What I believe (more political muttering)
I wrote a blog post after the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings expressing my frustration with government in general and the Democrat party in particular. I ended that piece intending to seriously look at joining the Republican party. I’ve decided not to follow-through on that instinct but I’ve been picking at my value systems ever since.
Preface:
1. I do not believe that one party is morally superior to the other. I can point to bigots and hypocrites on both sides. Both parties over-promise and under-deliver. Both parties are engaged in rhetoric and policy that I oppose.
2. Trump is not the president I wanted or voted for. While I understand the temptation to tar all conservatives with his rhetoric, indulging that temptation provides a too easy answer to our defining national issues. Trump’s presidency is the result of half the country being told that they are terrible deplorable people who should be ashamed of their heritage, values, and in some cases, their very existence. Trump is the loudest voice in conservatism but it has not been and will not always be so. I think it is worth reviewing Trump’s influence on the modern conservative movement. However, I reject the idea that “because Trump” is a justification for policy. Such reasoning is intellectually dishonest in that it allows us to avoid considering the deeper motivations and consequences of behavior that would otherwise be judged intolerable. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “look, a rabbit!” I reject the idea that espousing conservative ideals and associating with conservatives makes one complicit in Trump’s actions. Two things can be true at once. I can support conservative principals while opposing people who support those same ideals.
3. It is easy to over-simplify public debate into simple sugar-coated quotes. Those simple answers usually ignore inconvenient facts though-facts that if considered would lead to a more productive and honest conversation. Statements like “because racism” or “because Trump” may stir base passions but do not address the complex causes of poverty or the relative merits of a free market economy.
Diversity:
I grew up blessed with supportive informed parents. I didn’t learn the word “advocacy” until well into my twenties but I understood its meaning long before thanks to their example. My parents made sure I had the resources to learn and grow with children my age in a standard classroom. Because of their efforts I grew up knowing I was “different” and that the things that made me different didn’t make me “less.” There were moments in hindsight though where authority figures didn’t fully embrace that view.
One of my most vivid memories is of an elementary school teacher warning me while crossing the road that I was about to step on the yellow line. The tone of this warning was not playful or informative. In this person’s eyes it was an obstacle worthy of note-because blind. Since then I routinely encounter people who ask companions what I want for dinner and whether I can sign a receipt-as if I cannot speak for myself. Strangers have praised friends and family for their willingness to escort me in public. I have been called an “inspiration” for simply going to the gym or making my own lunch. I usually laugh and play off the interactions as opportunities to educate. That amusement doesn’t change the fact that ever since I was warned of the impending danger of a painted line, I have known that much of the world sees me as an object of pity who is less than a whole person.
George Bush spoke of this inequity in 1999 when he said:
“…No child in America should be segregated by low expectations, imprisoned by illiteracy, abandoned to frustration and darkness of self-doubt. . . .
Now some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less -- the soft bigotry of low expectations…”
Life has shown me that I will have to work twice as hard as peers to get half as far. While doing so, Bush’s aptly termed “low expectations” mean Coworkers will get an “attaboy” while I will be told I am an inspiration for comparable or lesser performance.
The popular definition holds that diversity benefits society through application of different experience and perspective. While I agree with the thesis, its loudest proponents fail to grasp a key corollary-diversity cannot benefit society until all perspectives and experience are held to the same standards.
One of my first jobs saw me working for someone who was brought into the company to add racial and gender diversity. They didn’t have to go through the competitive vetting the company touted as one of its greatest strengths. Different, I believe lesser, standards were ok “because diversity.” I spent 17 years with that employer. During that time, I was told constantly that diversity and inclusiveness were core company mission tenants. They devoted considerable resources to recognizing and celebrating inclusive employees. They said most of their infrastructure was accessible. When I pointed out that most of that infrastructure was not in fact accessible, company representatives acted shocked and said they would correct the issue-eight years later-not so much. Diversity and inclusion weren’t priorities when they required major change and investment.
These and many other interactions have proven to me that the diverse ideal is a fiction. We cannot celebrate diversity when expectations and merit are solely based on the degree to which a group is perceived to have been victimized-where appearances carry more weight than action. Diversity requires sacrifice. It requires us to engage with more than a token cohort. It requires us to value different experiences-most especially those antithetical and alien to our own. It requires us to say that “who” a person is carries more value than “what” they are.
