Reducing Contempt While Having. . . Contempt?
Many people in the "civility" community express contempt for Donald Trump. But as a civility advocate, I have contempt for much of The Left™. Is that a contradiction?
Do you agree with anyone 100 percent of the time?
Me neither. Not even my spouse of 41 years. And she would vigorously agree.
But I know a few people who do, and I find most of them neither particularly intelligent nor interesting. They’re frequently incurious, overly ideological, dogmatic, and largely insufferable, prone to conspiracy theories. Some have figured out how to monetize their sycophancy through clickbait and other provocative gestures on all manner of social media outlets, where most Americans now, sadly, get their “news.”
Most of them have very strong views about politics and politicians that they’re all too eager to share with you, mostly from the far ends of the political spectrum. They’re the people who feast on MSNOW and CNN or Newsmax, OAN, or those evening Fox News opinion shows that rarely interest me (except for Greg Gutfeld). These folks are only interested in programs that confirm their opinions and worldviews; they’re not open to anything that changes their strongly held views, as fallible as they might be (and all humans are fallible).
They’re looking for confirmation, bias and all, and have long stopped searching for truth. That is The Problem™.
But I still fork over my dollars to support many writers on Substack whom I don’t always agree with. One of them is Alex Berenson.
You may know Alex as the author who was kicked off Twitter (before Elon Musk bought it) for challenging the so-called Covid vaccines, which we now all know was not a vaccine. Vaccines prevent infection and transmission. None of the Covid vaccines did that. They were, at best, a “therapeutic.” Berenson went on to write a three-part series of booklets entitled “Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and Lockdowns.”
But I suspect what really got him on the wrong side of the Kulturkampf was his wake-up call to America over Cannabis deregulation, “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.”
Alex Berenson, if you don’t know him, is best known as a former science writer at the New York Times. He’s now on Substack, where he mixes genuine journalism with his personal insights and opinions. I sometimes find myself in disagreement with his views, especially those on politics, where he tries to strike a “balance,” but I always welcome his independent journalistic streak and inquiries. Most recently, he posted about a conservative subscriber who was ending his subscription after a post Alex wrote about how the cold-blooded killer, Luigi Mangione, was able to evade the death penalty over his murder of a United Health CEO. Here’s what the writer said:
Thought I would communicate why I am no longer a paid subscriber.
I used to pay and now I don’t. I think your reporting is informative and of value, but find it difficult to financially support those who still think they can “stay on the fence” i. e., be an “objective journalist”.
We are in a war of good versus evil. Nobody is perfect, including Trump, but Dems and Media are pure evil. Trump is our last Hope. He needs full support of those fighting evil.
As a former journalist, even as someone who voted for Trump three times, that set me off, even as I don’t disagree with some sentiments of the writer. Alex said this was a line he would not cross, and I applaud him.
The last thing I want, or that we need, are “journalists” who are forced to pick sides, to don a red or blue jersey. If anything, we need a return to genuine journalism where reporters relentlessly pursue and report facts and allow us to make our own independent judgments. I actually like having referees (well, not always), which is the role most journalists should relate to. Even if it is very unpopular avocation. It’s what they signed up for, as I did for awhile.
I can’t tell you how many times people have told me, “I can’t tell what’s true and what’s not.” I get it.
Which leads me to my point. Can we hold people in contempt even as we strive for civil discourse? Is it a contradiction to advocate for civil discourse while being contemptuous?
The answer is yes. But there is nuance.
There is a big, bright line between contempt and accountability. An essential element of journalism is accountability. Contempt is a personal reaction, a judgment, and a choice, if an instinctive one, towards groups, institutions, people, behaviors, and actions. Genuine journalists know the difference. Too many who claim the title of “journalist” do not, or infuse and distort their journalism “lens” with their politics. They are purveyors of the Outrage Machine™, who stir contempt to attract eyeballs and clicks. And the most recent example of that is one Don Lemon. The former CNN late night host’s incurious, mindless, reflexive supporters claim his “First Amendment” right as a “journalist” was violated. But wiser people will take time to perhaps watch the video and, more importantly, read the Grand Jury indictment that led to his arrest.
