Sydney M. Williams “Murder in the U.S.A.”
New Hampshire’s White Mountains, with their rugged, natural beauty and the sense of peace that whispers through the Pines, Hemlocks and Spruce that comprise their forests, seemed a long distance from the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, as well as the never-ending killing of – mostly – young, Black, inner-city males. But this is a big country and it holds people of every ethnicity, nationality and religion – most all who are good, but a few who are evil. When united, we are morally strong; when divided we are vulnerable.
What unites us is the idea of America. At our core, we love what America represents – the freedom it gives us and the opportunities it provides. Among our freedoms are those that allow us to speak up when we disagree, to protest policies that are at odds with ours. We can, in fact, insult our President. It is this personal freedom and the opportunities for social and economic advancement that attract so many to our shores.
What divides us has been the rise of extremism, driven by a sense of being ignored and by politicians who find compartmentalization of the electorate – by gender, race, religion and sexual orientation – politically opportunistic. The result is a culture that promotes identity politics and victimization; hatred is their progeny. In an August 6 op-ed for the New York Times, David Brooks wrote: “The struggle between pluralism and anti-pluralism is one of the great death struggles of our time, and it is being fought on every front.” What he wrote I believe to be true, but he did not connect anti-pluralism with politics of identity. Pluralism is preferred by those who believe in integration, not just of race, gender and religion but of ideas. It was what drove Martin Luther King, while Anti-pluralism is a consequence of those who thrive on politics of identity – be it white nationalism, Antifa, BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, LGBTQ, or neo-Nazis. These lead to politics of hate and, thence, to acts of terror. We would be wise to heed David Brooks’ call for pluralism. After all, it is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States – e Pluribus Unum.
Politics, it has been said, is a blood sport. This is particularly true during elections, a cycle that today never ceases. Extremism did not originate with the election of 2016. “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff in 2009. Extremism did not originate with President Obama either. Consider how mocked was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and how sullied was Bill Clinton. Time white-washes some of the vitriol, but it was there. Politicians claim to abhor the consequence of this hatred, but they fail to take responsibility for the role they have played in its genesis. In dividing us, they have found benefit in addressing specific concerns for specific groups, but they have failed to foresee the unintended consequences of pushing people into segregated compartments. We have become, with their help – and abetted by the media – divided. We are like the Jets and the Sharks in “West Side Story.” We promote victimhood and then wonder at its deadly consequence.
Democrat candidates were quick to blame President Trump for the murders in El Paso, for his alleged condoning of white nationalists, but were more subdued regarding the Dayton shooter Connor Betts and his support for Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, has admitted to targeting Mexican immigrants. And, until this past week, President Trump had not singled out white nationalists as carriers of hate, but neither had Democrats condemned Antifa or those in the entertainment world who have called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. The hatred for President Trump exceeds anything our history offers. It is a hatred that knows no bounds. It is not limited to the Left. It has blurred the vision of publications like the National Review and individuals like George Will. When President Trump first spoke after the tragedies, he called for unity, but has been given no credit. The headline in the first edition of the New York Times the next day read: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.” But that was too much for biased readers. The headline over the same story in the second edition read: “Assailing Hate but not Guns.” In their sanctimonious hypocrisy, the media enflames the division. In an editorial on the causes of the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, the Times referred to “white nationalists” fourteen times. They also mentioned “white supremacy” and “white extremists.” To ensure their opinion was not muddied, they added: “white nationalism has attained new mainstream legitimacy during Mr. Trump’s time in office.”
There was no mention in the Times editorial of the role played by mental health, identity politics, or the part played by a lack of moral teachings in families and in schools. No mention was made of politicians who have adopted political correctness as their mantra and who bow to union leaders, in a mutually symbiotic relationship. The editorial was not balanced with discussion of violent left-wing extremists like Antifa. There was no mention of those in the entertainment world who have publicly called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. All blame lay on the President and those who support him. While extremist talk is common in elections, we have reached a point that would be unrecognizable to prior generations. Both Patrick Crusius and Connor Betis should have been red-flagged, by parents, teachers and society.
Members of both parties must own up to and condemn extremists in their parties. In a passage attributable to Aristotle, it has been said we cannot change human nature, so a successful governing body must include concepts of virtue and compromise. We are a myriad people, representing different religions and races. We are conservatives and progressives, extremists and moderates. We come from different socio and economic backgrounds. We are not equal, nor can we ever be. Some of us are athletes, others are intellectuals. We range the spectrum in terms of abilities and aspirations. We are men, women, tall, short, heavy and thin. We are individuals, yet we are part of the greatest country the world has ever known. We are blessed, but only if we recognize the redeeming necessity of compromise. Out of many, one. Pluralism, as David Brooks reminded us, had better be our future.
While mass shootings command our attention, thousands more get gunned down on city streets, with cities like St. Louis and Baltimore leading the way in urban murders. We need to talk about gun ownership, especially the ownership of assault weapons, while recognizing that restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence, as can be seen in cities like Hartford, CT. Nevertheless, we need to discuss universal gun registration and intelligent, thorough background checks. We need to do something about the danger represented by extremists, whether on the right like white nationalists or on the left like Antifa. We need to understand the role played by mental health and to red-flag those who might be at risk. We need to address the anti-social consequences of violence in movies and video games. We need to celebrate marriage and reflect on the cultural downside of single-parent families, a decline in church attendance and an abandonment of community memberships, and the loss of virtue mentioned by Aristotle. We need to dowse the heated rhetoric, whether coming from the President’s Tweets, political candidates or members of the media and entertainment communities, recognizing that one unintended consequence of social media is that what you say, do or write will follow you the rest of your days. We need to think of the damage done to the goal of pluralism by identity politics, and the hatred it spawns. We must regain the ability to laugh at ourselves. We are all, conservatives and progressives alike, as John Donne’s words remind us, “involved in mankind.” Every death affects us.
This essay was completed back in Essex, Connecticut, along the estuary of the Connecticut River. On Saturday, following the Connecticut River south from Brattleboro, Vermont, I thought of it as a metaphor for our nation. A river reflects the woods, fields, farms, towns and cities through which it passes. It carries myriad objects, natural and man-made; and I thought of how man can pollute it, but also of how it provides enjoyment, employment and enriches and cleanses the land through which it and its tributaries pass. Diversity, like that in the river, is our strength. United we rise. Divided we fall.
Comments are closed.
