in the purview of young white males

===

Mother, mother

There’s too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother

There’s far too many of you dying

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

Father, father

We don’t need to escalate

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

<What’s Going On>

Marvin Gaye

==

“To be neutral, to be passive in a situation, is to collaborate with whatever is going on.

Howard Zinn

===

This is about guns and shooting and words. First. Guns. Suicides, of which there are far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. Inner city crime, mostly minority on minority, of which there is far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. What lies in the purview of young white males is mass shootings with an AR-15. Reminder. And AR-15 is a civilian version of a military M-16. And we had another young white male, with an AR-15, shoot into a crowd. What makes this one a bit different is that instead of shooting white school children (Sandy Hook), or Hispanic school children (Uvalde), or black people (Charleston and Buffalo), or a country music crowd (Las Vegas), this young white male decided to open up on a Trump rally. Its too early to know his intent, or motivations, whether it was a specific assassination attempt or just ‘kill-for-attention,’ suffice it to say there was a young white male, with an AR-15, a crowd of people, and he shot. Regardless of his actually intent, whatever it may have been, the Republican party find itself in a quandary. The MAGA world was attacked through the same 2nd amendment rights they espouse. And not just attacked, but their leader’s life threatened. But that’s not the tricky part for them, it’s that it wasn’t the ‘radical left,’ but rather just a disturbed young male (registered as a Republican). There is nothing nefarious here, at least not politically, just another young white male with an AR-15.

That said. Let’s get to rhetoric.

First of all. I am excited to spend the next few days being lectured about the dangers of inflammatory political speech by people who’ve spent the last few years cheerleading civil war (sarcasm). Second. I have written about how political rhetoric needs to be dialed back. Oh. I did that before 2016 and in 2016. Third. There is no equivalence between right rhetoric and left rhetoric. At its worst the left suggests MAGA is an existential threat to the country (and democracy) and their call to action is “vote.” At its worst the right, well, encourages violence as a call-to-action option. Even worse, their rhetoric veers into “they are the enemy” mental models therefore there is no such thing as ‘unity’ to a MAGA member; just victory and supplication (or elimination). Fourth. Conservative media, for quite some time, has been quasi-apocalyptic in their calls to fight by any means necessary the evils of liberalism (or socialists and communists as they suggest). To be clear. Apocalyptic phrasing around democracy is different than apocalyptic phrasing around America. Anyway. The rhetoric from the Right has only gotten hotter. Fifth. The most violent rhetoric of the past 8+ years is from Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly promised a civil war, called democrats unamerican, called them treasonous (coded message for ‘should be shot’), routinely calls for bloodbaths, “stand back and stand by” to white nationalists and suggests January 6 capitol attackers are heroes. These are incontrovertible facts.

Words are weapons and words, used well, contrast choices. I end this section with that because in the MAGA alternative universe world, where they turn up down, words should not be completely eliminated, just used more wisely.

“Almost any criticism of Trump is already being spun by MAGA as an incitement to assassinate him. This is an Orwellian attempt to silence what remains of the effort to stop him from regaining power.”

Edward Luce/Financial Times

Anyway. Almost all political rhetoric these days suggests an “us versus them.” That is horrible.

It creates an either/or mentality where complex issues gets dumbed down to inaccurate simplicity.

It creates an either/or mentality which encourages us to be, and express, the worst version of ourselves. This clearly does not, and will not, help us address the complex reality we face.

Add on the layer of the internet and social media and our worst version gets amplified.

Add on the layer that the amplified voice, and voices, the reach into the minds of the few mental-health-in-need individuals in a greater culture in which tools of violence (guns) are far too readily available.

I point out the layers because whatever we do each layer needs some solutions to create obstacles to an alignment of disparate variables which enable the unacceptable occurrences we see.

Americans believe they are extremely divided along lines of identity: 77 percent said the country is divided over religion. Eighty-three percent said it’s divided over race and ethnicity. And fully 91 percent of respondents said the United States is divided by politics.

We need to accept that divisiveness in rhetoric affects attitudes and ultimately behaviors.

We need to accept that mental health reform, societally discussed … culturally discussed … and professionally discussed, needs to be not only discussed but dealt with.

And, yes, we need to accept that gun ownership, or the prevalence of everyday people having guns, often makes police work more challenging and increases the likelihood of errors affecting people’s lives in that there are split second decisions made on <a> whether a person they are facing has a gun and <b> will they use it or not.

