I have noticed among friends and readers of this blog that people in my age radius are very delicate when you challenge orthodoxy or their views. I’m not bating, sniping, or slinging mud. I handle myself professionally, and defend my position in a civil tone.
One FB friend “unfriended” me for the following exchange. It was in response to one of my “Food for thought” postings:
“Food for thought: Liberalism is a centrist philosophy. You are quite likely a liberal. Most Americans are.” (All this is correct, incidentally.)
The reader commented:
I have to disagree. If you are equating liberalism with empathy or practicality or common sense, you are off base. Most people are selfish, lazy, and jaded. Half of the population of this country who benefit from liberal policies don't consider themselves to be centrist/moderate and would bristle at being called "liberal."
I replied:
The definition of liberalism is not "empathy or practicality or common sense." Liberalism is a centrist political philosophy—read your John Locke. And if we attend to the public-opinion polling data (which I have), we see enormous agreement among Americans. That is the liberal center.
And statements like "Most people are selfish, lazy, and jaded" are difficult to take seriously. These kinds of statements are made by the politically inarticulate. If most people were selfish and [insert negative thing], there would be no people.
I explain all of this in detail in my new book. If you read it and have questions, I would be glad to help you understand these things better.
That was enough to part company with me and my blog. Now, I know, this is just one example. However, it does perfectly illustrate what I am talking about. Is my tone here adversarial or hostile or confrontational? No, it is not. (It never is.) The reader just didn’t like that I know what I am talking about and didn’t want to learn anything. Poof. This is embarrassing behavior for a grown man.
But, I have experienced this not only on this blog, but in my personal life. When I have suggested that there is a viciousness in Wall Street culture, I get: “So, ALL Wall Street executives are bad??” Or, discussing racist police brutality: “So, ALL police are bad??”
What is happening here is the person has internalized my criticisms—which I hasten to add are systemic in nature—and made it about them or their spouses or their families.
I recently had a constructive, rational exchange with a reader (a Reeder?) I used this example:
“It's funny, when one makes comments about the brutal actions of the Russian army in the Ukraine, I don't hear Americans saying, ‘So, 100 percent of Russian soldiers are bad??’ One does not hear this.”
See? If the topic is not American wealth and power (which we worship), then Americans are perfectly able to think systemically. They can look at the big picture and see patterns. It’s a miracle. When the topic hits closer to home, folks get twitchy. “Don’t you dare insult the rich—or our heroes in uniform as they do battle with ‘those people!’”
There is no problem with discussing politics and religion, we just need to be mature adults when we do so.
But, this culture congratulating itself on its strength and resilience with absurd FB memes about how it was left to its own devices growing up? That’s a hoot.
