Hello from central Tennessee,
I have been here about a month and plan to depart for a bit in the next couple days. I will be back before another month passes, but there will still be much to do. This is the first time I have spent more time than to drive through Tennessee (though I did spend two or three days in the Smokies about 20+ years ago). And while I am sure there was a possible similar experience to what I’ve noted these past weeks, I spent part of that former visit in an ER with an intestinal blockage, so it was not a great visit. What has caught my attention this visit is the profound graciousness and politeness of the people here, almost without exception. I have been called sir, asked about my day, been offered deference to go first, and been thanked more in the last four weeks than in the last four years, and with an accent that happily makes three syllable words out of one syllable words that establishes Southern charm in a manner never before experienced. It brings back memories of my cube-mate at Kaneohe MCAS, a young man from Paducah Kentucky. Even yesterday, when somehow parts (e.g. brakes, rotors, calipers supposedly ordered 10 days ago were not available when I arrived for service at the local Ford dealer. The service person was kind, gracious, and apologetic beyond measure. I did also work hard to be as kind and understanding as possible. So that is why I will be here until Monday rather than on the road on Sunday. I have a little loaner truck for the weekend, but the problem is I cannot do anything on the bus in the mean while.
Certainly partisanship is inherent in a two-party system, and I am quite sure the angry public rhetoric that seems indicative of our current world has occurred at other times in our 250 year history. The Federalists vs Republicans (the Democratic Republicans) of the 1790s, and remember duels were considered gentlemanly. How did that work out for Alexander Hamilton? By the 1850s the argument about slave vs free states which led to the succession of 11 states and the Civil War. Reconstruction was not as smooth as we might want to believe as the Compromise of 1877 led to many of the repressive actions of the Southern Democrats, actions that can be directly connected to the Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights of the 1960s. And yet not everything divisive was directly connected to the issue of individual freedom. The New Deal, which was President Franklin Roosevelt’s answer to the depression, was stymied by the conservative Supreme Court of the time and they would not embrace the constitutionality of much of it for a significant amount of time. The embracing of America as somewhat homogeneous did not really occur until after WWII, and that still left substantive people outside the American Dream. In my opinion, the significant partisanship that characterizes our current national psyche began in earnest when Speaker Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, which was both a move back toward States’ Rights, but additionally, the Speaker was adamant that working with the Democrats was not going to happen (perhaps it should be noted the Democrats had controlled the House for 40 years), and the increased use of the filibuster, and the rhetoric that referred to Democrats as immoral or traitorous. The rise of the conservative “moral majority” would probably lead to the impeachment of President Clinton based on moral grounds (though the specific charges were perjury and obstruction of justice). Many see the impeachment as profoundly partisan, and that is also the case with both impeachments of President Trump.
The point is simple, partisanship is inherent, but when does it become hyper partisan or ideological polarization? I am sure each of you have some feeling about it, but what do you think? Have we entered a period where the two parties (be it in Congress or on the streets of our hamlets, towns, and cities) cannot see something positive in the person across the aisle? The 1970s saw the Doles and the Dingells, the 1980s saw the Packwoods and the Rostenkowskis, the Moynihans or the O’Neills, and the 1990s had the Hatfields, the Nunns, and even from the beginning Susan Collins has been considered a bipartisan champion. On the other hand, I believe one can safely assert that the 21st Century has been a bipartisan wilderness, and yet, even since 2000, there are legislative accomplishments that show some degree of crossing the ideological lines for the good of the American public (e.g. Homeland Security Act 2002 – post 911; COVID-19 Relief Packages – including the CARES Act 2020; Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 2021; Bipartisan Safer Communities Act 2022). While the ideological polarization has certainly increased, perhaps more disillusioning is the affective polarization. The emotional distrust and open animosity of the other side makes it almost impossible to move beyond a regular state of stasis that characterizes much of what the public sees and hears, which, of course, brings up another point. Partisan news sources and social media algorithms make the ability to hyper-politicize everything commonplace.
