Will the real good guys please stand up?

NOTE: Before I dive into this observation, allow me to fully say my intentions are peace and good will; They are in hope for building dreams, finding solutions that we can use to set ourselves on the road to greater peace and real happiness where we live.

###

Blog-

In these divisive times, Americans in every quarter – on the national, state and local levels – are ideologically at odds with one another.

Two polarizing sides, which each represent values that confict in some aspects, and converge in others are often termed Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican.

There are myriad variations and flavors of these extremes, but allow me to take NEITHER side as I point out a few random things I see. Certainly there is room for much more, as with any intellectually honest explortion of truth in a matter ...

As an eyewitness (and fly on the wall) of the January 2005 presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., I was struck by the ubiquitously obnoxious signs, slogans, and talking points that really disparaged the character of the president, and made things into a moral fight, as much as political.

One sign, held by a group of protesters from New York said "F**k Bush in huge neon green letters painted on a 6-foot by 6-foot or so black banner held by two people above the crowd. I am sure they wanted to be seen far and wide, especially by TV, if they were so lucky. Riot police eventually were dispatched to cordon off the people as the group chanted in unison, twitching the street sense of every cop there as obviously a potential hostile threat.

No violence came of that, but the point that struck me like a hammer blow to my psyche was these were contentious people. The cops read their body language loud and clear and assigned maybe 50 (salaried, thus taxpayer supported) officers in full riot gear to keep them company for the day.

These protesters, and their spiritual kin nearby, were exercisers to the limit of their democratic rights and no doubt believed in screaming (never mind if their children were there watching the spectacle). Many others that day were also in their own right describing their anger in foul and abusive and insulting language.

Perhaps these good citizens were led to justify their position by such slogans as "If you are not mad, you are not paying attention," and others like it.

OK. I'll grant them this: Free speech is a fought for and protected right. These people obviously cared. They made a real effort to get there. Ostensibly a noble effort. And they certainly had a ton of good points. Namely, did the president lie? Likely. Is Cheney an unprecedented (for a U.S. V.P.) coercive, co-opting power monger? It sure looks like it. Is the war invalid, ineffective and a waste of human and monetary resources hemorrhaging from people who need help here? Good chance of it ... And so on ...

Yes, this past administration did let the country down, no doubt!

I understand frustration, and can commiserate, but only so far ...

Here's my contention: I believe instead of cussing someone out, or equivalent, there are equally assertive and effective ways – more eloquent and graceful ways – to make a point than to say "F-You, and yo mama, and your breath stinks too ..." (or worse) ...

This widely utilized tact (or lack thereof) violates what I believe is a clear need to "take the high road." Certainly the English language affords us all the words we need to not make our political disagreements into a gutter fight, full of personally disparaging remarks and below-the-belt innuendos if not outright statements.

There is a Korean proverb I once read that says, "To throw mire upon your neighbor, you must first put your own hand in the mire."

The net result is if you want to throw mire (or sh*t if we want to keep it real) then you are going to get that stink on you too, and this is my point:

In dirty name-calling, you cannot escape some of the stench yourself that you accuse the other from your moral perch of betterness and goodness, and claimed position of "what America needs now is ..."

Ever hear of the "pot calling the kettle black?"

I want to know: Will the real good guys please stand up? How does one assert he or she is "morally in the right," by resorting to nasty character assassinations, often as a first resort, and using language and implied or stated concepts that by any definition are or until recent memory were considered OBSCENE?

I am not the first to make this argument in history. These are tenets of establishing and maintaining a higher civilization vs. endorsing more brutish, base instincts. But I rarely hear anyone make a peep these days, so let me continue ...

To me, those protesters tactics reek of ineffectualness, and invalidating one's own assertion of speaking from the moral right because they display a conflicted agenda.

Further, their tactics serve to escalate tensions, and anger people and perhaps lead them to counter accuse or try to justify or deny allegations, and it just gets ugly, and where does it stop?

It sort of reminds me of when my mom would say, "two wrongs don't make a right," and here's another point:

The ethics of many who first ascribed to modern liberal values did so as a cultural backlash against the ways of Mean White Men who ran this country until the 1970s, or so, and who yet hold sway in many arenas.

The counter-culture's mantras of "celebrate diversity," "inclusiveness," "no discrimination," "acceptance of all" preaches a secular gospel of tolerance for, if not celebration of those who may think differently than we. From this position stems the perceived moral authority of many who feel they are more tolerant, of say gays, lesbians, minorities, the homeless, women, other trod upon people of any persuasion, really ...

OK. Well, this is a good start. I'll credit them fully for their honest hearts, but remind all that "Love thy neighbor" was not coined in 1961 by the writers of the Port Huron Statement.

It really is a good idea that has been with us for a long, long time.

It has moral and spiritual authority that none can deny.

But I want to know, who is really living it? Who has the ability to live it un-hypocritically, congruently? Plausibly?

How is it consistent with what proponents of a new moral order say they believe in – respecting people, standing for something better – to also justify a slam campaign and inflammatory rhetoric as a means for stating one's case? Do people think the ends justify the means here?

I understand people were mad, and still are, but there are more noble ways of expressing it.

I will submit that if this is a Democracy, a higher civilization that is ruled by law, there are ways to disagree with respect even if we vehemently oppose everything the other side stands for.

In fact, to do it that way lends support for one's cause by leaving his or her dignity intact. A more high-minded, fair-minded approach enables one to be equally if not much more powerfully effective than to wage a campaign of character assassination, and gutter language and base concepts.

Yet, if I look at any bumper sticker or T-shirt or just talk to persons of a certain disposition, their almost invariably modus operandi is to smear thy neighbor if he does or says what someone finds morally repugnant.

It is often a self-justified, knee-jerk I see all the time.

Hey! Practice what you preach!

What good is it to attack and slam your opponent, dredging up real or alleged dirt? That is a smut tactic, not issue-based.

You may have the right to take the fight into the gutter, but does it do anything wholly constructive with potential to take a cause in the "right direction?"

And ultimately, those who wage their campaigns in this spirit make me take pause ...

If the standing president is so bad – and he obviously seems to be – who is the really wonderful, compassionate, honest, strong, person of integrity, and unimpeachable values that will take his place?

The one supported by the woman or man cussin' up a storm with children watching them freak out?

Is it the one whose supporters all say F-that guy, I wish he'd get assa**inated?

Hmmm. You scare me in your obviously hateful anger – passive aggression or overt.

Can we take our ideological blinders off for 10 minutes people?

The ends do NOT justify the means, and even if they did, i.e., if a "good" person wins by destroying his opponent's character (or allows his supporters to), I am afraid of such a mentality on principle.

You know, Ghandi was congruent. Martin Luther King was congruent. They made a case in far more powerful terms, without sacrificing their own dignity in the process.

No, in fact they enhanced their dignity for they understood moral authority. They, without mean-spiritedness, made lasting and undeniable points for their worthy causes based fully on right principles and truth without readily perceived self-contradiction!

Even their enemies feared their power, and could find little to honestly criticize them for in the light of day.

Americans: Are we yet waiting for such a one who can convincingly act to take us in the right direction? He will have to come from among us. He will be a product of us, so why don't we realize this and devote ourselves to a culture that will foster someone not sold-out and conflicted in his own right even as he preaches from a moral high horse against the bad guy on the other side ...

Am I the only one who sees these things?

Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J