The current diverse ideal tells poor people, black people, old people, and disabled people that victimhood-real or otherwise-means you are entitled to lesser standards. There is nothing soft about this bigotry. It is a pestilent curse. I know many disabled adults and children who have been told they do not need to strive, seek or find. They spend their lives yielding to the scourge of “lesser expectations.”
My success is not greater because I am blind. The only way to come to that conclusion is if I was never expected to be successful in the first place. It is a question of whether I am an inspiration because of the challenges I have overcome or because I have become far more than society thought I ought to be. That last is what I hear when someone says we need a (insert protected group) in public office. Will any person of that group do? Of course not. If republicans put forth a female presidential candidate would Democrats vote for her because America hasn’t had a female president yet? Somehow, I doubt it. I make no claims that Republicans always get it right when it comes to discrimination and diversity. I simply find the inherent message of conservatism far more honest and inclusive than the alternative. What is more inspirational and truer to the American spirit, the idea that most Americans have challenges to overcome and in so striving may forge their own destiny or that certain characteristics set groups apart for special treatment?
The Second Amendment:
Guns have ever been a complex issue for the American electorate. Our country was founded upon the understanding that military weapons in civilian hands were a necessary counter to government excess. Our founders had just finished fighting a war with one of the most professional militaries of its day. They won their independence using the same weaponry as their opposition. British soldiers in forced taxes to fund government ventures that the average colonist had not voted for and did not benefit from. Colonial citizens had no right to trial, due process, or an expectation of privacy. Any honest discussion of American firearm ownership should start with understanding that our founders intended us to have access to the conventional military armament of the day. They certainly intended us to own the standard man-portable kit of the basic infantryman as the “militia” were expected to supply their own arms.
I mention this because my understanding of the second amendment, its purpose, and its place in our modern republic is informed not just by what our founders intended when they enshrined our right to bare arms but the other amendments in the bill of rights as well. That document reads as a damning condemnation of British imperialism. It should be clear to anyone who has read the writings of the time that there were no second-class amendments-they were all pointed assertions of individual liberty which were to borrow a phrase “self-evident.”
Case law and society’s short memory has softened the urgency of those early words. Gun rights are most often discussed in terms of hunting and what people “need.” I have spent ten years educating myself as to the history of American gun ownership, the science of firearms, and related public policy. It is a complex subject that does not lend itself to easy quotes and campaign slogans.
In grappling with this issue, I have had to search my soul for what is right and what is merely comfortable. This struggle has forced me to examine my values, my understanding of the underpinnings of a free society, and what I honestly can live with as a caring compassionate human faced with yearly reports of dead children and church massacres.
That struggle has clarified my beliefs-some of which follow. I believe that all Americans should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I believe that the general public should not have their rights restricted due to the actions of a few. I believe that policy should be based on principled action and verifiable fact. I believe that we cannot and should not selectively target constitutional rights over others. Most importantly, when we propose change, we should ask if the new policy would have reasonably prevented the circumstance used to justify that proposal in the first place.
Current gun control Fales every single one of those tests. It Fales factual verification on the most basic scrutiny. Proposed bans on assault weapons ignore that 2 thirds of U.S. firearm inflicted deaths are suicides. Of the remainder, the majority stem from inner-city crime due to poverty, drugs, and gang violence-all of which occur outside conventional legal framework and almost none of which involves so-called assault weapons. Mass shootings, despite what then president Obama said, occur in the U.S. at comparable or lesser rates to other countries when adjusted for population.
Most, not all, gun control advocates I have met are objectively misinformed. They don’t understand how guns work, how current law is applied, or even what it takes to buy a firearm. I have had several discussions with people I otherwise consider intelligent rational individuals who become completely unwilling to discuss the most minor reality of private gun ownership if it counters their “facts.” When pressed, several have said that they really don’t care about private gun ownership. The lesser policies they endorse are really just fallback positions because they don’t want to seem unreasonable by calling for a complete ban on guns in private hands.
