It's not You, it's Everyone Else

It is completely natural for human beings to see the world from their personal perspective. We make judgments based on our own experiences, we validate truths in reference to our own knowledge base, we approve morality based on our upbringing and beliefs. We take everything personally because our fundamental instinct is one of personal preservation. It's natural and normal, but it's limiting when discussing the broad concepts involved in a large and complex society.

When we talk about gun safety in this country the first response of most gun owners is the insistence of their responsibility and rights. If we discuss race issues, everyone has to establish that they aren't racist. If you talk to someone on the other side of the aisle about their party's position the response is 'that doesn't apply to me'. No matter the topic or the side, any attempt to analyze group behavior gets redacted to a personal experience. Which misses the whole point.

Of course there are responsible gun owners. There are non-racist white people, hard working and honest Mexicans, kind Republicans, generous millionaires, and efficient public and private entities. But there are also racist jerks in this world, criminal immigrants, slothful workers of all colors, and wasteful government programs. The point isn't the existence of a thing, but the prevalence of it.

In order to have a discussion of societal issues - what's wrong with our country, how do we improve it - it's necessary to look at statistics, actual hard data, in order to see the truth beyond our individual experiences. I'm a middle class white male. I don't really experience racism. Or sexism. Food stamps don't play a role in my life and the insurance that I have (through my wife's work) is pretty good. If I look through my own lens, life is good and doesn't need much change. I can understand how those in similar circumstances resist the suggestion to 'improve' things by taking from us to redistribute to others. But I can also understand how people in a different position face a much different reality. It's the empathy for the other that is ultimately the most important aspect of rationally assessing the world and recognizing unfairness where it exists and devising solutions that represent the greatest good for the largest numbers.

So if someone talks about an issue and your response is personal - not me; I don't see that; I don't think that's true; not among my friends - you've already given up any grounds for a productive discussion. It's hard but absolutely essential to try to remove ourselves from the equation and acknowledge everyone else in the world. No one does it completely. We all have our biases. But if we start from the personal perspective there's no hope of arriving at the general answer.

The Anecdote as Evidence

In today's social media world, debate is often broken down to the sharing of a meme or a single tweet of information, often in the form of an anecdote meant to represent one side's argument. And while it is true that the plural of anecdote is not evidence, there is actually some validity to the use of a single example to represent a viewpoint - but it DOES matter what that viewpoint is. The nature of the argument itself is what determines the validity of anecdote. Not all examples are equal.

I will illustrate this with a specific specimen (thereby also demonstrating my point - a single illustrative example can act as the only evidence needed to proof a theory). In the discussion over problems with the criminal justice system, and in particular the treatment of black youths by law enforcement, both sides like to use a specific instance, perhaps even a person's name (Tamir Rice) to represent the idea that black people are not treated fairly. The response of those who call this an attack on all law enforcement often comes in the form of a related a specific instance where the police did their job correctly. On the surface it's a stalemate - each side has their anecdote and they feel totally vindicated in their correctness. The problem is that the arguments are not the same, so the evidence backs up one but not the other. Observe.

A current 'viral' facebook post talks about a police officer shot to death after trying to taze a suspect. Another one describes a black man who was pulled over for speeding where the officer treated him professionally, he responded with politeness and cooperation, and the officer let him off with a warning. In both cases the underlying argument is that the police did good. Therefore, if the police did good in one instance it proves that all police always do good. But that's not how logic works.

On the other side, they'll point out how a South Carolina police officer shot an unarmed black man in the back, all captured on video. Or simply mention Tamir Rice. At it's core, these anecdotes are saying that police did bad. In broader scope, they're saying some police officers sometimes do bad things. It's that difference between absolutes and exceptions that matters.

You can list a million examples of something happening (cops do good, gun owners are responsible, Republicans aren't racist) and it will never prove the universality of that fact. Because you simple need to post a single opposite occurrence (cops do bad, good guy with gun shoots innocent people, a majority of Republicans think Obama is Muslim) and you've proven that there is no such thing as 100% perfection.

And it's after we accept the fact that things aren't perfect we can start to discuss how to improve them. Not all cops are good, not all cops are bad, but if some cops are bad then we should accept that a single bad cop is a problem worth addressing when their mistakes can lead to the death of innocent people (and there is plenty of statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks, so we don't need to rely on anecdotes for that).

You can argue against the evidence, you're free to say that the percentage is so small it's not worth worrying about, you can say that one specific situation doesn't prove a widespread problem. But you can't use your anecdote to argue for universality. You can't dismiss the counter-argument with more of the same. There's a difference between saying all and some. To deny the some doesn't exist is delusional and it doesn't advance the discussion in any way. Logic exists, whether you want to face it or not, and you can't tweet your way around it.

The Difference in the Similarities

Everything is polarized these days: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, Black vs. White. We are so busy dividing ourselves into Us vs. Them that we miss out on the many commonalities we share. The truth is, most of us have similar beliefs. We share a similar morality and generally want the same things out of life. We even go about achieving our goals the same way - we get a job, work hard, make friends, fall in love, raise a family, do right by those in our lives. People are more similar than they are different.

But those differences, sometimes just little things, DO matter. Drawing them out can be of utmost importance for a society and the arc of its evolution. Make no mistake, differences matter, but how we talk about them and what we ignore or focus upon guides so much of our conversation.

A case in point: I recently read an interesting article from a self-described pro-life feminist. The thrust of the article was how reasonable and sympathetic she was. That her goals are fundamentally the same as many of the pro-choice camp. In fact, the suggestion was her's were more female-friendly: she wanted to reduce the need for abortion, she recognized that abortions disproportionately affect women of color and therefore are discriminatory. She wanted to help women, and when she explained that to the angry pro-choice protestors she met they were won over by her rationality and given a new understanding of how pro-woman her position really is.

Except it's not. The similarities are there. I agree that abortion is not a good thing. If we can help women avoid facing that incredibly difficult choice then they are likely to be better off, especially the disadvantaged who are most likely to face negative repercussions regardless of the decision they make. We should have a better support system where having a child when you're single, poor, or in other bad circumstances doesn't ruin your chances for a bright future.

But we should also have a support system for those who recognize the reality of the hardships that they will face if they keep their child, for those who know they are not up to the task of carrying a baby to term, much less the years of demanding motherhood to follow. We should have more readily available options for birth control, especially for women, to avoid the situation in the first place. Some anti-abortion proponents might agree with these ideas, but many do not. Many seek to tackle the problem of abortion by making it more of a problem. They want to make it more difficult to get (which means more difficult for the poor - the rich always have options). They want to make it more of a stigma, making the choice more difficult and damning for the woman. They often want to withdraw the support system we have, reduce availability of birth control, and refuse to educate women on their options and responsibilities in general. We all want to reduce abortions, but how we accomplish that is a defining characteristic of who we are as a people.

In her own words, the author of the article slipped in the truth. Alongside all her talk of being pro-woman, all her reasonableness and support for women and understanding of the discriminatory nature of the questions, in one quick aside she laid bared the heart of the difference between those who call themselves pro-life and those who truly support the lives and choices that women are faced with. She said 'The pro-life movement is trying to make legal abortion less available, sure, but ...'. The but doesn't matter. All the talk about all the other good stuff doesn't matter. At its heart, the pro-life movement is trying to limit the legal right of women to choose for themselves, knowing full well who those limitations will hurt the most.

Maybe we should focus more on the agreement - it would be great if pro-lifers supported programs that reduced unwanted pregnancies (like cheap access to effective birth control which Planned Parenthood provides), fought for greater paid leave for new parents, were willing to pay for a better education system that would increase the options for the poorest among us and create a stronger safety net for all women at every level. But the fundamental difference exists, and if you condemn those who do not believe what you believe and deny them the right to act upon it, if you admit that right yet fight against it, you undermine everything you say you stand for. Stop trying to tell the other side what to believe and spend more time actually supporting women in a way that makes sense, and I bet you'd find the difference is still there, but far less potent than it currently is.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

It's a common theme amount salt-of-the-earth types that the people who work the land for their livelihood would all be just fine if the government would only get out of their way, stop persecuting them, and leave them to their own devices. They'd be able to support themselves and their family and at the same time would be the best stewards of the environment. The evil government has ruined their world and the only solution is to remove it entirely. It's pure bullshit.

The truth is that the government is the only thing that allows them to exist. If not for government subsidies on water, disaster relief for severe weather phenomena, and price supports built in to agriculture, the small family farm wouldn't have a chance. And the truth is that society doesn't really want it - what we want is cheap and plentiful food, and the way to get that is through factory farming. There's a reason there aren't many blacksmiths or ferriers making a good living these days. Times change, normally for the better, and some jobs and industries get left behind as we advance. That's as it should be.

And more truth: the past wasn't any easier. I don't believe there has ever been a time when earning a living by raising animals or growing crops was an easy and bountiful option. That's not because of the government, it's simple economics. When land was cheap, those who found ways to own lots of it and farm out the labor to others are the ones who got rich. Before our current era of corporate farms we had land barons, and the average family suffered under their control just as surely and likely more cruelly than anything the government has done since. If you remove the government from the equation - take away the cheap grazing land the BLM provides, the huge expense of water storage and irrigation supported through public works - and the family farm would be ruthlessly eliminated as an inefficient player in the market. That's how it was in the past.

So the government, in spite of its fallible nature, in spite of its burdensome regulations and overzealous pursuit of disparate goals, is the famliy farm's best benefactor. But it isn't their friend. It shouldn't be. The government's role is not to prop up a small group of people's economic interest. The government is there to manage public resources in a way that best serves the nation as a whole, and while that may include making sure that food is inexpensive and reliable for the masses, it also includes making sure that those resources are not used up, destroyed, or contaminated. It requires we preserve some wilderness for future generations and protect the environment in a way that might not prioritize immediate economics of the local over long-term benefit to the many. The government is how we as a people allocate our resources and if they dont' like it there's a process for making change - it's called voting.