I can’t read the indictment and not hold Lemon’s actions in contempt, as well as those of his defenders. Maybe that’s wrong. I admit having very little patience for people who insult my intelligence by ignoring the fact that here are five co-equal elements of the First Amendment, starting with the freedom of religion. There are lots of other rights in those first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, including protections from unreasonable search and seizure, trial by a jury of one’s peers, and many more. Even the “redress of grievances,” which is where the professional lobbying industry comes into play, is part of the First Amendment. It comes right after the right to peaceably assemble and freedom of the press.
I think the order the First Amendment rights, just as the order of the Article I, II, and III branches of our government, matter.
I could wright a book on all the things that have happened recently, especially in Minnesota, that have me in a contemptuous mood. Let’s start with reports of corruption, mostly in Minneapolis’s 100,000-strong Somali immigrant community, where an estimated $9 billion may have been stolen from federal programs since and during Covid-19 and funneled to terrorist organizations like Al-Shabaab in their native country. Your taxpayer money was sent to day care and autism centers with no clients. Whistleblower accounts suggest that not only did the Governor, would-be Vice President Tim Walz turn a blind eye, but that the Attorney General, Keith Ellison, may have facilitated it. Official investigations are underway.
Similar and possibly related scandals have emerged in other states, including California, Maine, Ohio, and even Indiana. It lends credence to the notion that the Democratic Party is a criminal enterprise, with an endless loop of using taxpayer money to fund favored constituencies and organizations, including agitators and protest groups that turnaround and provide political support if not more to those who appropriate the cash.
I can’t bottle up the feeling of eye-rolling contempt for the Minneapolis protestors who stupidly interfere in law enforcement activities, who were silent as young women and children were brutally raped and murdered by criminal illegal aliens. You know the names: Laken Riley, Jessica Nungaray, Rebecca Morin, and many more.
Did you see the violent protests and demonstrations when conservative icon Charlie Kirk was murdered? I only saw peaceful and mournful vigils. But I do feel contempt for the imbeciles who claim Kirk was murdered by a right-wing activist, which is clearly and demonstrably false.
I have contempt for Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frye for their incitement of violent protests in Minneapolis. I have contempt for the person or persons who created the phony AI-generated photo of a protestor being shot. I feel contempt for US Senator and Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin (D-IL) and his staff using that photo, complete with a headless Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent, on the Senate floor as if it were real. At least Durbin is retiring from the Senate.
I have contempt for the people, including faux-journalist Taylor Lorenz, formerly of the Washington Post, for fangirling cold-blooded murderer Luigi Mangione for the premeditated killing a health insurance CEO. I hold feelings of contempt that he is somehow exempt from the death penalty for what sure looks like First Degree Murder to me. I am contemptuous of the people who contributed $1.4 million to his GiveSendGo legal defense fund, even as I defend their right to do so.
I sometimes wonder if having pity on someone is worse than contempt. I pity those who cling to intersectionality - where you get cultural points for being part of one or more “favored” constituencies, such as being gay, female, or black - that leads to victim hood. There are few more damaging mindsets, a pathetic excuse to avoid responsibility and initiative. Overcoming our circumstances is a great part of the American experience. Dr. Ben Carson’s personal story is a favorite and a great example. There are many others, and my friend Dr. Penny Hamilton has a fabulous Substack, Grit and Lace, about women aviators who overcame many obstacles to make history.
One of the recent books I’ve read is “Truth Matters,” co-authored by Drs. Robert George and Cornel West. George is a Princeton law professor and philosopher; Dr. West, a progressive who has run for President, is a Theologian. One is a Catholic Banjo-playing native of West Virginia, the other a native of Oklahoma and a Baptist who was raised in California. They are as different as night and day in many respects, but they love each other like “brothers.” They refer to each other that way. Both are deeply concerned about the toxic polarization that permeates the culture, fed by a clickbait-driven media. Both are appearing on college campuses across the US to discuss the need to “Socratize” college students, reject indoctrination, and promote basic concepts of human dignity and infallability, as well as the pursuit of Truth.
Here’s the most recent example, courtesy of the University of Virginia. It’s two hours long, but worth your time.
George, in a much-shorter 13-minute broadcast of “Socrates in the City,” believes that we live in an “Age of Feelings,” in contrast to the Medieval “Age of Faith” and its cousin, the “Age of Reason,” often called “The Enlightenment.” Too many people define “their truth” through their feelings, which as George explains,
“They’ve abandoned belief in reason, certainly abandoned belief in faith in a great many cases as our guides to how to live, our guides to truth, our guides to wisdom. But I worry because feeling, emotion, desire, these are very, very unreliable sources of truth. If we simply are told to follow our desires, if we’re instructed that genuine authenticity means acting on your wants, your feelings, whatever they happen to be, well, that’s the road to catastrophe.”
“Let your rage fuel you.”
Then-candidate, now Governor Abigail Spanburger, D-VA
I have contempt for a legal system that fails to hold people accountable, including the wealthy and well connected, which is what drives so much interest in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Not one person aside from the now-deceased Epstein or his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, have been tried, convicted and jailed. And, now, many innocent people are being smeared and victims exposed by the rush by Congress and the Trump Administration to publish at least three million pages of documents related to the scandal. You can do a word or name search here.
I have contempt for the Neville Roy Singhams of the world, in this case the avowed, CCP-connected Marxist millionaire who lives comfortably and operates openly in Shanghai, China, where he loves their oppressive, genocidal, and malevolent Communist dictatorship. He does much of his dirty work through a New York-based non-profit, “The People’s Forum.” Singham appears to be the major source of funding for the less than peaceful assemblies and protests in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Singham clearly has contempt or my country and people like me.
And don’t try to tell me that the protests in Minneapolis were “organic.” Sure, many of them “volunteered,” but organizational manuals, Signal chats, and open admissions suggest outside and outsized organization, funding, and direction. Too many people have admitted that they were paid. And the evidence suggests a great many “peaceful protests” from the George Floyd-Antifa-BLM events of 2020 to Minneapolis were well organized and funded, as were the “migrant caravans” of 2018 and beyond. Insidious forces are at work.
I have contempt for the murderous criminals who used to run Venezuela, and the reigning religious zealots in Iran who have killed upwards of 20,000 of their own people to quell rebellious activities by people lacking food, work, water, and live in a country with a worthless currency. I have contempt for Vladimir Putin and his cronies for their murderous and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and his indiscriminate targeting and killing of not just of innocent Ukrainians, but his own people. By some accounts, Russia has lost 600,000 soldiers with an equal number of casualties. That’s calamitous.
This is a reminder that “sovereignty” has its limits.
Yet, I remain committed to civil discourse and putting a stop to the endless feedback loop of outrage and contempt. While I rarely agree with Van Jones on anything, he deserves plaudits for at least endeavoring to understand all sides of the Minneapolis “situation.” Here’s how he opens his Substack post:
“I’ve spent the last week doing something most people avoid: actually listening to voices on all sides.
“And I mean really listening.
“Here’s what I’ve learned.
Each side thinks they’re the reasonable one.
Each side thinks the other side is lying – or has lost their minds.
And each side – at some level – may actually have a point!”
The late Roger Ailes, long before he helped start and lead Fox News and was a brilliant advertising consultant for GOP candidates, once said the media was all about getting its headline; determine who is right and wrong, with as much explicit language as possible.
He added: “Nuance confuses the press.” Nuance seems to confuse a lot of angry partisans, too. Curious people who search for the truth look or the nuance, as confusing and inconclusive as it may be.
I’ve listened carefully to my friends who hate Donald Trump. For sure, he inspires both blind devotion and mindless rage in a lot of people. He’s never been my first choice for President of the United States, having always supported or voted for one of his primary opponents. But I’ve met him, read his book, and listen and watch carefully to his interviews with serious journalists like Salena Zito and Hugh Hewitt. I get that many people believe he lacks integrity and has a personality that is unsuited to the presidency. He drives people crazy with his impetuousness, narcissism, unpredictability, and insults, many of which offend our sensibilities. I wonder about his faith journey, especially since the assassination attempt on him in Beaver County, Pennsylvania in July 2024.
“When people tell you something is a fact, you should ask them why are they so certain.”
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House (R-GA)
I wish he would do many things differently, and he’s way too transactional on important moral issues for my taste. His negotiating skills are famous in the business world, but seem ill suited to the world of diplomacy. His mishandling of the Epstein scandal and ham-handed attempt to acquire Greenland did result in a good outcome, but was painful to watch. But I refused to be enveloped by the unhealthy animosity that consumes many people and I know and respect.
I also have paid careful attention to the wretched abuse of our legal, law enforcement, intelligence and judicial systems that were targeted to him, which he amazingly overcame. We should ask ourselves why the abusers of these institutions were so determined to quash Donald Trump.
Some of us think he was just over the target.
I also refused to be consumed with contempt towards those I have befriended or follow, just because I disagree with them or find their views and beliefs objectionable. It’s just not healthy. I do find myself “unfriending” some people on social media who engage in unhelpful or nonconstructive dialogue, but I don’t respect them any less. I’ve never defined “friendship” that way.
Contempt has its place. But it should never consume us. It’s also important to remember that there are malevolent international actors who are behind much of what is designed to aggravate us and turn on each other. Kudos to Elon Musk and his team at X for eradicating foreign “bots” from their system. I hope Meta is doing the same with Facebook, Instagram, and their new platform, Threads.
So, even as I hold some people in contempt for their actions, and may find many views of others contemptuous, we need leaders who will help us rediscover our pursuit of truth, relearn that we as humans are not infallible, and recognize and respect everyone’s right to dignity as individuals.
I never start any conversation by trying to explain or describe my politics (except on these pages, of course). I try never to start a political discussion (finishing one is another matter). I’d much rather ask questions of other people, and learn their story. I’m more interested in their lives, their families, their origins and travels, and what’s going on around them. I’d rather learn than pontificate, even here on Substack. I spend, probably, 10 hours of reading and research for every hour of writing. And I love to ask this question, when the opportunity affords itself: “have you every changed your mind on a big issue?”
Nearly everyone says yes, but sometimes struggle to cite an example; the question catches them off guard, since we don’t often dwell on the times we’ve changed our minds. From my experience, a lot of people cite abortion; others talk about switching political parties or religious affiliations, or big policy issues like immigration, or perceptions about major historical events, such as the Civil or Vietnam Wars. Genuinely curious people are open to changing their minds, or modifying their points of view when presented with new information or perspectives. When reminded that they’ve changed their minds, they often become more open to doing it again.
It’s one reason that I’m such a fan of high school and college debate. It teaches you to learn and argue both sides of a issue. That’s a great life skill.
I spent nearly 23 years in the lobbying world. A favorite memory is changing the minds of two Democratic Members of Congress on a food labeling issue that was important to my employer. I admire them to this day for doing so. It’s among my proudest moments. I also learned to understand and argue both sides of an issue I was working on.
The most important value in all this, is humility. The words “humble” and “humility” are mentioned about 80 times in the Old and New Testaments, mostly in the former. Humility teaches that we all have dignity, and equal worth. It teaches us to be curious, open, and respectful. Maybe if we started adding humility to our diets, we’d stop feeding the Outrage Machine and beginning to reverse the curse of toxic polarization and contempt that plagues our politics today.
I’ve long learned from my friend and author Ira Chaleff, as well as my former boss, Campbell Soup CEO Doug Conant, that the most successful leaders first learned to be successful followers.
What gets rewarded, gets repeated.
We share your concerns and shock at the violence on the left.