I take this personally. When I was a college freshman, I took a mandatory “here’s how to college” class. Part of it was a discussion of drinking and various negative consequences. Keep in mind this was in the late 90s-this next bit wouldn’t fly today. The program brought in an older man whose daughter had been killed in a drunk driving accident. He gave a short speech that has colored my view of controlled substances ever since. At the end of the presentation, he reached out and used me as his concluding statement. He put a handgun in my hand and sed he would rather give me a loaded gun than put me behind the wheel after drinking.
At the time I had 0 experience with firearms. I don’t know whether the gun was loaded-I certainly hope not. I still think he made a compelling point regarding the dangers of drug use. He probably felt he was making a more powerful point by picking me over one of my sighted classmates for his gesture.
I look back at that day though and remember that the blind guy wasn’t supposed to have a gun. Not that he couldn’t be taught to use one responsibly but that the default expectation was that the blind guy shouldn’t have a gun at all-which is why his demonstration was supposed to be so powerful. I have many friends and family who will look at this situation and see the humor-I mean, it isn’t like alcohol is going to make me a worse driver. I have a hard time conveying just how much of a slap in the face that presumption represents though. Guns in private hand represent the ultimate expression of a free society to me. It is a compact that says that the individual is responsible for their actions and the consequences there-of, intended or otherwise. It is a base acceptance that people have the right to live free and protect that freedom from those who would take it from them. The presumption that a lack of sight makes me less responsible, more of a danger, or less deserving of basic freedoms is tant amount to calling me less worthy of human rights than those with functional vision. I have great respect for those who decide that due to principle or tragedy that they don’t want guns in the world and will oppose them wherever they can. I don’t agree but I respect their choice to live their principles. I have friends and family who are committed pacifists. I have friends and family whose lives have been darkened by gun related tragedy.
For me though, guns have become a litmus test for just how equal some people really view the disabled community. The ADA already is the only civil liberties legislation with a reasonability clause. What I find over and over again is that many of my supposed allies only want to stand up for my rights to the point where doing so lets them keep their paternalistic view of the disabled. Let one of us try and defend ourselves or do anything they would accept without comment from a sighted individual and that support melts away into uncomfortable silence.
I worked as a short order cook my first three years in college. When I first started, I wasn’t allowed to use the grill. I wasn’t even allowed to touch a knife to cut vegetables. I had to prove myself before I was allowed to do the most basic tasks. The presumption was that blindness represented too much of a risk-an assessment that was made without my input or any empirical testing. On my first college summer internship, I remember being told by the staff of an adult care facility that I wasn’t allowed to get my own food in the staff cafeteria. They were afraid I would use my hands too much. I had to ask my coworkers to make a salad for me as if I was one of the cognitively impaired patients. Some people don’t like guns generally and say so publicly. Some people though are more concerned with limiting the rights of others because they feel their fear trumps our rights. To these people, there is no difference between legal gun owners and criminals-we’re all just potential risks to them. So, when I say that the second amendment has become a litmus test…I mean it has become a personal barometer for how willing a group is to support my rights and freedoms V.S. those of the average American.
Conclusion:
I find myself returning to several John Twelve Hawkes’s quotes lately:
“Believing that the government knows what's best is an argument that barely merits a serious discussion. Any high school history student can come up with hundreds of examples of when a king, dictator, or elected official followed a destructive, foolish policy. Democracy doesn't protect our leaders from having a limited, parochial vision. A politician's true priority is career self-preservation.”
“True ideology has vanished, replaced by fear and fantasy. The right wing wants corporate control and a return to a past that never existed. The left wing wants government control and a future that will never exist. Both groups lose sight of the essential questions: how can the individual speak and think and create freely? New ideas are the only evolutionary force that will save us from destruction.”
“Many of our leaders have gone past the old-fashioned politics of the democratic era and entered into the politics of fear. People running for national office no longer emphasize their views about the economy or social change. The leading political question of our time has become: who can ease our nightmares?”
“"When people decide that a certain way of faith is destined and inevitable, hatred and intolerance follow. Instead of saying, 'The Light is within you, choose the Light,' the message becomes 'Agree with our version of history or we'll kill you.”
It has become clear to me that I do not have a party and am unlikely to find one to represent my values. Democrats seem more interested in making us free from things rather than giving us the freedom to do anything. Republicans hold up small government values in one hand while spending trillions of dollars each year and expanding government’s reach with the other. There is a darkness in America today that neither party is dispelling to my satisfaction. I just want to find something, someone to vote for rather than vote against.
