The Great Divide
By: Richard Turcotte
Tags: Partisanship, Polarization, Election 2020, Consequences, Coronavirus

Storm On The Way?

[W]e have to rethink our attitudes toward one another and toward the pursuit of truth. It’s not simply recognizing that people who hold different views than we do aren’t by definition stupid, corrupt, wicked or malicious; it’s that we come to a place where we believe we might have something to learn — or at least something to consider — from those whose views and outlooks and life experiences are different than mine. — Peter Wehner

In a perfect world, or one at least much better than the one we’re mired in now, those sentiments would merit greater respect and thoughtful, fair-minded consideration. Without the level of understanding Mr. Wehner wisely suggests, Left and Right will remain political and cultural combatants fighting on turf neither can claim exclusively as their own, and for purposes more muddled than we realize.

Notwithstanding, each partisan side — determined to gain some nebulous advantage over the other — will continue to dig in that much more. (This is assuming, unfortunately, that we’ve not yet reached bottom.) There will be no winners. There will, however, be much more harm to follow.

We could consider the possibility that better options await.

This sounds simple enough, of course. Reality intrudes. As one planted firmly on the left side of the divide — and no doubt echoing a complaint from those on the Right — the explanations/rationales/justifications for viewpoints contrary to my own are often maddeningly nonsensical.

A recent USA Today opinion piece* about this week’s election, which I had at first glance quickly dismissed as yet another echo crisscrossing the great political and cultural divide that is America in 2020 — just one more offering in an endless parade of Trump-supporting observations I find both intolerable and baseless — nonetheless struck a chord.

* by Lauren DeBellis Appell [links to her own citations can be found in Ms. DeBellis Appell’s commentary.]

That initial reaction was predictable. It’s by now almost automatic when assessing support for an opposing candidate. The refrain usually sounds something like this: “What the &*%!? is this person thinking?” Most of the time, partisan assessments begin and end with variations of the same inquiry.

Some are kinder than others. These days, however, not many. Why waste even the slightest measure of whatever generous spirit remains on someone obviously delusional and so clueless at this point that he/she still supports/opposes Donald Trump/Joe Biden?

This time, I regrouped. I did so not to find more reasons or opportunities to mock yet another opinion I cannot pretend to understand, bolstering my bona fides as a credentialed opponent of Trump. I did try, however. Despite the explanations and comments offered by the author, support for Trump is for me incomprehensible still. But I knew that. Step One, first. Then, stop.

The intent here is not to persuade, accuse, or denigrate. It’s instead a small stone tossed with different purpose into our troubled waters. The ripples are not designed to gently re-direct Trump followers away from the currents that flow hard Right. Why I should explain that support for Trump is an awful decision would be just another opinion sinking quickly into the mud, lost amid countless others, all roughed-up in some fashion.

Shaping our rebuttals is a process. A separate, reactionary process quickly develops in response to what Trump supporters offer. Perhaps if they understand how and why we react as we do to their processes — precisely what and how we are assessing their views and reasons — closed doors may crack open just a bit.

Behind our many standard knee-jerk objections, assorted levels of consternation, and bewildered astonishment are a cascade of insults and condemnations waiting to be unleashed. Investing a bit of time to first consider the why which generates our criticisms, and then sharing them, might instead create some space for rational and respectful dialogue. There are matters much more important than filling our insult score cards.

Worth a try….

After establishing why she’s not a Biden supporter as her circumstances might otherwise suggest, Ms. DeBellis Appell planted her Trump flag. “I’m proudly voting for him based on the promises he’s kept and the leadership he’s shown over the last three and a half years.

President Trump has done more that I support than any president in my lifetime, and certainly more than Joe Biden in his decades in Washington.”

Two paths before me: mock/insult/dismiss, or approach it with a more open mind and explain first. Easier said than done, but Door 2 was the choice. Door 1 is, as ever, an option.

A brief foray into her views about the months of protest across the nation left no doubt that Ms. DeBellis Appell was not especially sympathetic as to why the protests took place, and certainly no fan of how some protesters — sadly — saw the demonstrations as an excuse and opportunity to let the less-than-honorable aspects of their personalities lead the way. Most of us who do support the protests draw the line when they cross the line.

She states:

The question is, which America do you want your kids to grow up in?

An America where the Orwellian mantra of “peaceful protests” reverberates in dismissing violence and anarchy? Where public safety is an afterthought? Where “mob rule” rules the day as we’ve seen in many Democrat-run cities across the country as rioting and looting have destroyed businesses and ended innocent lives.

When facts and contradictions get in the way, one strategy is easy enough to rely on: ignore them, and hope no one is paying that much attention. Generalizations help, too. The broader, the better. It’s commonly understood that the conservative id is not inclined to factor in nuances or too many considerations which might call into question the point being raised. But facts matter, including the ones calling into question their particular narratives.

By what standard is “public safety an afterthought,” or “mob rule” a common feature of [snarkily-labeled] “Democrat-run” cities? Trump rallies hardly qualify as peaceful, respectful gatherings! Far-right groups such as the Proud Boys or those Michigan extremists who plotted to kidnap, try, and apparently kill the Governor of an American state don’t suggest a gathering of the local church choir in a neighborhood park.

Cherry-picking examples to bolster a stand taken is hardly uncommon, one definitely not confined to Trump supporters. It’s easy, simple to incorporate, and does have many self-serving advantages. But what does an unwillingness to make a good-faith effort at examining the different viewpoints and considerations contribute to our hyper-partisan battles except to ratchet up the animosity? Why reference one apparently partisan-inspired killing, as the author did, but not mention, for example, Kyle Rittenhouse?

How can anyone in good faith debate who bears responsibility for failing to, as the author argued, “unequivocally condemn violence” yet mention not so much as a word of Trump’s repeated and often overt incitement/acceptance of violence as a tactic? He certainly is not the sole contributor, although it must be noted he does have a higher profile than … well, everyone else.

Real-life isn’t as easily persuaded by partisan assertions that one’s “team” offers the only valid perspectives. Ignoring or dismissing alternative viewpoints is a choice. Outcomes and consequences are never far behind.

How much more and for how much longer do we want to test the limits of partisanship before THE last line is crossed? Tuesday’s election and the threats bandied about, not to mention the many less-than-subtle hints Trump himself keeps dropping into conversation about unfavorable results, are closing whatever thin gap remains between here and that last line.

To what end? Does anyone think that once the bonfire is lit we can just as quickly and easily extinguish it and retreat to our side of the divide for yet another round of I’m Right and You’re An Idiot?

To wrap up the portion of her essay on violence, Ms. DeBellis Appell then offers this:

In an unprecedented move, police organizations all over the country, some of which have never endorsed a candidate before and some which had previously endorsed Democrats, are endorsing Trump this year.

Why not explain that the source references exactly one [legitimate, albeit traditionally right-leaning] organization, instead treating it as if it is The Official Last Word on the matter? It took me no more than thirty seconds to discover, among many other endorsements offered to both Biden and Trump, this Fox News posting: “More than 175 current, former law enforcement officials” who were endorsing Joe Biden, with a sub-title indicating they “slam Trump as ‘lawless’ president.”

Tie game once again. What’s been accomplished except to enhance distrust and provide easy excuses to mock the other side for not being fair-minded and forthcoming about important particulars intentionally omitted? Gratifying to be sure — limited in value though it is — but at what cost?

Amplifying an assumed fear [“Suburban moms like me believe the safety of our families also depends on this election”] as reason to latch onto that endorsement doesn’t seem to resonate with the majority of suburban women, if most polls are to be believed. Despite Trump’s determined efforts, widespread hand-wringing at the prospect of an army of Cory Bookers moving into their neighborhoods and being … uh, neighbors and such has yet to be observed. The dog whistles are getting louder, however.

In the interests of not offending the author’s religious concerns, and more specifically avoiding commentary on both her admiration for and defense of Amy Coney Barrett, along with the Senate Republicans’ less than honorable actions regarding the appointments of the three most recent additions to the Supreme Court, I’ll leave that discussion for another time. But Ms. DeBellis Appell’s characterization of Justice Barrett as “a trailblazer” begs what seems like an obvious and legitimate question: In which direction?

But to that point — recognizing that extending cherry-picked arguments and nothing else has its drawbacks — I do want to note Ms. DeBellis Appell’s concerns that “Biden threatens to turn the Supreme Court into his own liberal mini-Congress. He wants to form a commission to explore options that ‘go well beyond’ adding to the court” seem a bit off the mark. Her pre-emptive conclusion that a possibly-expanded Supreme Court would “rubber-stamp his policies, including perhaps a national lockdown over COVID-19” suggests an admirable skill at predicting the future, but seems a bit heavy-handed as to the fears implied.

Aren’t Republicans suggesting the same expectations regarding their policy preferences? Trump hasn’t been shy about asserting “his” judges should decide election results in his favor.

Her final word on the imagined possibilities she herself suggested: “Now that is scarier than anything Trump has said or proposed” as being the most worrisome issue we face seems to overlook a few other pre-election episodes already on the books.

I can’t blame most right-leaning citizens from steering clear of defending the galling hypocrisy and unprincipled efforts of Senate Republicans to first deny President Obama a choice to nominate a SCOTUS appointee and then ram through Amy Barrett. Skipping right over their failure to instead prioritize relief to millions suffering as a result of Trump’s appalling non-management of the pandemic comes as no surprise, either.

The almost obligatory snide comment, while not uncommon from partisans on either side: “Stay tuned for the Supreme Court to start resembling game day on a football field with ‘Team Biden’ jerseys instead of black robes,” does call into question the sincerity and validity of the purported concerns. Why not instead consider the intent of the bipartisan commission Biden proposes as an honorable proposal, rather than stating an intention to simply pack the Court with four new left-leaning Justices on Day One?

Are we so numb to a lack of reasonable governance over the past four years that we’re incapable of even recognizing a good-faith effort? If nothing else, it is a welcome contrast to the countless behind-the-scenes trampling of norms and ethics by the current Administration, with accompanying misinformation if an explanation is called for.

It’s difficult to square right-wing concerns about what Biden might do next year when comparing Trump’s less-than-subtle efforts to throw the imminent election itself into chaos over his repeated — baseless — claims of voter fraud and the hypocrisy tagging along.

As for the prospects that right-wing judges might be called upon to weigh in on the election….? That’s a nightmare inside a conflagration no one should welcome. There will be no controlling what would quickly become uncontrollable. That situation cannot end well for any of us, regardless of who is declared the “winner” and on what basis, if it is on anything other than counting the votes.

Another concern of Ms. DeBellis Appell’s is reopening schools. As a parent of three, the youngest an Army veteran now pursuing a Master’s Degree on his way to a Ph.D., perhaps I’m not as qualified as she is to discuss the objectively understandable (if in application unimaginable) challenges parents of young school-age children are contending with each and every day.

Her position is quite clear. Some may quibble with the conclusion, but no thinking person would suggest this situation confronting tens of millions of households has been a picnic for parents, children, or teachers:

“The virus has taken a toll on our children as well as our economy and physical health. Keeping our kids isolated at home learning behind a computer screen is a disaster.”

One could add this perspective: A disaster, not doubt, but for many, not nearly as painful as are the consequences of a POTUS who knew from the get-go that the virus was quite deadly yet chose to do nothing; repeatedly misled the nation; undermined experts; disregarded the well-being of his own supporters by holding superspreader rallies despite the scientific, fact-based evidence of the dangers posed, and all because addressing the virus as any rational leader should have done immediately also risked bad publicity. As many other have observed, for a narcissist like Trump, there appears to be no greater threat than doing/saying anything — or nothing — that might in some way reflect poorly on him. Quite the trade-off….

Mindless defenses which skip right past these legitimate perspectives are exasperating, to say the least. Duly noted that dealing with a pandemic is yet another contentious public issue for which the easy and obvious answers have long since left the building. But having done nothing in preparation for these challenges, coupled with a complete absence of guidance and national policy to be expected from a President, it’s beyond debate that Trump’s efforts haven’t exactly been shining examples of leadership.

No one can yet say with any certainty what the long-term consequences might be to those who’ve contracted and survived/recovered. Some of the reports — small samples though they might be — provide legitimate and serious justifications to worry about needless exposure or foolish risk-taking. It is almost beyond rational comprehension to think that any other official would have so cavalierly ignored the responsibility to provide guidance and leadership. It is all the more confounding given that Donald Trump was well aware of the threat — and its potential — from the earliest days of the pandemic.

Leaving it to local communities, if not to individual groups and families, to formulate plans on their own is both impractical and unconscionable in a nation with the resources we possess. Ignorance and denial may be options of choice for some who prefer to think of this as a hoax or an exaggeration. Millions of others would gladly exchange places with those so confident about their thoughtless conclusions.

While there is no reason to doubt Ms. DeBellis Appell’s observations about the mental health consequences to children and families, we should not forget the impact on teachers, their families, and the communities themselves. No one should be surprised when frustrations boil over. But neither should we dismiss concerns and fears about the virus itself. Nearly a quarter of a million American families have very real and painful, unending grief to contend with.

Ms. DeBellis Appell states that “in Biden’s America he’ll always stand with the teachers, even when they are wrong.” Would any elected official from either party automatically offer blanket support to teachers or other constituencies “even when they are wrong”? What’s the point of making such an allegation?

“How do we know?”, she asks … and then answers by linking to a Wall Street Journal article. “Because he told them,” she explains. “In July he said, ‘You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an (National Education Association) member in the White House,’ referring to his wife, Jill Biden.” I’ll confess that I’m not clear on how that translates into total, blind support for anything and everything teachers might propose.

Is it automatically a terrible thing to be looking out for teachers? Is anyone prepared to legitimately doubt Joe Biden’s commitment to children and families? And why cast support for teachers as somehow indicative of a bias against children?

The argument is all the more exasperating after taking a few minutes to examine the “leadership” of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. For example:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said Tuesday that it’s not her responsibility or that of the federal government to track school districts, their coronavirus infection rates and how they’re reopening — the most direct response to education leaders across the country who have been urging the Trump administration for a comprehensive database to help them navigate the pandemic…. The statement comes as the country’s 13,000 school districts struggle with how to provide instruction for more than 50 million children during the pandemic. Educators have been especially critical of DeVos and the Trump administration for lack of guidance, especially given how much pressure the White House has put on them to reopen for in-person learning. “This is a significant missed opportunity,” Noelle Ellerson Ng, associate executive director of policy and advocacy at AASA, the Superintendents Association, says. “It represents a continued lack of leadership. And while we often talk about the importance of local control, when it comes to a pandemic, leadership should start at the top and go down.”

We’re now confronted with many issues of national impact, importance, and consequence. Scoring points for one team or the other is exciting for those few seconds, but hopes for a better future call for more than partisan nonsense, half-truths [if that], and juvenile insults.

We might all benefit from more honorable discussions about our disagreements and find ways to move all of us forward in the direction of a better future. What’s the alternative?

Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, that will matter more than we know.