So where does it leave us? I think looking at the death of two individuals and our national response might be worth consideration. I should note that I did not realize they had the same birthday 20 years apart until I did some image searching, what a bizarre irony.The murder of George Floyd, an unarmed, but resistant black man, at the hands of the Minneapolis police sparked world-wide demonstrations and pushed for a social reckoning about the inequality in treatment, particularly of black males, by law enforcement. Certainly it raised the profile of the BLM movement and provided an impetus for reform within the law enforcement community. Certainly, the consequences of the protests were mixed when a number of demonstrators moved toward violence, destroyed property, and created a narrative that moved beyond what many consider acceptable protest. What is significant is the protests in response to Floyd’s death were global. Again, what spurred such profound outrage, beyond the idea of racial justice, is open for debate and is still being pondered over five years later. The systemic reality of inequality boiled over unlike anything since the summer of 1968. While the data compiled by the Pew Research Center shows there is still an elevated concern about racial equality, though less than 5 years ago, the majority of Americans still believe equality is a fleeting dream. Additionally, there are still numerous questions regarding what was accomplished through all that occurred. Certainly, the current backlash against any idea of wokeness and the current administration’s rejection of anything seeming to invoke DEI might argue a negative net sum. And yet, I believe it can be forcibly argued that the the Post-Floyd world is much more ready to respond to and question inappropriate actions at any level.
Undoubtedly, the role of social networking, and its impact on how things are disseminated has been instrumental in the global reaction to the death of Mr. Floyd and the world since. Personally, I find it troubling that attempts to be honest about our racism has been hit with such a rejection. This brings me to the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point USA and MAGA influencer. While the stories of his killer show someone and something incredibly complex, the past three weeks have been a series of events which are akin to someone bungee jumping. The sort of boomerang bobbing at the end of a jump seems to be what is occurring daily. Again, there is little doubt that Mr. Kirk, while polarizing, was nonetheless, profound figure among his supporters. Additionally, he was simultaneously problematic for a numerous people, groups, or ethnic groups he disparaged. Even when people have noted some of his more controversial statements, be it about 2nd Amendment and some people might die, what he has said about the Civil Rights Act, or, when he noted that he noted that Democrats want America to be less white. Certainly he has used gender, race, and religion to sow discord. To be transparent, as many know I am a retired professor, and a registered voting Democrat. Mr. Kirk responded more vehemently to others on my campus, but I too found myself on his watch list of professors he accused of spreading Communist propaganda. You can canvas scores of my students, and I believe you would find that the great majority would argue that I worked carefully not to impose any of my personal stances on anyone, from my Bible as Literature course to any course I taught. And even with all that, he did not deserve to be shot. That is a full-stop statement. Additionally he does not need to be deified. As I write this, his service was happening, with more than 60,000 people in attendance. I did not watch it, nor do I plan to do so.
What does our national response to his death say when compared to the death of George Floyd? First, it is not really possible to equate them for a variety of reasons, and I do not have space here to elaborate, but Mr. Floyd was in a long line of black males who have died at the hands of the police (and even there, the circumstances are not all the same – certainly some police acted in self-defense), but let me share a story that happened on a Bloomsburg Street one Sunday morning. It was light out and a beautiful day. I was walking down a side street, and I heard someone behind me. Nothing about it, but I realized there was a person behind me. I reached in my pocket to grab my phone, and I was aware of the individual jumping out into the street. I turned, somewhat shocked, and he apologized. It was a young black man, and he said that he reacted because he saw me reach into my pocket. I was stunned. I then apologized to him. Long story short, we began a conversation, and he talked about his growing up in Philadelphia and how they are always aware of their surroundings, and the need to be cautious. Again, much could be said, but for me, I realized how differently he had to manage his life than I as the elderly white man. That conversation and encounter helped me realize many things. Mr. Kirk was a young white man, who used his platform to create a national phenomena. There is nothing wrong with his using that ability to create a better life, and one must say he certainly did it well. About 6,000 people attended the memorial service for George Floyd, but he was not a political figure, and Mr. Kirk certainly helped create and rode the coat-tails of President Trump.
What I want to note is quite simple. The world (and America) has be transformed dramatically from the onset of COVID to where we are now. The response to George Floyd and Charles Kirk have similarities, but profound differences. The outrage of someone losing their life to violence should always be revulsion. Neither of them were saints, and they should not be remembered as such. Their deaths are tragic, but our responses need to be also considered. The profound difference in response across the board demonstrates just how divided we are, and we should all be concerned. When I was a parish pastor, I was very careful and intentional about never declaring a judgment on how God would respond to the deceased. And here I do the same. We are all dependent on the saving grace of a Creator.
I wish both our world and the wife and children of Charlie Kirk as well as the family of George Floyd, some five years later, God’s comfort.
Thanks for reading.
Michael
thewritingprofessor55 