Thingification: Redux

I really wish that the themes addressed in my posts on Thingification and Faith and Prejudice hadn’t become so immediately relevant. Unfortunately, there is no more decisive and final way to turn a Person into a Thing than killing them, and the casual vitriol expressed by many about Faith and Religious Practice among the predominantly coastal and “educated” has shown a very dark side in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder.

A dedicated, incredibly hard-working and passionate young man who managed to build a highly effective grass-roots political organization from scratch and who inspired countless young people to engage with ideas and become active in American political life was murdered in front of thousands of students and onlookers on a college campus while engaging in conversation with anyone who was willing to participate. This was a shocking violation of American Civil Society and of our Democratic Social Contract. I am not going to say anything about Charlie Kirk’s specific political positions or religious conviction because they are entirely irrelevant to this piece. What I will say is that all of the opinions he expressed publicly were shared by many of his fellow his citizens. To those who have called him an extremist and labeled him as supposed extremists often are — Nazi, Racist, Misogynist, White-Supremacist, Christian Fanatic, Homophobe etc. — and called his speech “Hateful”, I will simply point out that his organization has many members from all of the groups he supposedly hated who were and are very vocal in their support of him, held him in great esteem, and many of whom obviously loved him.

We all know this. What many of us seem to have forgotten is that a “They” did not kill him, one very lost young man did. Whatever the killer’s motivations were, whatever the experiences, dreams, hopes and despair that led him to murder a man he did not even know so notoriously, he was the one who committed the terrible and irrevocable act. Whatever groups he belonged to, whatever race, sex, political party or ideology, whoever his friends were or believed, they were neither responsible for nor tainted by his actions. Who cares if his lover is Trans or his parents MAGA? In fact, being very familiar with the type of Christian faith Charlie espoused, I am sure that both he and his Widow would sincerely wish that his killer find forgiveness through Jesus Christ, or at least they would try very hard to wish that for him. They are only human after all. (Since I wrote the above Erika, Charlie’s widow, has declared publicly that she has forgiven his killer, as she believed her Faith demands and Charlie would have wanted.)

Trying to determine the cultural/ideological roots of the killer’s actions in order to use them for political gain or to push a social agenda is, frankly, appalling. Neither of our political Parties nor the Media have been innocent of this. By pursuing this type of rhetoric they are simply amplifying the conditions in which more young people may lose themselves. On the one side they talk only about what Charlie was and not who he was. On the other they talk only about what the killer, Tyler, is and not who. The two are simply pawns in a larger, rhetorical battle in which we all lose since its purpose is to make mere things of members of the “opposition”. In such a landscape we all end up being just things for a lot of people. Perhaps one of the best contributions Charlie Kirk made is that he had the courage to appear in front of large groups of people who did not like him. There he tried to make himself a person in their eyes and treat them as people, too. Did he offend some people and make them angry? Yes. Did some people heap abuse on him? Yes. That is unavoidable when we talk about ideas and beliefs that cut to the core of how we see ourselves and the world. One of the most important parts of such conversations is that they allow us to learn our rivals are complex and that their world view cannot be reduced to one opinion. Charlie set a very good example that many now say they are determined to follow. I hope they do irrespective of their ideological convictions. Having honest and difficult conversations with people who disagree with you is the best way to refine your ideas, discover your errors, and learn to see your interlocutor as a Person.

What has been said in the aftermath online and, to a lesser extent, in the media has caused as much or more outrage than Charlie’s murder. Charlie was a staunch defender of Free Speech as am I. The government shall not infringe the right to express one’s political opinions. However, the Law does not and cannot protect one from the social consequences of saying vile things even if they are entirely legal. (The U.S. has no “Hate Speech” law, despite what our Attorney General seemed to think.) Celebrations of a young man’s murder because of “what he stood for” really should not be sanctioned by anyone, and neither should calls to “go after the Left” because some deranged people say they are on “the Left” or espouse views supposedly associated with it.

On the other hand, most business can legally terminate an employee as they see fit, and most employment contracts have a morals clause. In addition, public employees have a special duty to be “beyond reproach”. When I worked for the State of Arizona it was made clear that certain types of notorious behavior that cast a bad light on the State were grounds for dismissal even if they were legal. State employees were also prohibited from participating in partisan politics. We served the People, not a Party. I would not want my child to be under the authority of a teacher who in my opinion obviously lacks a moral compass, nor would I want to be treated by a doctor or nurse who believed that I was morally corrupt because of my color, sex, faith or political party.

I really do believe that when it comes to bad ideas sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, people are the means by which they are judged. Social opprobrium and even shame are some of the ways people have always expressed that judgment. I could make a very strong case that one of the major contributing factors to the decay of Civil Society has been the failure of individuals to push back against the objectively bad ideas espoused by other members of the groups they identify with — especially within our Universities and Media — in the name of solidarity, political expediency, lack of interest, or because defeating the “other groups” is the most important cause. Attempting to equate the revulsion over someone celebrating politically motivated murder with the suppressing the opinions of someone who questions that trauma is intergenerational or that biological sex is a personal choice or who says that anti-racism is racist, etc. is simply not a good-faith argument. The former is passionate approval of an irrevocable, violent action, the latter are ideas and assertions about the nature of reality and what is “Good”. It is an obvious category error to pretend to confound them. Speech is free, but so are our neighbors opinions about us and what we say, thankfully.

