So here’s a problem. We are invited to end divisiveness. On YouTube, from Swami Satchitananda, telling us how to end divisiveness by understanding the underlying unity of all, to Michael Bloomberg, perhaps as part of running for president, calling for the end to divisiveness. The concern assaults us. Meanwhile, the former president, Barak Obama, and the present occupier of the same office, President Pinocchio, are each accused of divisiveness. President Pinocchio, the lying racist, true to form, acclaims he is the least racist person that has ever lived (or something like that), but caters to Nazis and white nationalists who went on a torch-lit parade through Charlottesville chanting “The Jews will never replace us.” (Data indicate there are 2 percent Jews in the U.S., and 9 percent of Americans say neo-Nazi and white supremacist views are acceptable. So perhaps concern about replacement should go in the opposite direction.) So let’s return to this call to end divisiveness.
Just how would the divide — between Nazis and me, between white supremacists and me, between racists and me — be bridged? I cannot imagine the form of the necessary changes that would have to occur or how they might be brought about in real practical life. Please understand that I do not in any way intend to deny the humanity of Nazis, et. al. These are people. Their thought processes are human thought processes. Perhaps sometimes these thought processes fall into the category of disordered thought, but still we are speaking of people. I don’t like using nouns such as ‘monsters’ or ‘animals’ to describe people. Dehumanizing the people I disagree with does not seem helpful. Actually, it should be illegal for a prosecutor to speak that way about a defendant. So the question remains: what to do about divisiveness?
What about the unthinkable? Perhaps trying to end divisiveness in this arena is a mistake. Maybe we take our stand on one side of the dividing line and let those across from us do what they must. I am not speaking of physical violence, but perhaps we must fight this war of ideas. Neither with insults nor derogation. Instead, with clear presentation of basic assumptions that can be accepted by as many people as possible, and with logical argument from the assumptions.
To what end? Do I actually believe that white supremacists will be persuaded by argument? Sorry, but I have serious doubts. If there are people who are still undecided, perhaps we can persuade them. But mostly, I think the fight should be fought because it is the right thing to do. Call me indoctrinated if you will, but I do believe we should act as if “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And, perhaps not like some of the authors of those words, I do mean all and I don’t mean only men.
Can more be done? What about laws? For the first 50 or so years of my life I believed in complete freedom of speech. Let anyone say whatever they wanted. If you disagree, use the same freedom. Now, being the crotchety old fogey that I have become, I’m not so sure. More and more I think of ideas as contagious. The way some diseases are contagious. Perhaps there should be a law against contagious hate speech as there is against hate crimes. I’ve read some of the arguments against such speech laws. Not impressive. We have a state law against spitting in all sorts of places. Which is more undesirable, spitting or hate speech? What kind of goal should we set for the country we want to leave to those who come after? Spit free or hate free?
Richard S. Bogartz is a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts.