WHATEVER IT IS...

 

It’s getting so you can’t know what you’re supposed to be for or against these days. There is, of course, the tried and true Groucho Marx approach, which has also been cited as the actual Republican plan for health care reform: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

But, despite Groucho’s obvious academic credentials what I’m talking about is the confusing series of charges and counter-charges that have arisen out of the recent Presidential debate and town halls.  Donald Trump is asked if he condemns “White supremacy” and the “Proud Boys” – what’s the difference?  Joe Biden is asked if he condemns violence, recent protests and Antifa – what’s the difference?  Can (or should) you condemn one and not the other?  What’s the distinction between a “group” and a “movement”?  What is the line between an ideology that can be condemned and a “political leaning” that should not?  When is something “cancel culture” as opposed to, well, “culture”?

Maybe the best way to go through this is to set up a hypothetical – and compare that with what is going down in the campaign. So – let’s say that instead of jumping straight into terms like “Antifa” and “far right” we construct something to give the terms some context?

Imagine, if you will, that there is a major controversy arising over a given topic – for the sake of argument we’ll say that it is something that is maybe not super controversial but does have some aspects that give rise to issues.  Let’s go with “hunting”.

Asking someone if they are against “hunting” is like asking if they are against “protests”.  Ninety-nine percent of the candidates/respondents will say that they are NOT against hunting, so long as it is done within the parameters of the law.  That’s really  not that controversial -  both “hunting” and “protests” are generic terms used to cover a wide variety of activities.  Hell, people use dogs to hunt for certain types of very expensive mushrooms – it’s still hunting.

However, when you get into specifics - that’s when you start to have problems.  Let’s say that in our review of “hunting” related activity there is a movement to do away with the concept of “seasons”.  People who advocate for this type of approach to hunting say that having a deer season that runs for a couple of weeks is inherently interfering with what should be their right to hunt when they want for what they want.  We’ll call these people members of the “OSH” or “Open Season Hunting” movement.  Being a believer in all or some of the tenets of “OSHism” isn’t a crime in and of itself.  Of course, if the law currently says that there ARE actual hunting seasons in place and you get caught jacking deer in July – it’s not a defense to say “I’m an OSHer”.

Individual candidates can be asked whether they back the goals of OSH and should be able to give an answer that makes sense.  For instance, let’s say you are against the overall idea of getting rid of hunting seasons where firearms are used but do believe that for certain animals/activities, such as bowhunting for deer, a year-round season is acceptable.  So, if someone running for office is asked “Do you renounce OSH?” an answer might look like this:

“If you ask me if I believe in OSH and its goals as a whole the answer is no.  I also do not believe anyone should ignore an existing law just because they don’t like it – there are avenues to pursue those goals which don’t involve breaking the law.  However – I do think there are certain aspects of OSH that deserve a closer look, like bowhunting”.

That’s a decent answer.  A bad answer would be more like this:

“Sure, but the anti-hunters are the one’s causing the trouble.  There are a lot of good OSHers out there and they love the outdoors.  They’re really good people and misunderstood”.

That’s someone trying to have everything their own way – they can point to the one word “Sure” at the beginning of the answer and claim that they have “renounced” OSHism, but then the entire balance of the answer is a full-throated defense of OSH. This is the type of answer that people who hate politicians point to when they explain why. 

In this example “OSH” is the equivalent of “White supremacy” and “Antifa”.  This is because OSH is more in the nature of a movement than a defined group – it represents a set of goals pursued by people who share a philosophy but don’t belong to a defined group or organization.  This is what many people do not understand about “Antifa” in particular – it SOUNDS like it is an actual dues-paying unit, where the name is an anagram and each letter stands for something like “Anarchist Neoteric Terror Instigation Facilitation Association” (yeah, I know, I was winging it).  In truth, it’s not.  “Antifa” stands for “anti-fascist” and, as the FBI has confirmed it isn’t a distinct group but a loose description of groups or individuals that share a rough view of how to combat things they see as representing a fascist point of view.  In truth – I’m anti-fascist (and you probably are as well) since fascism was what was on the other side of World War II.  However, I don’t lump capitalism, corporate entities, police forces and traditional political parties in with the definition of “fascism” – which many of those who identify with the Antifa movement do.  I agree that corporates can easily slip in to fascist territory if they aren’t regulated, watch my wallet very closely when dealing with political parties and want to make sure police forces don’t become the building block of a police state – but that’s in the nature of the guy who thinks bowhunting might be OK year round even if you shouldn’t be allowed to grab your shotgun and go after Bambi whenever the mood strikes.  Still – the larger point is that Antifa is more like a philosophy than an association.

