be public. But they display the defining characteristic of ugly politics -- the dehumanization of political opponents.

Unlike Weigel, most members of the Ugly Party -- liberal and conservative -- have little interest in hiding their views. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh," Ann Coulter once said, "is he did not go to The New York Times building." Radio host Mike Malloy suggested that Glenn Beck "do the honorable thing and blow his brains out." Conservatives carry signs at Obama rallies: "We Came Unarmed (This Time)." Liberals carried signs at Bush rallies: "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush." Says John Avlon, author of "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America," "If you only take offense when the president of your party is compared to Hitler, then you're part of the problem."

The rhetoric of the Ugly Party shares some common themes: urging the death or sexual humiliation of opponents or comparing a political enemy to vermin or diseases. It is not merely an adolescent form of political discourse; it encourages a certain political philosophy -- a belief that rivals are somehow less than human, which undermines the idea of equality and the possibility of common purposes.

Such sentiments have always existed. But the unfiltered media -- particularly the Internet -- have provided both stage and spotlight. Now everyone can be Richard Nixon, threatening opponents and composing enemies lists.

But the Internet is also a permanent record, as Weigel found. His reaction to exposure was honest and admirable. He admitted to being "cocky" and "needlessly mean" -- the kind of introspection that promises future contribution. But when members of the Ugly Party are exposed, generally they respond differently. Obscenity? The real obscenity is an unjust war, or imposing socialism, or devotion to Israel. It is an argument that makes any deep policy disagreement an excuse for verbal violence. Or an offense against taste and judgment is dismissed as humor and satire. Before he came to The Washington Post, blogger Ezra Klein wrote on Twitter, "F--- Tim Russert. F--- him with a spiky acid-tipped d---." Klein said it had been an "inside joke." It is difficult to imagine the seedy, derelict fun fair in which such as statement would be a joke.

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-up Party -- less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute -- presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne and David Brooks -- on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Many of the entrepreneurs of the new media, on left and right, are talented, vivid and entertaining. Many are also squandering important things they do not value. They are making politics an unpleasant chore, practiced mainly by the vicious and angry, and are feeding dangerous resentments in a volatile time.

Eventually, all edginess becomes old. Obscenity reaches the limits of language. People read yesterday's hot blogger, watch yesterday's cable star, roll their eyes, and say, "Not again." And maybe then the Grown-up Party will prove more enduring and interesting after all.

[doctork]

Thumb up! I agree with Booky and Gerson.

I have noticed that when I meet face to face with politicians to discuss issues, they are typically much different, more moderate, than their public persona. I infer this is the influence of the right and left ends of either party, which seem to drive public politics, when most Americans are more middle of the road.

Then I remember that Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter, and the Bush-haters from 2001 - 2009, are primarily entertainers who derive income and fame & fortune from their destructive negativity, then retreat to their mansions while the wingnuts they fired up start making assassination threats/attempts or plotting terrorist acts.

So how is Ann Coulter wanting to blow up the NYT building, or Rush Limbaugh hoping Obama fails and inciting visions of lynching, or liberals praying that Rush dies, or referring to General Be-tray-us, different from the SDS and other 60's radicals they castigate?

All this reminds me more of Spiro Agnew and his "nattering nabobs of negativity." Meanwhile America and Americans suffer daily from the loss of civility, and on important matters, nothing gets done in Congress because it is all about political partisanship, scoring points instead of legislating/governing.

I'm for the Grown-Up party myself, and judging from the fact that the American public largely disapproves of Congress and the more extreme ends of both parties, I hope that most of us will eventually rally behind the Grown-Up party, not the Ugly party.

[joew]

The sad thing is that the Grown-Up politicians seem to feel that they must pander to the Ugly.

Refreshingly, Scott Brown seems to be acting and talking like a Grown-Up. Of course the Ugly are upset at being "betrayed," but if he can get re-elected, it could signal that start of a more Grown-up politics.