Back at Microsoft, my friends and I had a tradition. Every other week, on Tuesday mornings, we met for breakfast. We called it The Breakfast Club. It started many years before, but we had maintained it for that entire time. We set a time at a nearby cafeteria, we’d even designate a particular portion of the cafeteria among the sea of tables. First, I order breakfast, a latte, and a pastry. Next, upon collecting all my food items, I sit down at the designated collection of tables and wait for friends to arrive.
Our collection of friends spanned from people I had known for over a decade to others that I had only met months before. We simply sat together and chatted about anything at all. Conversations ranged from talking shop, to family issues, to our current hobbies and plans. On one particular day, we spoke about current events and the conversation turned to Michigan, in some ways my adopted state. Meanwhile, one friend speaks of Michigan’s governor and calls her “Gretchen Halfwit”.
This is a derogatory reference to Gretchen Whitmer, and it’s a moniker started by Donald Trump. To be completely honest, I’m simply too stunned to respond. I respected, even admired, this person. Then within the span of four syllables, we’re back to square one. It filled me with profound disappointment.
The Central Park Five
In 1989, a story captured the public attention. The story involves a 28-year-old woman brutally attacked and repeatedly raped in Central Park in New York City. This story became widely known as the Central Park Five, that’s a reference to the five teens, black and Latino, convicted of those crimes. A New York businessman took out a full-page ad on the New York Daily News; the headline read, “Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!”
As the years pass, the story quietly slips our minds; we forget the details of the case. However, this abruptly changes. New DNA evidence and a confession from the actual lone attacker establishes the innocence of the Central Park Five beyond contestation. Their sentence is vacated. They did not do it.
Yet somehow, that’s not the most interesting part of this story. Even after the exculpatory DNA evidence and the courts vacating their sentence, that New York businessman maintains that they’re guilty. That man’s name was Donald J. Trump. The inability to admit that he was wrong should’ve been the first clue.
The reasonable limits to tolerance
In a flashback moment, I’ll remind us of a small trend from the days when people paid with cash at convenience stores. A small bin with modest change sat on the counters with the sign, “Need a penny, take a penny. Spare a penny, leave a penny.” I have both taken and deposited coins into those bins. Naturally, nothing stopped anyone from collecting all the coins as they depart. Many people’s generosity can be easily undone by one person’s greed. Tolerance is the figurative penny in that small bin. This only works when everyone abides by the same rules.
Years ago, I attended a talk when they introduced us to the paradox of tolerance. The assertion states that no society can be completely tolerant. If we become inclusive to the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate. The conclusion is that:
In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
We must maintain our nobility to reasonable standards. If a bully only wants to hurt you, ‘turning the other cheek’ simply turns your face into hamburger by way of their fists. Sometimes we need to defend ourselves; sometimes we need to fight back.
The plea for love and respect
As I scrolled through Facebook posts, I saw a post that certainly sounded reasonable if not even inspiring, but the benevolence was only paper thin. The quote was:
Don’t lose friendships today over two men who don’t even know your names. It’s okay to have different political views and still maintain love and respect for each other.
First, the post subtly assumes that the two candidates are men. For instance, as Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Kamala Harris, one of those candidates is now a woman. However, there’s nothing about this generic principle that assumes the presidency or even this particular campaign. I imagine the original poster simply didn’t imagine a woman as a candidate, or perhaps a candidate that inspires this much passion.
Second, nonetheless the only way in which this suggestion works is if both sides have a genuine interest in respecting the other. To put it quite bluntly, there’s no reason to believe that one side is remotely interested in behaving civilly. That is, if one side of this political view is the figurative person who snatches all the coins from the ‘take a penny, leave a penny’ bin, this entire sentiment simply does not work.
In recent news, Elon Musk asked Vinod Khosla to support Trump. Khosla’s blunt response? He doesn’t accept depravity.
Truly maintaining love and respect
Years ago, I watched a clip of John McCain in a townhall meeting during his campaign for presidency versus Barak Obama. People voiced allegations that Obama “cohorts with domestic terrorists” and “he’s an Arab”. However, McCain’s response was the epitome of class:
No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man; a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on some fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.
In the back of your mind, you could choose to believe that McCain’s decision to not spread misinformation about Obama cost him the election. However, on a basic level, if you need to spread misinformation and slander your opponent in order to win, did you really earn that victory?
What did Trump call this decent man who defended his opponent in the face of lies and misinformation? What name did he give this decorated war hero who was a prisoner of war? Trump called him a ‘loser’.
Voting on the issues
Occasionally, you cast your vote for the lesser of two evils. For years, I abstained from voting for this very same reason. However, what some may see as a virtue, such as supporting reproductive rights, others will see as a vice. Therefore, casting your vote while figuratively ‘pinching your nose’ is ultimately better than living with the collective selection of others. We may make different choices; this is okay, it’s a free country.
I remember a friend who argued that he voted for Trump based on policy. I understand that… if it’s true. I won’t implicitly disrespect your choice for a candidate, but it does cast doubt on your decision. However, to put it in perspective, Trump has:
- Boasted about grabbing women by the pussy.
- Called John McCain, a decorated war veteran, a loser.
- Defrauded (and settled) people by way of Trump University.
- Imitated and mocked a disabled reporter.
- Sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.
- Referred to other countries as ‘shithole countries’ during his presidency.
- Persistently called COVID-19, the Chinese virus, even knowing that it puts us Asian Americans in danger. He even uttered “kung-flu” during a rally.
- Had sex with Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, four months after his wife gave birth.
Even if you support his policies, based on the above, pinching your nose is not enough, you’d have to resist the vomiting. If you voted for Trump and have a moral compass, your reaction would’ve been something like this.
Maybe it’s not about policy
Though I find that for more people, the appeal is he ‘tells it like it is’. They cheer for him as he utters nicknames to mock people. However, this is behavior that we wouldn’t tolerate from our children or grandchildren, yet it’s somehow permissible from the leader of the free world. I think Meryl Streep said it best during one of her speeches:
This instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.
Disrespect invites disrespect; violence incites violence.
When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.
Yet people continue to maintain that it’s about policy. Therefore, I’d like you to reflect on this scene from “Pretty Woman“, where Edward, played by Richard Gere, bluntly responds to his business partner with, “It’s the kill you love.” I’ll ask you to stop and quietly reflect to yourself in complete privacy and honesty. Is it really just about policy, or does part of you celebrate the depravity? Did you cheer (or even chant) the words, “Crooked Hilary” or “Lock her up!”?
Disrespect invites disrespect
I suspect that for many the ‘tell it like it is’ appeal is precisely that, watching someone unilaterally disrespect people with abandon. Trump’s hordes of followers don’t seem to have a bottom of how low he can go before he alienates them. To maintain that ‘it’s about policy’ is like claiming to watch pornography for the dialogue.
That said, I will honor the request to “love and respect” and discuss the issues civilly. Immigration, taxes, smaller government, even abortion access are all topics I’m open to discuss. I have learned much and changed my position on a number of issues. However, I implicitly cannot respect anyone who so lackadaisically shows disrespect, and henceforth their words lack credibility.
Hearing Trump use those very words, gave permission for my friend to utter the words “Gretchen Halfwit” that morning at Breakfast Club many years ago. Are we still friends? Yes. Though I now listen to every word from him with an implied skepticism and even contempt. No one is perfect, including myself, but mimicking Trump made my friend a lesser version of who he was, at least to me.
I reflect back on the paradox of tolerance and those words, “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.” Therefore, this is my way of demonstrating intolerance towards the intolerant. If we can’t use the words empathy, tolerance, inclusivity, and equality and see them as virtues… if you can’t hear those words and not implicitly think “suckers”… Then you have no interest in respect.
At least meet me halfway; I’ll be here.