People on the right often don’t like to hear that – but people on the left like to face up to this even less.  You see, the same rules need to apply to “White supremacy”.  To be honest – I can’t think of a single thing about White supremacy that I would point to as being something that I even “roughly” agree with, whereas I can find a good few things about Antifa for which I have at least SOME sympathy. But that doesn’t mean that the nature of the term changes – it is still a philosophy and not a defined group.  That’s why it is not permissible, in a free society, to outlaw it.

It’s also why asking something along the lines of “Do you think Antifa should be declared a terrorist organization?” or “Do you believe members of the White supremacists should be thrown in jail?” are nonsense questions.  There is no “Antifa” organization against which you could make such a declaration and you don’t become a “member” of the White supremacists – those aren’t groups, they are movements.

Let’s carry our example a little further so that this distinction becomes a bit more meaningful.  Let’s say that there is a group of OSHers that decide simply advocating for open season hunting is not enough.  They want to force the issue and create a group subtly called “Killers for Open Season Hunting” or “KOSH”.  This group has regular clandestine meetings which seek to go into the woods and hunt whenever they want – and in order to avoid being stopped they block roads, phone in threats against bridges, set fires in adjoining counties, etc.  Law enforcement groups recognize these guys as a distinct organization and have gathered intelligence to back that conclusion up.  If a politician is asked “Do you support KOSH” the answer should be much more direct – it can be “yes” or “no”, with maybe some qualifications such as “so long as they don’t hurt any humans physically” – but we are no longer talking about an ideology or conceptual movement – now we’re dealing with a tangible group.  On the left, “Antifa” side there are a few of these type groups, such as “By Any Means Necessary” – and there are such groups on the right as well, the most recently discussed such organizations being the “Proud Boys” and “QAnon”.  I have a real problem with a politician of either side supporting avowed lawbreakers but, my view on this is not necessarily the only one.  I suppose it is possible that a candidate could actually be in favor of this sort of activity and, should that be the case, they should truthfully admit that fact.  Thus, even though I might not like it an honest answer to the question of “Do you believe KOSH should be declared a terrorist organization?” might be “No, I do not support that because I don’t feel they seek to terrorize anyone but are simply trying to carve out a way in which they can exercise their rights”.  I wouldn’t agree with such a response, I’d try to present a strong counter-argument - but I’d have a bit of respect for someone who could answer so forthrightly. 

You know what would not be a valid response?  Something like “I don’t know anything about KOSH.  I hear some good things about them, like they love the outdoors, and I love the outdoors, but other than that – couldn’t tell ya”.  That, of course, is approximately what Donald Trump responded when asked about QAnon, a group who he has tacitly endorsed, that had been the subject of many of his re-tweets, that forms a core belief of congressional candidates whom he supports, and that holds him out as a messianic figure sent to save the world from a satanic cult of Democratic pedophiles.  He actually said he “didn’t know much about them, other than they are against pedophiles”. 

Now, myself, if I’m named as the messianic figurehead performing the work of an anonymously led collective of anti-deep state operatives whose beliefs I perpetuate on social media – I’m gonna check that group out.  I know – you might say that’s probably overly cautious given how that sort of shit happens to the average person every day – but, well, that’s just me.  Donald Trump – he just knows that those folks are against pedophilia, a brave stand that he backs one hundred percent.  The satanic cult, deep state, anonymous insider, pizza shop Democratic party front bits – well, why sweat the small stuff?

Yeah, right.

On both the right and the left there is a tendency to believe that all this could be put to bed if we just condemn everything that offends the sensibilities of those who are seeking to combat oppression.  Of course, there isn’t anyone out there who will not tell you that they are seeking to combat oppression, regardless of whether they are on the left or the right.  As a result you get the phenomenon of “cancel culture”, which leads to you being told by various people that you should stop watching John Wayne movies, boycott anything Jane Fonda appears in, not laugh at Bill Burr’s jokes, turn off Rosie O’Donnell or Whoopie Goldberg when they appear on screen, swear off SNL because Alec Baldwin is doing Donald Trump, swear off SNL because Jim Carrey is doing Joe Biden, condemn a given late night talk show host because he talked about his newborn’s medical procedure, swear off a late night talk show host because he asked to touch Donald Trump’s hair, criticize a team because they call themselves “Redskins” (agree), then criticize a team because they call themselves “Indians” (agree, unless they are from India), criticize teams because they call themselves “Braves” (umm – aren’t “braves” good?) criticize teams because they call themselves “Chieftains” (wait, chieftains are Irish), criticize teams because they call themselves “Yankees” (OK – gotta go along with that one since the Yankees suck). 