All of these things lead to a difficult complex situation in which divisiveness and extreme points of views/rhetoric tend to not be very productive if not even detrimental to the overall situation.

Which leads back to rhetoric.

And while we can talk about guns, or the economy <because economic inequality and lack of real opportunities creates a foundation for unhappiness if not anger> or any other issue we want … we need to begin with the words.

===

“We don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.

Only notes that are different can harmonize. The same is true with people.”

Steve Goodier

======

Whether we like it or not words beget actions. Any good speaker, any good leader, any effective protestor knows this is fact. Words have inspired people to act for generations. Therefore, we all must acknowledge the consequences associated with what we say. Free speech and freedom of thought is at the core of who and what America is, however, hate of what is said and what is thought is the counterproductive ugly side of that freedom.

I say this because you cannot be either for police or against police – they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of America. We are all pro police.

I say this because you cannot be either for or against immigration – unless you are a Native American they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of who and what America is (and a healthy economy). We are all pro-immigration.

I say this because you cannot be for or against America – America is a complex weave of a structure of how we think, what we believe, self-identities and attitudes. Disagreements on tactics aside, in the end we are all pro-potential, pro-progress, and pro-America.

That said. No matter one’s beliefs, the rhetoric of extremism seems to create an absurd version of “us versus them” where, well, no one wins – we are all the victims. What I mean is that when extremism is taken in totality, where each side states that if you don’t believe what I believe you are not only wrong but “bad”, uhm, the only conclusion would clearly place everyone, when taking in all views, clearly as wrong & bad, i.e., no one can be right because everyone at some point ends up in a “wrong bucket.”

Therefore, what’s going on is a divisiveness which suggests everyone is in the wrong. And if that is true … well … in a land of nothingness nothing will inevitably win. Anyway. Here are the most powerful words I can think of to address this discussion.

It’s got to stop.

We need some fundamental changes – in attitudes and in behaviors and in words.

Look. American violence is clearly out of hand. American inequality is clearly out of hand. American divisive rhetoric is clearly out of hand. Too many simplistic inaccurate depictions of what’s going on make it incredibly difficult to find the common ground where common sense ideas can prevail.

And this is where I look to leaders and what’s going on.

Ah. The Leaders. Let’s call them our ‘governing officials” <politicians>. And let’s call them disappointing. I discuss this hesitating. Hesitating because I truly believe in the power of people and the power of an individual to say ‘it stops here & now’ and that in doing so attitudes, like dominoes, begin to fall in line. But in a country in which politicians will not seek common ground, but instead shout out the top of their lungs “all things divisive,” how can we the people be united? If leaders <on both sides> refuse to compromise … it is us, we, everyday schmucks who pay the price.

We are the victims of their behavior – all of us – not just the ones who die or are physically directly affected.

We are all victims when the system fails.

We are all victims when our leaders fail.

We are victims when a small group of like minded people fail.

We are victims when an individual fails.

We are all victims if we fail to do something.

We are all victims when we begin to believe the bigger vision of who and what America is … is … well … failing.

And ultimately.

We are all victims when the rhetoric is divisive

This all gets just a bit worse. Unity, or common sensemaking, has always been dependent upon mingling of peoples and work is where roughly three-quarters of Americans’ interactions with people from another political party happen. Other life activities are significantly more politically divided. Yeah. Less than 50% of people say they encounter political differences among their friends. Only 39% say they see political diversity within their families, and an incredibly low % of people encounter ideological diversity at religious services or community meetings. This is really bad because many of these places have traditionally been where people practiced habits of democracy. So, as institutions weaken, and people self-identify more, democracy gets weaker and people are more easily divided.

So, I will offer the first step.

For you, and me and my leaders. Stop the divisive rhetoric. Words have power beyond the imagination. Stop the divisive words. It must stop to stop what’s going on. Unite America by offering uniting rhetoric. It is amazing what can happen, what will actually ‘go on,’ if everyone actually believes we are united. I tend to believe all of us every day schmucks know that we have problems and that there are issues to be resolved, but I would feel a shitload better if I truly believed we were united in addressing them. And maybe, just maybe, less divisive rhetoric will encourage us to maybe, just maybe, spend a little more time around people who are not just like us, and find out they are not evil, they are not our enemy, they are not vermin, they are people. Just like us. Ponder.

Written by Bruce