‘Partisan’ logic subverts healthy discourse
For those who will stop reading in the next few sentences let me say up front that, whatever criticisms I list here, I in no way assign them to any one political party. That would be ridiculous on its face. Yet that is pretty much how Mr. Everette Cribb’s guest column came across to me — an attempt to do just that to the ‘other’ party.
From what you wrote, Mr. Cribb, I don’t think I know what your true aim was for this column but if it was somehow to clarify and improve the political discourse or to facilitate more productive engagement, then, in my view, you have failed miserably. What you have done, instead, is enrage me, even while I try to remain someone who strives for reasonable discussion, based strictly on ideas, evidence, and free of personal attacks. Let me be clear: I don’t much care for President Trump’s behavior or his policies but I most definitely do not hate you or any other Republican. I have no “Hate has no home here” sign in my yard nor do I know anyone who does. In fact, I’ve never seen one and didn’t even know such things existed until I read your column.
But let me move on. In your second to last paragraph, you state “Democrats represent government on steroids. Not a one of them wants less of it.” Really? Not a one? Based on what, the interaction at the Sprint Mart you described in the early part of your column? Your chat over the fence with your progressive neighbor? No matter what, for you to be able to support that ridiculous claim, anything short of talking with, literally, every single Democrat in existence is insufficient. Somehow, I am pretty sure that your statement is incorrect.
But, if I am to use that same logic, I suppose I should assume that you have the same disdain for Latino migrants because I learned yesterday that a surprising number of border patrol employees seem to based on their disparaging comments on a secret Facebook website they subscribe to and because I suspect that many of them are Republicans. Wouldn’t it also be true of all Republicans then?
By that logic, I suppose I should assume that you also think tariffs are good for the economy, ultimately, despite their immediate and negative effect on the price at which midwestern soybean farmers can sell their product. President Trump does and he’s a Republican, right?
By that logic, I suppose I should assume that you would not let your son or daughter marry a Democrat because I’ve heard other Republicans say that (full disclosure: I am aware some Democrats hold parallel beliefs, equally unfair and disturbing).
Or perhaps I should assume that you hate all Democrats because a guy I briefly interacted with on Facebook said he did because they are all implicitly in favor of late-term abortions. That despite the fact that he had read a total of 3 sentences I had written, none of them remotely about abortion, and that was enough for him. I have to assume he was not a Democrat since he hates them all so, if he’s a Republican wouldn’t you, a fellow Republican, follow suit?
Please forgive my sarcasm — I know that sarcasm is not a good way to encourage willingness to listen in someone whose views differ from your own. But I have encountered this attitude enough times in recent weeks that I have gone over the proverbial edge, I’m afraid. Since I’m already out of control, I will continue just a bit further.
The small irony in Mr. Cribb’s column is that he begins by describing an incident in which he was unfairly categorized by a Sprint Mart employee after they saw his Republican party membership card. That was all they needed to label him as hateful. On this we agree — that was completely unfair, not to mention absurdly inappropriate behavior towards a customer at a business in which one is employed. But what follows in his column, in my view, is crawling up to and possibly over that same line – but in reverse, when he reaches his stunning conclusion about Democrats and big government.
Worse, there is the larger irony that stems from Mr. Cribb’s more important conclusion — that hate, in fact, has its true home in the (sic) “Democrat party”. The entire column, I think, treads surprisingly close to that hatred line — to extreme vitriol, at the least. Surprisingly close, that is, given his final point. And that, to me, is as good an illustration of the sorry state of our political discourse today as the one provided early in the column. In fact, I do not find the column to be a conversation starter, nor a genuine attempt at reversing a trend in the political course that the author finds, correctly I think, regrettable. Of course, neither is my letter.
But, as I say, I’ve had it, and by saying that I plead guilty, in advance, to succumbing to some of my lesser impulses. But let me also say this, Mr. Cribb. I absolutely do not claim to have all the answers for how to make this country the best it can possibly be, a goal I am confident that we share. I do, however, have a tremendous love of this country (and its people, in all their diverse glory) and its powerful and ground-breaking conceptual premise. And that gives me — still, despite my low moment here — the motivation to have reasoned debate with others, no matter their views, their race, their religion, a discussion free of labels and other unfounded preconceptions. And I also have the wisdom to know that any answers I might arrive at through discussion and debate would likely not be the answers you would arrive at. But that’s the whole point of this gloriously messy system.
I can also tell you this, Mr. Cribb. I would most definitely not use your column, the only evidence I have into your political thinking, to claim I know what’s in your heart and mind, or in those of any other Republican. And I most certainly would not extrapolate your mind and heart from the presence of a Republican party membership card in your wallet.
So don’t label me, Mr. Cribb. If you really want to know what this Democrat thinks, you should ask me directly. We don’t do that enough these days.
Paul Mack
Columbus
Editor’s note: This letter exceeds our word limit for letters to the editor, but it addresses a disturbing tendency by members of both parties to demonize and stereotype based on party affiliation.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.