Preface:
1. I do not believe that one party is morally superior to the other. I can point to bigots and hypocrites on both sides. Both parties over-promise and under-deliver. Both parties are engaged in rhetoric and policy that I oppose.
2. Trump is not the president I wanted or voted for. While I understand the temptation to tar all conservatives with his rhetoric, indulging that temptation provides a too easy answer to our defining national issues. Trump’s presidency is the result of half the country being told that they are terrible deplorable people who should be ashamed of their heritage, values, and in some cases, their very existence. Trump is the loudest voice in conservatism but it has not been and will not always be so. I think it is worth reviewing Trump’s influence on the modern conservative movement. However, I reject the idea that “because Trump” is a justification for policy. Such reasoning is intellectually dishonest in that it allows us to avoid considering the deeper motivations and consequences of behavior that would otherwise be judged intolerable. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “look, a rabbit!” I reject the idea that espousing conservative ideals and associating with conservatives makes one complicit in Trump’s actions. Two things can be true at once. I can support conservative principals while opposing people who support those same ideals.
3. It is easy to over-simplify public debate into simple sugar-coated quotes. Those simple answers usually ignore inconvenient facts though-facts that if considered would lead to a more productive and honest conversation. Statements like “because racism” or “because Trump” may stir base passions but do not address the complex causes of poverty or the relative merits of a free market economy.
Diversity:
I grew up blessed with supportive informed parents. I didn’t learn the word “advocacy” until well into my twenties but I understood its meaning long before thanks to their example. My parents made sure I had the resources to learn and grow with children my age in a standard classroom. Because of their efforts I grew up knowing I was “different” and that the things that made me different didn’t make me “less.” There were moments in hindsight though where authority figures didn’t fully embrace that view.
One of my most vivid memories is of an elementary school teacher warning me while crossing the road that I was about to step on the yellow line. The tone of this warning was not playful or informative. In this person’s eyes it was an obstacle worthy of note-because blind. Since then I routinely encounter people who ask companions what I want for dinner and whether I can sign a receipt-as if I cannot speak for myself. Strangers have praised friends and family for their willingness to escort me in public. I have been called an “inspiration” for simply going to the gym or making my own lunch. I usually laugh and play off the interactions as opportunities to educate. That amusement doesn’t change the fact that ever since I was warned of the impending danger of a painted line, I have known that much of the world sees me as an object of pity who is less than a whole person.
George Bush spoke of this inequity in 1999 when he said:
“…No child in America should be segregated by low expectations, imprisoned by illiteracy, abandoned to frustration and darkness of self-doubt. . . .
Now some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less -- the soft bigotry of low expectations…”
Life has shown me that I will have to work twice as hard as peers to get half as far. While doing so, Bush’s aptly termed “low expectations” mean Coworkers will get an “attaboy” while I will be told I am an inspiration for comparable or lesser performance.
The popular definition holds that diversity benefits society through application of different experience and perspective. While I agree with the thesis, its loudest proponents fail to grasp a key corollary-diversity cannot benefit society until all perspectives and experience are held to the same standards.
One of my first jobs saw me working for someone who was brought into the company to add racial and gender diversity. They didn’t have to go through the competitive vetting the company touted as one of its greatest strengths. Different, I believe lesser, standards were ok “because diversity.” I spent 17 years with that employer. During that time, I was told constantly that diversity and inclusiveness were core company mission tenants. They devoted considerable resources to recognizing and celebrating inclusive employees. They said most of their infrastructure was accessible. When I pointed out that most of that infrastructure was not in fact accessible, company representatives acted shocked and said they would correct the issue-eight years later-not so much. Diversity and inclusion weren’t priorities when they required major change and investment.
These and many other interactions have proven to me that the diverse ideal is a fiction. We cannot celebrate diversity when expectations and merit are solely based on the degree to which a group is perceived to have been victimized-where appearances carry more weight than action. Diversity requires sacrifice. It requires us to engage with more than a token cohort. It requires us to value different experiences-most especially those antithetical and alien to our own. It requires us to say that “who” a person is carries more value than “what” they are.
The current diverse ideal tells poor people, black people, old people, and disabled people that victimhood-real or otherwise-means you are entitled to lesser standards. There is nothing soft about this bigotry. It is a pestilent curse. I know many disabled adults and children who have been told they do not need to strive, seek or find. They spend their lives yielding to the scourge of “lesser expectations.”
My success is not greater because I am blind. The only way to come to that conclusion is if I was never expected to be successful in the first place. It is a question of whether I am an inspiration because of the challenges I have overcome or because I have become far more than society thought I ought to be. That last is what I hear when someone says we need a (insert protected group) in public office. Will any person of that group do? Of course not. If republicans put forth a female presidential candidate would Democrats vote for her because America hasn’t had a female president yet? Somehow, I doubt it. I make no claims that Republicans always get it right when it comes to discrimination and diversity. I simply find the inherent message of conservatism far more honest and inclusive than the alternative. What is more inspirational and truer to the American spirit, the idea that most Americans have challenges to overcome and in so striving may forge their own destiny or that certain characteristics set groups apart for special treatment?
The Second Amendment:
Guns have ever been a complex issue for the American electorate. Our country was founded upon the understanding that military weapons in civilian hands were a necessary counter to government excess. Our founders had just finished fighting a war with one of the most professional militaries of its day. They won their independence using the same weaponry as their opposition. British soldiers in forced taxes to fund government ventures that the average colonist had not voted for and did not benefit from. Colonial citizens had no right to trial, due process, or an expectation of privacy. Any honest discussion of American firearm ownership should start with understanding that our founders intended us to have access to the conventional military armament of the day. They certainly intended us to own the standard man-portable kit of the basic infantryman as the “militia” were expected to supply their own arms.
I mention this because my understanding of the second amendment, its purpose, and its place in our modern republic is informed not just by what our founders intended when they enshrined our right to bare arms but the other amendments in the bill of rights as well. That document reads as a damning condemnation of British imperialism. It should be clear to anyone who has read the writings of the time that there were no second-class amendments-they were all pointed assertions of individual liberty which were to borrow a phrase “self-evident.”
Case law and society’s short memory has softened the urgency of those early words. Gun rights are most often discussed in terms of hunting and what people “need.” I have spent ten years educating myself as to the history of American gun ownership, the science of firearms, and related public policy. It is a complex subject that does not lend itself to easy quotes and campaign slogans.
In grappling with this issue, I have had to search my soul for what is right and what is merely comfortable. This struggle has forced me to examine my values, my understanding of the underpinnings of a free society, and what I honestly can live with as a caring compassionate human faced with yearly reports of dead children and church massacres.
That struggle has clarified my beliefs-some of which follow. I believe that all Americans should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I believe that the general public should not have their rights restricted due to the actions of a few. I believe that policy should be based on principled action and verifiable fact. I believe that we cannot and should not selectively target constitutional rights over others. Most importantly, when we propose change, we should ask if the new policy would have reasonably prevented the circumstance used to justify that proposal in the first place.
Current gun control Fales every single one of those tests. It Fales factual verification on the most basic scrutiny. Proposed bans on assault weapons ignore that 2 thirds of U.S. firearm inflicted deaths are suicides. Of the remainder, the majority stem from inner-city crime due to poverty, drugs, and gang violence-all of which occur outside conventional legal framework and almost none of which involves so-called assault weapons. Mass shootings, despite what then president Obama said, occur in the U.S. at comparable or lesser rates to other countries when adjusted for population.
Most, not all, gun control advocates I have met are objectively misinformed. They don’t understand how guns work, how current law is applied, or even what it takes to buy a firearm. I have had several discussions with people I otherwise consider intelligent rational individuals who become completely unwilling to discuss the most minor reality of private gun ownership if it counters their “facts.” When pressed, several have said that they really don’t care about private gun ownership. The lesser policies they endorse are really just fallback positions because they don’t want to seem unreasonable by calling for a complete ban on guns in private hands.
I take this personally. When I was a college freshman, I took a mandatory “here’s how to college” class. Part of it was a discussion of drinking and various negative consequences. Keep in mind this was in the late 90s-this next bit wouldn’t fly today. The program brought in an older man whose daughter had been killed in a drunk driving accident. He gave a short speech that has colored my view of controlled substances ever since. At the end of the presentation, he reached out and used me as his concluding statement. He put a handgun in my hand and sed he would rather give me a loaded gun than put me behind the wheel after drinking.