I put family cattle ranchers in the same boat as coal miners. They seem like good people. I'm sure they work very hard to eek a living off the earth and it's probably all they know, all they want to do. I understand their fear and anger that their way of life is disappearing and I feel sorry for them. But I also realize that we as a society are better off without such jobs. That working people hard to pull carbon from the ground or raise an inefficient food source like beef, which requires so much water and land to deliver a not-particularly healthy food source, is not in our best interest. The effort and ethic they put into their work is indeed noble; the work itself is not. There are better ways to use our resources, including the labor of such fine folk, and while they may not want to make that change, it is in all of our best interest if they do.

Refugees Ain’t Peanuts

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee recently offered the following analogy to the issue of taking in Syrian refugees: “If you bought a five-pound bag of peanuts and there were about ten peanuts that were deadly poisonous, would you feed them to your kids?" he said. "The answer is no.”

This is, in a nutshell, the basic Republican approach to the refugee crisis, and by examining the many ways in which the analogy fails you can see the flaws in their thought process and understand what they’re really trying to do.

First off, the lives of human beings are not peanuts. Refugees are people. Bakers, plumbers, taxi drivers. Mothers, daughters, grandparents. A wide slice of everyday humanity whose existence is just as valuable as our own, regardless of the color of their skin or who they pray to. But the Republican view is only focused on us. We are the consumer and everything else is simply a commodity. Our lives matter. Other’s don’t. It puts fear before compassion and takes no account of the level of risk. If there’s any chance of any harm coming to a single one of ‘us’, then there’s absolutely no reason to help out any of ‘them’. Safety comes first.

But even that is a lie. Let’s grant that there are some poisonous peanuts out there. They want to withhold the five pound bag, but we’re at a picnic with many other foods. There’s some peanut butter cookies over on the dessert table, some Chinese chicken salad in the dinner line, and peanut butter sandwiches with the crust cut off everywhere. The Republicans either ignore all these other food dangers (like tourist visas, legal immigration, American-born Muslims) or they call for a complete ban on any type of nut whatsoever (Trump is really one step away of saying we should ban Islam from our country). The one approach does nothing to safeguard those worried about peanuts because peanuts are everywhere, and if we ban everyone from having any type of nut we’re getting rid of a lot of good food – and more accurately a lot of good and decent people who contribute to our society. It goes against the very nature our country was founded on of religious tolerance and diversity. But once again, religious freedom is important for ‘us’, not them.

Yet banning nuts still wouldn’t make us safe. There are lots of food allergies out there, lots of dangerous meals. They don’t really want to get rid of all the dangers, just the ones they know they didn’t bring. They don’t like peanuts so no one else can have them. Never mind the truth that right-wing Christian fanatics have killed more Americans than Muslims. Never mind that Americans have killed far more innocent civilian Muslims since 9/11 than the victims of that tragic day. Never mind that more American soldiers will die fighting the war on Islam they’re starting. Their rhetoric does not lead to safety.

Finally, the analogy assumes that our kids are eating peanuts at random. The truth is far different. That bag of peanuts Huckabee is talking about will get inspected. Each individual peanut will undergo a thorough review by a peanut expert. It’s past, from the day it was planted to the day it arrived in that bag, will be studied and questioned. It’s not a perfect process, but the chances of finding and separating out the poisonous legumes are pretty good. The same can’t be said for the chicken salad. The Republicans want to ban the one group of Muslims who are most rigorously vetted before they enter this country. French citizens pulled off the attack in Paris. Saudis perpetrated 9/11. The San Bernadino shootings involved an American and a Pakistani here on a visa. Refugees are not the danger.

It was never about safety, though. It’s about fear. They want us to be afraid of the peanuts. They want us focused on the foreign threat because it gives them an easy way to lay down the rules and prove that they are in charge. No peanuts. Listen to your parents. It’s easier to control your kid when they’re afraid. If you have to exaggerate a little and say that peanuts are going to kill them, well, it’s for their own good. You see, the Republicans think we’re children who turn to them for guidance. That they know best and we’ll like them more if we think they know everything and are protecting us. They want to be the good parent because we'll listen to them and let them remain in charge. Perhaps that’s also why they’re always promising us candy – lower taxes for everyone, no decrease in government spending, and magical four percent economy growth.

The saddest thing about the entire analogy is the fact that it works. That so many people who espouse a faith that specifically calls for welcoming the less fortunate are more concerned about minuscule threats to their own easy lifestyle than they are about helping others. That our fear of the radical Islamic terrorists half a world away out-trumps the true horror suffered by those who lived under their regime. It’s an appeal to our own weaknesses, the worst part of human nature that fears the other and responds to hatred with more hatred. Our country was founded to be better than that. We’ve had dark moments in the past - when we turned away Jewish immigrants fleeing Nazi Germany, when we placed Japanese Americans in internment camps – so it’s nothing new. We are all imperfect beings who suffer fear and react instinctively instead of intelligently.

But we can be better. What defines a person is not the mistakes they’ve made in the past but what they’ve learned from their actions and how they behave in the future. We have a chance to show our character. We can be that beacon on a hill and light the way for a better world. Or we can toss peanuts on the ground.