A few years ago, I was walking back from a meeting on the Hill with a female colleague of mine and heard some guy holler at her from a passing truck. It didn’t quite register what it was all about until I turned to my colleague to see her roll her eyes.
I asked her later if that happens often, and she replied quietly, “yes.” Later that night, I asked another lady if that happens to her quite a bit, and she replied in the affirmative.
In movies, tv shows, etc., it is not uncommon to see this type of scene portrayed; but often seems so absurd to me that I just can’t believe it actually happens. It’s just not a part of the universe I live in (which is to say, it’s just not something I would ever remotely consider doing, nor is “cat calling” at ladies something I have ever witnessed any of my guy friends do).
But on that day, on that occasion, I took the word of two women whom I greatly respect (aided in part by actually witnessing it on one occasion) and trusted that it happens far more often than I have witnessed. Faith.
This is not without a parallel.
I have several friends and neighbors who are impacted by the heinous indignity of prejudice. I do not witness these things, and I absolutely do not participate in these things. But I know scores of people who are rational, respectable, and kind human beings who relate their experiences (mostly subtle; but nevertheless clear) of being discriminated against. Much like the women I trust about “cat calling” (and other such things), I trust my friends and neighbors who speak of their experiences of discrimination.
I’m frustrated by the things I’m reading and seeing on my social media feeds. There seems to be little effort put into nuance. It’s as if otherwise rational and intelligent people have thought certain issues through in their mind, weighed both sides, determined they fell on one side of an argument, and then publicly announced themselves to be on “this side” or “that side” – but go out of their way to avoid showing they gave any consideration for factors on the other side of the issue.
That is my best-case-scenario. Worst case scenario is that people aren’t considering factors that would pull the conversation to the other side of the fence.
Life is complicated, and I think that while most folks understand that, many don’t seem to be allowing for it when applying it to difficult issues being debated in the public square.
Cops have a ridiculously difficult job. I’ve written about this. Be sure to read that link if you start to think I don’t care for or appreciate cops. But there are idiots in every group, bullies in every organization, to include law enforcement. They have to be dealt with. The stakes are too high when you’re given a gun and authority to use the law, and then abuse that. But let’s not have this embarrassingly foolish argument that the public should “defund the police”. Law enforcement are there because people break the laws. Laws are there because people don’t “put moral chains upon their own appetites.” (See Edmund Burke’s statement below.)
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
I see a lot of folks on one side of the political spectrum hurling accusations at the other of “trying to take away our freedoms” or “controlling us”, when in most cases its lawmakers simply looking at the reality of the people they are called upon to provide governance, and simply have to pass laws to place Edmund Burke's controlling power somewhere.
But rather than society taking a hard look at themselves and their lack of self-restraint, they set fire to the straw man that it’s all the politicians’ fault. Meanwhile, the politicians aren’t doing themselves any favors, either, philandering, obfuscating, and/ or pandering as they often do. And when a politician does stand up and tells folks things they don’t want to hear, most of them get thrown out of office (and without even a footnote in “Profiles in Courage”).
Years ago, I was caught in the middle of some office politics. Many of us subordinates were frustrated by a senior staffer’s behavior and poor treatment of us peons. I was new, so I just tried to keep my head low, observe, and maybe learn something. But another colleague of mine raised hell at every opportunity in the form of arguing, raised voices, and outright insubordination.
It got so bad that the big boss called me into his office and asked me what my observations were. I told him something along the lines of “everything my colleague is complaining about is valid. The senior staffer is treating us very badly. I completely disagree with how my colleague is dealing with it, but he’s not wrong. Don’t lose sight of the rightness of his message just because he’s delivering it poorly.” From there, the boss conducted some more investigations, the senior staffer got reprimanded (and behavior improved), and my colleague got fired.
I can argue that the root problem (the senior staffer’s poor behavior) got solved because I handled myself with decorum and communicated effectively at the right time. But would the “right time” have ever come were it not for my colleague who raised hell? Maybe not. Again, life is complicated.
This experience is the lens through which I see protests. Protesting isn’t my thing. It’s a valid (and sometimes effective) way of loudly complaining about grievances. My personality leads me to different means of trying to move the needle in the direction I think it should go. Some people (many, perhaps) are comfortable and effective at driving the change using a variety of methods.
But protesters that allow (sometimes enable) destructive elements come in and cause havoc – well, that’s akin to my colleague who crossed a line and was insubordinate in the office. Fireable offenses; and so distracting that the correctness of his message would have been lost were it not for my conversation with the boss, and the boss willing to consider the views of a foul-mouthed, disrespectful, and insubordinate staffer.
This doesn’t happen very often, of course. In the case of recent protests, the message of the 90% of upset protesters are overwhelmed and drowned out by the 10% who show up to set fire and watch it burn. The 90% have to realize that if their message is going to be heard enough to be turned into productive action for their cause, they must expel from their numbers the 10% when they cross that line that separates peaceful (yet vocal) protests from violent riots.
Watch that youtube link. Think long and hard about it. It’s real and true. I’ve spent enough time with law enforcement learning about the means and methods of nutjobs to know that, for a variety of reasons, some people arrive at a point in their thinking that burning the world down seems like a perfectly valid and actionable goal. No one knows and understands that better than cops who have to go out there into the world and deal with them.
So, when the guy next to you hurls a bottle of what looks like water at the line of cops, consider that the cops could see that as a flammable agent in that water bottle; or, as someone sets what appears to be a harmless fire in a garbage can, consider that those garbage can fires are actually set to allow several more fires to be started (much like a single lit candle being used to light other candles), burning down cars and churches.
No comments:
Post a Comment