Guest commentary: Are Americans silly or sage?
“You know who doesn’t care that there’s a stereotype of a Chinese man in a Dr. Suess book?” Bill Maher asked on “Real Time.”
“China,” he answered. “All 1.4 billion … because they’re not a silly people,” unlike Americans. Maher was referring to Suess’ fall from grace for being racially insensitive.
Maher should think again about Americans, considering the sales bonanza enjoyed by shunned classics, including six books canceled by Dr. Suess Enterprises, epic film “Gone with The Wind” and Mr. Potato Head.
Though securing freedom of choice with our wallets, Americans must wage a fuller-throated defense of the American Idea, that a diverse people can forge a freer and fairer nation by hashing out differences civilly.
Even prominent French politicians and intellectuals fear America’s illiberal social theories, which prominent African American academic Glenn Loury called “a formula for tyranny and more racism” in his recent Congressional testimony.
It’s an apt description considering efforts to cancel Shakespeare and Beethoven for being white men. Same for the forced resignations of Alexi McCammond, Teen Vogue’s black editor-in-chief, over her teenage tweets, and 45-year New York Times science reporter Donald McNeil Jr. for repeating the N-word when asked about it.
Actor Ralph Fiennes recently denounced our “age of accusation” while defending J.K. Rowling, who’s accused of transphobia. It’s “disturbing,” the “hatred that people express about views that differ from theirs, and the violence of language towards others.”
Mere plebeians have no such defense, as detailed in a NYT story about Smith College, where service workers earning less than one year’s tuition were falsely accused of racially profiling a student.
Nevertheless, Smith launched obligatory and accusatory antibias training so unbearable, Jodi Shaw — a self-described liberal and Smith graduate — recently resigned her administrative post, refusing a settlement to “remain silent.”
Her resignation letter is an indictment of our dehumanizing, illiberal and neo-racist moment in which “people’s worth is determined by the color of their skin,” and “failing to swear fealty … is grounds for public humiliation and professional retaliation.”
Having chosen freedom over comfort and legal recourse, Shaw wrote, “My children’s future, and indeed, our collective future as a free nation, depends on people having the courage to stand up to this dangerous and divisive ideology.”
Shaw’s efforts reflect the ideas of philosopher Karl Popper, who coined Paradox of Tolerance in 1945: “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance,” countering the intolerant “by rational argument and keep(ing) them in check by public opinion.”
Can we check intolerance amid the “new McCarthyism” and the self-censorship it induces? Yes, when silent majorities speak out, like falling dominoes, they’ll recover human dignity and civility. Just as our bodies and spirits crave liberation from quarantine, so do our minds and voices.
But “civility is more than good manners,” the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote in “Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times.” Civility “is a recognition that listening respectfully to your opponents is a necessary part of the politics of a free society; and that liberal democracy, predicated … on the dignity of diversity, must keep the peace between contending groups by honoring us all equally, in both our diversity and our commonalities.”
Civility means speaking to the better angels of our nature, recognizing Soviet dissident Alexandre Solzhenitsyn’s insight that “the line separating good and evil passes through every human heart.” That’s why we should think of our life’s deeds as perfectly balanced, helping us strive to tip the scale toward the good, as rabbinic sage Maimonides taught.
So why not try loving your neighbor as yourself? If the best way to change the world is by changing the people in it, as Sacks argues, shouldn’t we endeavor to engage people, their ideas and values? Imagine listening with radical curiosity to someone with differing beliefs and having them reciprocate. Then try engaging in conversation where you express their views and they yours.
Might radical curiosity and respect stimulate mutual trust and understanding, illuminating unseen common ground? Might it become clearer that no one has a monopoly on virtue or vice, restoring the ethic “to err is human, to forgive is divine?”
Think again — wouldn’t we be a sage people with a more perfect union if we granted each other the right to an opinion on how to achieve it and the grace to be wrong?
Melanie Sturm, founder of Engage to Win, aims to change communication for good through her training and writing. Encouraging readers to Think Again, “you might change your mind.” She welcomes comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Aspen and Snowmass Village make the Aspen Times’ work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.