By Edwin Cooney
Opinions equal? Really? Perhaps valid would be better, but even an invalid opinion is still just an opinion or, if you prefer, a point of view! Opinions or points of view may be dangerous enough as cultural tendencies, but they become downright lethal when they become law. At the outset of your message you insist that the idea of getting along is hip nowadays. Hip, really? Then how do you account for the "culture war" through which we've been passing as far back as 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade?
How are we supposed to just agree to disagree with somebody with opposing views? We are supposed to see one man's views as equal but different from the other man. This is easier said than done. You're right, Colorado Dennis, that not all views are equal in applicability, but as mere points of view, they invariably invite legitimate objective analysis. Furthermore, they reflect the depth of public reaction to a controversial issue by a national constituency.
First, I suggest that few people, politicians included, are as ideological as even they represent themselves as being. Also, we too often refer to one another as “far left” and “far right.” We revel in radicalism with ideological references too few of us really understand. For instance, if there’s a radical left or right by definition there must be a near radical or moderate left and right. Thus, who’s on the moderate left, the moderate right, or even in the exact center needs to be defined. It’s my guess that most people try to be practical rather than ideological.
Let's tackle the increasingly popular view that Civil War statues should not remain as valuable historic relics.
In order to have an informed comprehension of what this point of view is all about, it's necessary to understand the significance of the Civil War in American history. First, it’s important to put the Civil War in context. Remember that for 18th and 19th century citizens, what was realistic was local. Most people were born, lived, and died in locations approximately 15 square miles apart. Few Americans were nationally-oriented. Thus when General Robert E. Lee left the United States Army and accepted the leadership of the Army of Virginia at the outset of the Civil War, he did so because in his heart, Virginia was his home and country. To Northerners, General Lee was a traitor. To Southerners, he was a patriot. Both Northerners and Southerners have been more or less locked into these values for the last sixteen decades. Hence, southern heroes are largely military heroes connected to Civil War history and, yes, even to family. Historically, few Southern heroes are Black. Of course, an abundance of Black Americans have been and are heroic. Perhaps had Southern leaders begun actively celebrating their heroism, the recent backlash against Civil War veterans wouldn't be as strong as it is. It's important to keep in mind that the protectors Civil War heroes have historically been quick to call “social heroes” socialists.
One of the saddest aspects of American history is our ongoing suspicion of immigrants. Most immigrants come to America to earn a better living. You can't earn a decent living when you come to destroy the system you seek to join. The very idea back in 2018 that a bunch of homeless and unemployed immigrants were about to invade America seriously lacked substance.
As for the abortion issue, I have yet to read or hear of a solution to the availability of abortions. Overruling Roe v. Wade merely restricts the availability of abortions to the wealthy. Well-heeled Americans have the resources to go to Canada or Mexico to obtain an abortion which is "none of anyone's business!" and return healthy and happy to practice their favorite brand of politics. A ban on the accessibility to abortions for one class of people doesn't outlaw abortions. There's an irony here. Only a few years ago, both during and after Roe v. Wade, social conservatives complained that too many poor people were having babies to collect money from the government for the raising of children. They were called welfare queens. If abortion is a question of morality, isn't assistance to the poor likewise a question of morality? After all, what does "love thy neighbor as thyself” mean? What is "do unto others what you would have them do unto you” all about? Those admonitions go back as far as both Confucius and Christ!
Here's a fundamental question. How interested are you and I in doing all we collectively can when it comes to giving people the benefit of the doubt? All of us are in some ways inconsistent in our attitudes and outlooks. Too many of us are willing to dehumanize political leaders with whom we have a conflict, be it attitudinal, intellectual or personal.
In Colorado Dennis's letter, he asserts that a person's views on public questions are a reflection of their decency. Some issues, such as white or Black nationalism, tolerance for or against LGBTQ behavior and marriage, may seem unhealthy or even anti-social to some, but it's reasonable to this observer to take the position that no behavior that doesn't interfere with who I am, who I admire, or who I love is in any way my personal business. LGBTQ people aren't thieves, killers, child molesters, or agents of any political or subversive party. If you're interested in tolerating others, there's no law of which I'm aware that prevents you from being wise, just, smart, gentle, caring, sharing, practical, and patriotic in all things! All of us are free to be tolerant of one another. I maintain that some of the most disagreeable people are ultimately pretty harmless.
I'm grateful to Colorado Dennis for his letter which invited me to write what's here. I hope I've been responsive!
The late, great showman, humorist, and columnist Will Rogers, who was known for his observation "I never met a man I didn't like,” once told of a congressman who became unhappy when one of Rogers' columns was read into the Congressional Record. "I object," said the congressman, "to the remarks of a professional joke maker being read into the Congressional Record." Rogers went on to point out that the unhappy congressman had it wrong. "If I make a joke, you can take it or leave it, but any time Congress makes a joke, it's a law.” Then, after a pause, Rogers said, “…and any time Congress makes a law, it's a joke!"
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment