The dangers of 'Flate-gate'
There are unquestionably innumerable wrongs being perpetrated as I write on countless human beings, acts that most of us, at least in a calm moment, might well consider 'evil', however we personally define that. There are attacks verbal and physical for no cause beyond skin colour, gender or belief, lives endangered for daring to love another human adult. However, when we conflate and inflate cases, we immediately delete the rational debate option.
This was crystallised for me by reading Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg retract her comments on Colin Kaepernick (and others) in their anthem protest. I was glad to hear her say that she should have withheld comment, and certainly not been so dismissive. It struck me almost immediately, though, how easily this could become just a 'Jewish woman criticises black man' meme or rhetorical jab. Neither individual should be considered, automatically, to be representative or definitive of all groups to which they belong, and if we make every discussion instantly about who others speak for, I strongly doubt we can reach a stage where we consider, with all that entails, the other point of view, and wonder if it might not have some value.
The matter of conflation also reared its head for me in the descriptions of Donald Trump. People understandably, viscerally distressed by his litany of horrendous, dehumanising remarks trotted them all out to support their position of supporting anyone but him. No more than his dismissal of the human right to decide who touches you and how is the sweeping categorisation of his avowed voters as 'deplorables' anything that makes life better for anyone. It's venting, and arguably necessary, but to my mind, like Ginsburg's comment, benefits from being labelled by its user 'the heat of the moment', and not a productive response. Trump supporters have their reasons, and given the millions of them there are, among those, by simple mathematics, must be some that the rest of us would find compelling if we weren't embroiled in endless revulsion (and I've had whole days of that, at the very least). Trump's views are repugnant on so many fronts, but the people voting for him find a necessary outlet for pain that is compelling enough to override what I presume, in the majority of cases, is general, basic human empathy. We need to ask what is torturing them to a degree that makes this form of relief worth any price, in terms of standards and self-respect. Most of us accept that in a live-or-die scenario we would do what it took to survive, and clearly for many people this moment is that choice.
The #TrumpSeuss hashtag appeals to my sense of humour and my lifelong adoration of the good Doctor, and poking fun at the powerful is part of any good system of 'checks and balances', but while, for me, there is no doubt Hillary Clinton is by far the better choice, much of that is relative. These are the two most unpopular candidates in recorded American electoral history, and to hold either up as the epitome of the movements they spearhead is, I feel, disingenuous oversimplification. The 'feel the Bern' movement shows how many other strongly held beliefs there are under the Democratic umbrella, and Mitt Romney's rapid and repeated denunciation of so much about Trump indicates that a vast number of Republicans have been #NeverTrump forever. It may be that 'binary choice', because of the hard-to-dispute strangehold of the two major parties on the Presidential race, is itself under siege at this time, in politics as in identity, gender, religious, racial, sexual or otherwise. This may be the true undercurrent of this election, the wave that will break in the near future, and whether it's a genie in a bottle or Pandora's box, I doubt there will be any going back. People may have to accept that labels are only a starting point, not a permanent tattoo.