Speaking about sucking, this type response is a black hole that really has little to do with the core question of whether something has the right to exist or not. I don’t care if you want to advocate to change the Chicago hockey team from “Blackhawks” to “Hawks” – you may have a great argument – please make it.  I DO want to stop anyone who says that a government appointed group will have to pass on the legitimacy of all private naming conventions.  I think opposing a group’s position on something is fundamentally different from deciding on its right to exist.  I also think the timidity of certain politicians when it comes to knowing when to make that call is at the heart of many of our current problems.

Look – movements, groups, associations, ideologies, belief systems, religions, granfalloons – they all have characteristics that we might agree or disagree with.  Sorting through each of those involves different aspects of analysis, some being broadly based and loosely coordinated while others are narrowly defined and highly organized.  Your response to each will be dictated by those characteristics.  If you are a public figure you have to understand that how people view you may be impacted by those associations.  Still, there is a basic equation that should be followed when making those assumptions.  Here’s how it works:

1.        There IS a fundamental difference between supporting a group’s beliefs and supporting its right to exist.  It comes down to this – is the core rational for the group’s existence something that you believe is a question of being correct/incorrect or something that is explicitly and properly disallowed?  Here is how that plays out:

 

A.       If you believe the former (group is correct/incorrect in its position), then there needs to be a split between the answers you give relating to support versus those relating to existence.  So, the question “Do you condemn White supremacy?”  leads to a variety of possible answers.  The one I would give is “Yes I do – it is a vile and improper philosophy that has no place in rational discourse”.  However, if some deluded soul said “No, I sympathize with those holding that belief”, or “No, that is too broad a generalization” – I’d completely disagree with those positions but not the fact that the answer itself has the right to be given.  That is because if I had been asked the question “Should all groups advocating White supremacy be outlawed and made criminal because they espouse a position that should, by its nature, be illegal” – then I would have to answer “No – even though I think that position is wrong I cannot agree that every person who espouses it should be treated as a criminal”.  Philosophy – NO – Existence – YES.

 

B.      If you believe the latter (a given group by its very nature should be disallowed) then the answer must change and you must advocate for the group’s dissolution.  This becomes easier to do once the group becomes smaller and more well defined both by its activities and its beliefs.  “Should the group that planned the kidnap and murder of Michigan Governor Whitmer be declared a terrorist organization?”  “Yes, it should”.  It gets a bit harder as the group’s goals become more diffuse, but it is still essentially a yes/no proposition.  “Should the Proud Boys be deemed a terror organization?” Well, you tell me.  I say yes, because I feel the group only exists to foment revolt via illegal actions. You might say “no” for your own reasons but the proposition is still binary in nature.  The tougher tests come along when you start to try to apply the same test to associated groups.  You think America has a problem?  Go back and see what went on in Ireland at the peak of the Troubles when you had Republicans, Nationalists, Loyalists, Unionists, Sinn Fein, SDLP, DUP, UUP, Provisional IRA, Traditional IRA, Real IRA, Red Hand Militia, Catholics, Protestants, Guinness drinkers, Beamish drinkers and the odd Murphy’s aficionado all trying to share the same island. That leads to some harder analysis – but when you talk about the question of a group’s existence the answer is up or down, not shades of gray.

 

C.       These aren’t easy questions – but if you are seeking to lead you shouldn’t be able to constantly plead ignorance lest you become viewed as ignorant.  This is a fundamental problem I have with Trump – he is continually being touted by his supporters as someone who “says what he thinks” or “isn’t a politician” but who really hardly ever says what he thinks or acts in a way other than that of the crassest politician.  I mean c’mon – “Do you reject QAnon?” “Sorry, I don’t know anything about that” – that’s a dodge, a dog whistle answer that is beneath the dumbest high schooler, let alone the President of the United States. Of course he knows what QAnon is, just as he knew who the Proud Boys were and knew who was behind the protests in Charlottesville.  Playing dumb too often eventually leads to the conclusion that you aren’t playing.

The days are winding down towards the election, and, when you consider the fact that many are already voting, what we are really winding down towards is the blessed hour when the election can finally be declared over.  The harsh truth of all elections will then become most immediately apparent – they don’t settle ANYTHING other than who can try to settle SOMETHING.  The odds of the person elected going on to actually achieve a result is directly reflected in their willingness to express an opinion on a topic, group, philosophy or concept.  As the final debate looms keep an eye out for which candidate professes to “not know”, “have been misquoted”, “not have control over that”, “not be aware” “not remember”, “not be sure”, “not say that, though a lot of people are saying that” and so on. 

Then vote for the other guy.