We need to be perfect.
In this article I express my views and ideas surrounding the frightening state of affairs in the United States right now, particularly regarding the events that occurred in Charlottesville and the reactionary protest against a ‘free speech’ rally in Boston. If you are unfamiliar with the Charlottesville events, watch this video:
My thoughts were inspired by the following video from the Boston protest, which I recommend you watch for context.
The video shows a man peacefully asking questions to a crowd of protestors at the Free Speech rally in Boston this past weekend. Individuals in the crowd react angrily, eventually forcing him to leave. The person who shared this to my Facebook newsfeed expressed fear at how the crowd handled this situation. I have a lot of thoughts.
First, let me state unequivocally that I have been disgusted by the actions of some groups of Americans recently, specifically white supremacists and the ‘alt-right’. I am frustrated and embarrassed by the fact that these groups arose in a society of which I am part. My emotions are not free of guilt, but are dominated by sadness and anger. I am confident that “Nazism” and “terrorism” are apt words for what we are seeing.
I have hope that things will change for the better, despite the fact that more violence is being predicted by both sides. A turnaround would require a message to get through to all who are angry and bitter at the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It would require many of us to reconsider ideologies and philosophies that are vital to our identities. In particular, it would require that white supremacists and the wider circle of Trump supporters understand their economic troubles in the broader context of globalization and technological change, rather than blaming immigrants, people of color, and the intellectual community. To a lesser yet not negligible extent, it would require folks on the left who fail to empathize with Trump supporters to forego verbal attacks in favor of unwavering support for cooperation and humanization across the board.
Unlikely? Definitely. Possible? Yes. I encourage you to read this pamphlet produced by /The Rules, which distills the true roots of the pain we are seeing in our country this summer. As a teaser: the rise of white supremacy groups is a symptom, not the disease.
Barring an amazingly well-crafted and ubiquitously accepted message that enables the masses to see clearly, we need to take steps to minimize the future loss of life associated with domestic terrorism. To do so, we need to be strategic about diminishing the power and progress of white supremacists. I am going to use the Boston video to explain some ideas.
The crowd in the video has every right to be angry. Of course they do. The oppression of people of color, LGBTQ people, women, and countless other groups by the powerful few for centuries obviously justifies their anger. But reacting the way they did is counterproductive.
If you’re like me, when you watched that video you were hoping against hope that one of those protesters would calmly and intellectually explain why they are there, what the protest means to them, and how not taking a stand against white supremacy is tantamount to being complicit in the oppression of millions of human beings. If you didn’t watch the whole video — spoiler alert — that never happens.
It never happens in the video because of course it doesn’t happen in the video. This is a viral video shared by some old high school acquaintance of mine. If my “hero” had emerged, and a rational conversation led to a calm understanding, this video would likely never have been posted. Even if it was, it would never have gone viral enough to wind up on my newsfeed. Peaceful conflict resolution doesn’t get the attention it deserves, and nothing drives a viral video quite like fear.
As a corollary, it is entirely possible that the person who took this video tried to incite an angry response several times before he got it. It is also possible that individuals asking similar questions in other parts of the 40,000 person crowd were met by a hero such as the one I was hoping for. It is the nature of viral videos that we only see the controversy.
But at the end of the day, this video went viral, and a lot of people have seen it. As I write this, 2.7 million viewers have now observed the threats of violence against an innocent man asking questions. That’s exactly the kind of scene that alt-righters will share around the internet, hoping to inspire fear and hate in their targeted demographics — young, white, uneducated males. The fact that the video exists is therefore detrimental to the pursuit of our collective goal: less violence. It would not be unreasonable to argue that this video negates all potential progress from the protest. One video like this, and the alt-right win the day.
So what are the people in the crowd supposed to do?
Do not engage.
Chant. March. Protest collectively. Attempts to convince an individual, even calmly, will likely inspire others around to you try to help, but they will need to talk over you (and the crowd), so naturally, they will yell. Others will want to get a word in for the cause, so they will yell louder. Eventually, someone will want yell so loud in the face of the ignoramus that their anger will boil over into violence. That’s how we end up with videos like this. That’s how the alt right shocks people into fear and from fear into violent retaliatory actions. White supremacist Christopher Cantwell even admits, “my job is to shock people.” We cannot give him or anyone else on his side more ammunition.
