(The following is a reply to a friend who disagreed with my point of view in “Charlottesville: A Lesson for Us All”. He supports freedom of speech for all, even Neo-Nazis, and would continue to draw the line between speech and violent acts. There is merit to his point of view but I maintain there is room for a stronger push back against Neo-Nazis and white supremacists)
In response to your comment: it’s a good question! To recapitulate briefly where we left off:
I wrote: “We should also take cognizance of the increasing political maturity of the American people.” You asked: “Which is it, are Americans politically ‘mature’ enough to discern the truth, or are they so fragile and gullible that they must be protected from themselves?”
I don’t see the same contradiction you apparently do so I guess my answer would be “both” or “neither”. When Americans are mature enough to oppose white supremacists, I don’t really see that as an argument for allowing white supremacist racist hate speech. There are more and better reasons for actively opposing racism than for tolerating it under a false sense of security: i.e., by “allowing” such speech Americans can demonstrate a degree of sophistication, etc.
As to the other half, I’m not urging people to speak out because I believe they are too weak to understand the ideas of the Far Right. To the contrary, it is because they do understand these racist and fascist ideas that they are moved to act! I didn’t arrive at my position along those lines; I’m not thinking Americans need to be protected from themselves. I just happen to believe Americans have the right to pro-actively protect our democracy from Nazis, racists, and fascists.
My view is that there are many Americans who are mature enough to oppose Neo-Nazis and racists without conceding individual rights for the non-Nazi majority, if I may coin such an awkward phrase. I don’t think of them as fragile or gullible at all!
This weekend (Aug. 26-27) the group Patriot Prayer canceled appearances in SF and Berkeley. I wonder if they would have done so were it not for the many people who spoke up against them and were organizing their own demonstrations? Sure, it’s not neat or an ideal democratic forum where everyone keeps a civil tongue in their heads, etc. But reality is not always neat, either.
By “politically mature”, I’m not aiming to be naïve or fail to appreciate H. L. Mencken’s classic line: “No one lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” No, I’m thinking of race relations in our country from a very long time ago down to the present day.
First, the nation tolerated and profited from slavery for approximately 250 years (1619-1865). Then the American people put up with another 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, right up to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Not that racism ended then, nor has it ended today, either institutionally or in terms of a racist individual’s attitude and behavior.
The point is, there was a time when a majority of white people were found along the “somewhat prejudiced” to “highly racist” spectrum. To encourage or expect a majority of white people to actively oppose racism during these periods would have been highly unrealistic, to say the least. In the 1920’s the KKK had five million members and organized huge marches in the nation’s capital; meanwhile, a bill to outlaw lynching went nowhere for nearly half a century.
The white majority once put up with racist language, oppressive discrimination, back-breaking exploitation, the denial of civil rights and endless episodes of violence against Black people.
White racists still exist, granted, but now they are now the numerical minority and not the majority. That is what has changed expectations in this era–there are new variables in the rules of the game. Liberal-progressives have a numerical edge, as well as law and democratic moral precepts on their side.
We cannot go back in time and ask a lynch mob to stop in their tracks; that lost fantasy hope belongs to a bygone era. Today, we are asking people to speak out against racists and fascists the best they can so we can change society for the better for ourselves and our children.
Mike, I still believe in non-violent civil disobedience and a person accepting consequences for his actions. I was prepared to go to jail after the Oakland draft board denied my application for Conscientious Objector status (up to 5 years and/or $10,000 fine at the time).
I do not want to see violence from the counter-protesters but I also note, wryly or reluctantly, that it sometimes appears to take this degree of fiery fight-back spirit to slow or stop the Far Right’s momentum.
Another Tech classmate wrote to me, too, and she expressed herself along the same lines as you did. Both replies taken together have served as powerful reminders to me of our nation’s traditional distinction between speech and action.
I am reminded that some writer (Hemingway or Fitzgerald?) said something about the need for an artist to be able to handle two sets of contradictory ideas at the same time. I suppose I’m coming ever closer to putting myself in that unenviable spot.
For the record, the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment is fine with me if that proves to be our most forward progressive point of view.
However, I also believe it is time for Americans to start pushing back sooner, harder, and ever more decisively against the emerging threats posed by Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.
Let history be my judge.