At the time I had 0 experience with firearms. I don’t know whether the gun was loaded-I certainly hope not. I still think he made a compelling point regarding the dangers of drug use. He probably felt he was making a more powerful point by picking me over one of my sighted classmates for his gesture.
I look back at that day though and remember that the blind guy wasn’t supposed to have a gun. Not that he couldn’t be taught to use one responsibly but that the default expectation was that the blind guy shouldn’t have a gun at all-which is why his demonstration was supposed to be so powerful. I have many friends and family who will look at this situation and see the humor-I mean, it isn’t like alcohol is going to make me a worse driver. I have a hard time conveying just how much of a slap in the face that presumption represents though. Guns in private hand represent the ultimate expression of a free society to me. It is a compact that says that the individual is responsible for their actions and the consequences there-of, intended or otherwise. It is a base acceptance that people have the right to live free and protect that freedom from those who would take it from them. The presumption that a lack of sight makes me less responsible, more of a danger, or less deserving of basic freedoms is tant amount to calling me less worthy of human rights than those with functional vision. I have great respect for those who decide that due to principle or tragedy that they don’t want guns in the world and will oppose them wherever they can. I don’t agree but I respect their choice to live their principles. I have friends and family who are committed pacifists. I have friends and family whose lives have been darkened by gun related tragedy.
For me though, guns have become a litmus test for just how equal some people really view the disabled community. The ADA already is the only civil liberties legislation with a reasonability clause. What I find over and over again is that many of my supposed allies only want to stand up for my rights to the point where doing so lets them keep their paternalistic view of the disabled. Let one of us try and defend ourselves or do anything they would accept without comment from a sighted individual and that support melts away into uncomfortable silence.
I worked as a short order cook my first three years in college. When I first started, I wasn’t allowed to use the grill. I wasn’t even allowed to touch a knife to cut vegetables. I had to prove myself before I was allowed to do the most basic tasks. The presumption was that blindness represented too much of a risk-an assessment that was made without my input or any empirical testing. On my first college summer internship, I remember being told by the staff of an adult care facility that I wasn’t allowed to get my own food in the staff cafeteria. They were afraid I would use my hands too much. I had to ask my coworkers to make a salad for me as if I was one of the cognitively impaired patients. Some people don’t like guns generally and say so publicly. Some people though are more concerned with limiting the rights of others because they feel their fear trumps our rights. To these people, there is no difference between legal gun owners and criminals-we’re all just potential risks to them. So, when I say that the second amendment has become a litmus test…I mean it has become a personal barometer for how willing a group is to support my rights and freedoms V.S. those of the average American.
Conclusion:
I find myself returning to several John Twelve Hawkes’s quotes lately:
“Believing that the government knows what's best is an argument that barely merits a serious discussion. Any high school history student can come up with hundreds of examples of when a king, dictator, or elected official followed a destructive, foolish policy. Democracy doesn't protect our leaders from having a limited, parochial vision. A politician's true priority is career self-preservation.”
“True ideology has vanished, replaced by fear and fantasy. The right wing wants corporate control and a return to a past that never existed. The left wing wants government control and a future that will never exist. Both groups lose sight of the essential questions: how can the individual speak and think and create freely? New ideas are the only evolutionary force that will save us from destruction.”
“Many of our leaders have gone past the old-fashioned politics of the democratic era and entered into the politics of fear. People running for national office no longer emphasize their views about the economy or social change. The leading political question of our time has become: who can ease our nightmares?”
“"When people decide that a certain way of faith is destined and inevitable, hatred and intolerance follow. Instead of saying, 'The Light is within you, choose the Light,' the message becomes 'Agree with our version of history or we'll kill you.”
It has become clear to me that I do not have a party and am unlikely to find one to represent my values. Democrats seem more interested in making us free from things rather than giving us the freedom to do anything. Republicans hold up small government values in one hand while spending trillions of dollars each year and expanding government’s reach with the other. There is a darkness in America today that neither party is dispelling to my satisfaction. I just want to find something, someone to vote for rather than vote against.