If you really want to be the hero, ask the person to accompany you outside the crowd so that you can have a calm and reasonable conversation with no threat of escalation. Better yet, ask them to message you on Facebook so you can talk about it later. Do not let someone turn you into a viral video that inspires violence.
Our protests will be stronger if we can separate ourselves from the idea that protests should be fights. Rather, protests or gatherings should simply be seen as opportunities to present undeniable evidence that we are the majority and we are not going to be silent. Certainly gathering in the same time and place as alt-right groups is handy for comparison of crowd size, but it is not worth the risk of a fight breaking out. If the left stoops to violence, we lose a huge battle in the war for public opinion. And with so many important key players still on the sidelines (read: sports teams, large corporations, the economic elite), that’s the war that matters.
Can you imagine if public opinion could convince organizations to not only pick sides but take action? Most of the institutions I have in mind currently enjoy the economic benefits of neutrality — a wider customer base. Don’t be fooled, institutions like these don’t have a problem with getting involved. They may reference that politics is not in their mission statement, but that’s just an excuse to keep enjoying business from both sides of the aisle. If it was justified from a long term cost/benefit standpoint, these groups would be active.
A publicly active multinational corporation would be game changing, but is unlikely. A lot of them are staying out of it, enjoying the continued strife because it keeps the public eye out of their shady work, such as Koch Industries funding The Cato Institute to produce convincing but ultimately fallacious and jaundiced attempts to propagate neoliberal, free-market policies. The incentive to stay in the oblique neutrality game is strong for a lot of executives, as it is the safest bet financially.
One industry where we could see the corporate elite enter this battleground is in professional sports. Sports teams have a lot of power and influence over their communities, especially if they have a strong base of diehard fans. And while the incentive to stay neutral and enjoy the larger customer base is still strong, there are arguments to be made that taking a side will lead to a boom in sales from those they have pleased large enough to offset the losses from those they have pissed off, thus providing an economic justification for intervention. Most of the actions taken will likely be from the level of teams and owners, but central offices and commissioners will also have roles to play regarding if and how they disallow political statements and actions.
Two leagues that are already leaning in two different directions are the NFL and the NBA. In the NFL, commissioner Roger Goodell has maintained that Collin Kaepernick is not being blackballed by owners for his decision to kneel during national anthem, a quiet protest bringing light to the inequality facing people of color in America today. Refusing to even acknowledge that owners might have bias against Kaepernick sends a signal to owners that pandering to the conservative, white base of NFL fandom is acceptable. The NBA, on the other hand, allowed Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade, and LeBron James to open the 2016 ESPY awards with comments on the recent re-emergence of police violence and racial divisions. Both leagues have begun to show their colors and unleash their influence, albeit on opposing sides.
The war of public opinion is essential not only for the sway it may have over sports teams and other wealthy influencers, but because the media is under attack. Alt-righters, led by Trump’s example, inspire one another to denounce the any media dispersing unfavorable facts as ‘fake news.’ This creates pressure for the media to conform in order to avoid harsh criticism. And while most of the major media outlets seem thus far to be clinging to their journalistic integrity, viral videos of violent outbursts by the left does not bode well for their ability to do so. “Liberal” media outlets will be forced to either report on our violence accurately or defend our actions, effectively admitting their bias and in so doing, relinquishing their claim on independent, objective reporting. In short, violence on our side creates a positive feedback loop as it further diminishes the ability of the mass media to be a common source of accepted facts, leading to less empathy, less understanding, more prejudice, more hate, and more violence.
When we protest, we need to keep in mind that in this technological age, it is a better strategy to try to convince those watching from their couches than those asking questions on site. The people in your face have likely already chosen a side. Public opinion and the resultant actions of those who have thus far been on the sidelines will determine how much violence ensues in the coming months and years.
Given the stakes, the side for peace, equality, and justice needs to be perfect. We cannot stop showing up in physical space — such action proves that we are in fact the majority. We need to be loud, be proud, and be angry. But we cannot act individually. We cannot allow ourselves to be provoked. We need to monitor one another, hold our ranks tight, and never let our emotions get out of hand, because the opposition is too good at using them against us. We cannot give them that chance. We need to be perfect.