I can’t help but think that this is a watershed moment for the Millenials and Gen Z. Charlie was theirs, as are most of his followers, his detractors and his killer. It is very difficult to understand Charlie’s importance to so many without understanding how Campus life has been for students in the USA with conservative beliefs and/or Faith over the last 20 years or so. Many of them felt they had to keep silent to avoid being ostracized or even expelled, that they had to pretend to believe things they didn’t believe in order to pass a class and that they had to kowtow to professors and administrators that would not tolerate dissent even when their ideas could be reasonably challenged by other, well-established ideas. They were living in a world in which certain types of speech (almost always conservative) were considered violence. The ideas and moral principals that they adhered to were described as “Hateful” and even mentioning them was often prohibited lest they make someone feel “unsafe”. Even professors were afraid of being accused of making students feel “unsafe” by talking about ideas that would be entirely uncontroversial for previous generations. When you add to this the fact that they “grew up online” and that their private views and pasts were often open to easy, impersonal attacks by whomever, a profound sense that they did not belong and had to hide their thoughts was to be expected. This reached a nearly intolerable peak for many post 2020. Charlie showed these young people by example that they could stand up for themselves and that their ideas were not indefensible nor their faith something to be ashamed of. His organization gave them tools to develop their ideas, mentoring and a place to feel welcome.

Then he was gunned down. The people whose lives he touched are in grief and they are pissed off. To their credit they have not resorted to violence or riots to express their outrage despite the disgusting, vitriolic displays they have been confronted with and the encouragement to vengeance they are receiving from some quarters. They are coming into their own in very complicated times with many threats and opportunities. They will need each other. I hope they can find a way to see that.

Groupthink is like crack for Humans. It feels good. It feels right. When we are jumped up on it everything makes sense. When, at the height of our furor, we do or say something truly terrible — when we paint our rivals as beasts and unworthy of life or when we “disown” our family or long-time friends who don’t think as we do— it’s hard to come back. It feels much better to just double-down and take some more of that frenzied Tribalism and blame it on ”Them” to the applause of our fellow partiers. We all like it. We all want it. We have been allowing ourselves to give into these impulses, or even promote them, for years without critically examining the reasons or much less placing our neighbors at the center of our social concerns: “We hate you because we are compassionate and good and you are not.” “We will discriminate against your group to fix racism.” “We are inclusive, but only of everyone who believes everything we do because we are right and those who disagree do not deserve a place at the table.” etc. Like crack, there is only one way to stop Groupthink — stop doing it and accept that you will always want to do it again but never can because it very well might destroy you. Just like with crack, you can only choose to stop for yourself. That’s where we are.

I am not saying that both Parties are making mistakes in order to demonstrate my own, superior vision or to show despair over the fact that “Power corrupts” so that I can wash my hands of it or find some safe, cynical political/moral high ground to camp out on until I am dead. What I am saying is that significant parts of both Parties have fallen into the same Human error that we must take very seriously, unless we want to follow them into the abyss.

Change requires that we change ourselves one person at a time. The Parties cannot change from the top down, nor can the political process. The incentives to encourage and attempt to guide Groupthink for specific political ends and social control are simply too strong and well rewarded in the current social environment. It’s up to us to change, even if it goes against some of our deepest desires. Donald Trump is not responsible for “turning down the temperature“ nor is the DNC or Gavin Newsome or CNN or MSNBC or The Times or Fox News. I am responsible for modeling civil discourse and passionate, good-faith argument and so are you, even if we are the only ones in the room doing so and even if our “side” or theirs seems to be gaining an advantage by engaging in divisive and mendacious Groupthink. It is up to us to show that we are willing to talk with those who say terrible things about us and who have ostracized us in the past. It is my choice and my obligation to not give in to Groupthink no matter how convenient and enjoyable it may be, or how many social strokes I would receive by doing so.

The good news is that once we make the decision to give up on Groupthink we can find fellowship with others who have made the same decision. We can help each other relearn the good habits we have forgotten, reinforce our mutual resolve by sharing our successes, and call bullshit on those who are falling back into their old ways. We can help each other remember that it’s not up to ”Them” to go first. It’s up to me and you. No matter what “They” do we are responsible for what we do.

There is no Left or Right crime. There is no Black or White crime. There are people who commit crimes who each have various characteristics and beliefs. That’s all. If a set of bad ideas or cultural practices seems to be incentivizing individuals to lose their way and behave destructively, we can surely talk about those ideas and practices and criticize them, strongly even, in order to figure out what is happening. In fact, we must do so, but in the process we simply cannot attribute terrible motives and moral degeneracy out of hand to people who are espousing the ideas we are critiquing or who grew up with and espouse practices that seem dangerous to us. We have to be willing to talk, to see others as People with their own understandings, history, visions, etc. and to always extend to them, and ourselves, the grace that comes from knowing we are all terribly flawed and that we can change.

This is not to say that all ideas and practices are equal, or equally desirable for the social project we are engaged in. They are not. But in order to discover what we are able to accommodate, what compromises we can make and for what, and to create the environment in which we can grow as a society, we must see the People in front of us, and not just the things we believe they represent. We have to bring Honesty, Courage and Humility into our social life and our public debate no matter what others do. We have stopped demanding these qualities from our political leaders, public intellectuals, young people and ourselves. This cannot continue and we all have a role in changing it.

I’m not saying this out of some pie-in-the-sky idealism or some gilded view of Humanity in order to sound virtuous, nor do I believe that the divisions within our society are trivial to solve. They never have been, after all. I’m saying it because I believe that a commitment to these values and an open assessment of our mistakes is the best way to build lasting bridges and to learn to see each other as People once more even when we are passionate rivals. It is hard work and endless.

There are billions of people living under governments that want the West to fail and which are waiting to pick over the carcass of our failure. They are thrilled by our current dysfunction. It only reinforces everything they believe about the nature of power, control, and the desirability of subordinating individuals to State Power. We in the West have to have the courage to eschew Groupthink and Violence and take another step forward together. We’ve done it before.