Over the weekend, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was politely asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia because the employees did not want to serve her. She calmly left the restaurant and the incident did not escalate—except, of course, when it expanded to social media with new players. This was not the only episode of protest. Rather ironically, Pam Bondi (the attorney general of my adopted state of Florida) was targeted by protestors at a screening of the new Mr. Rogers documentary.
One concern raised by some about the media (social and otherwise) focus on these episodes is that they are a distraction from more important issues. For example, critics have contended that the focus should be on migration, especially the treatment of migrant children being held in detention.
On the face of it, this sort of concern is legitimate. Like a computer, the human mind can only handle so much—memory and processing power used to address one matter means less for other matters. As such, if people cannot focus on multiple matters, then they should focus on the more important ones at the expense of the less important. On a related note, I occasional get a similar sort of criticism when I write an essay on a topic a reader might regard as of little importance—the gist of the contention is that it is a waste to write about such topics.
One reply to this contention is to point out that people deal with hundreds of things each day of varying degrees of importance (and triviality) and it is unlikely that their minds would be utterly exhausted by considering the matter of the Red Hen. Another reply is that people do, obviously, have a choice on what they focus on—so while the media might be focusing too much on, for example, Red Hengate, people can seek out stories that cover the subjects they regard as more important. In the case of my essays, it is easy enough to ignore the ones that a person thinks of as unworthy of attention (which could easily be all of them).
Another reply is to note the obvious fact that importance is relative. As such, what one person regards as unimportant to them can be very important to others. For example, my knee injury is probably of no importance to you yet is rather important to me. Likewise, the treatment received by Sanders and Bondi might seem unworthy of attention by some yet be quite important to others. As such, when someone says that something is unimportant, they typically mean that it is not important to them. This does raise the broader philosophical question about subjectivity and objectivity. In this context, the key question is whether there is objective importance. Unfortunately, addressing the subjectivity-objectivity debate would go far beyond the limited scope of this essay. Fortunately, I can advance the discussion without addressing that problem.
Even if importance is not objective, it is still possible for a person to be in error in their assessment. This is because, obviously enough, people can make a mistake in assessing how much something impacts what they value—which is a good, albeit rough, measure of importance. For example, someone buying a house might regard the Federal Reserve as unimportant because they find it uninteresting—yet if they knew that it impacts the rate they will pay on their mortgage, they would realize that it is quite important. As such, it is possible that the Red Hen and Mr. Rogers incidents are important even for many who think they are unimportant. The challenge is showing that these incidents do impact what they value. One obvious problem with this approach is that people value different things, so no one argument will appeal to everyone. However, I think that a broad enough argument can be made by appealing to those consider how Americans interact on political matters to be of concern.
While Trump and his defenders have largely shredded the old rules and traditions that have governed political interactions, the liberals have generally followed Michelle Obama’s imperative to “go high” when others “go low.” There have, of course, been some exceptions in the recent past, but the latest incidents could mark a shift in how the left approaches the Trump administration. For example, Maxine Waters has put forth a call to action against members of Trump’s cabinet: she wants people to form crowds to tell them they are not welcome anywhere. This is essentially what was done to Bondi and Sanders, although they are not members of Trump’s cabinet. While targeting individuals for such public attacks is not a new thing in politics, widespread adoption would mark a shift in American political discourse. As such, those who are concerned with this matter should regard these incidents as important—or, more accurately, potentially important. If they turn out to be aberrations, then it will be show that they did, in fact, not really matter.
I have, obviously enough, not addressed the ethics of such attacks. That will be the subject of an upcoming essay.
Mike, I’m afraid I don’t see the “high road.” I see a weaponized FBI. I see secret tarmac meetings. I see oppo research used as a justification to spy on Americans. I see attempts made to undermine a person who won the election fair and square.
Where is this “high road” you speak of?
C’mon TJ. Mike has repeatedly demonstrated that leftists are good and non-leftists and bad, bad, bad, evil. Thus what leftists do is by logical deduction, the high road. QED.
The FBI was only doing what was prudent to protect America and democracy. Thus it was the high road. Seriously now. We’ve been over this quite a few times.
Here you go TJ. Are you familiar with the philosophies of Herbert Marcuse?
Just call me Clarissa…
The investigation is not about the legitimacy of the election; Trump won-that is a fact. The investigation is about the role of foreign powers in our election as well as criminal activity (which are side investigations).
I think this is very important – but maybe not in the way you see it. It is an overt manifestation of who we are as a people – and the vision is not a good one. We are angry, hateful, hypocritical and, in an age where we hear “tolerance” preached by politicians, political groups, social organizations and individuals, we are decidedly intolerant.
Social media is a good example of a free market – individual citizens are able to determine what is important to them and keep stories alive for weeks, months, years. It’s not always (and rarely, in fact) what the press, political philosophers or economists might deem important, but there is power in that freedom. It’s not unlike the way in which supermarkets stock their shelves – they are just as likely to keep lots of “Count Chocula” around because of demand, rather than healthier foods that nutritionists and physicians might recommend. (This statement is not intended to start a discussion about deceptive advertising and unscrupulous marketing – only to serve as an example of the self-correcting attributes of markets)
Sadly, the incessant postings on social media tend to spring from ignorance, lack of credible research, and the tribalism we’ve discussed on this forum in various ways. I suppose on one level it could be seen as a miscarriage of the First Amendment as the founders may have intended it – perhaps they envisioned a more scholarly, or at least informed, public – but freedom is freedom and we have to take what we get if we want to preserve it. (Disclaimer – my comments about social media are from past experience and second-hand information; I do not engage in that corner of the Internet).
I listened to the radio all day yesterday – and got a good dose of a variety of conservative and liberal points of view. A quick overview of Facebook and other posts indicated that both sides were very quick to jump on this issue and point out the hypocrisy of the other guys. Republicans said things like, “This is shameful – especially coming from the party that defines itself by its position on tolerance and freedom!” while those on the left countered with, “See how YOU like being discriminated against, you homophobic intolerant assholes!” followed by the obligatory “Oh yeah?” “Yeah!” and “what are you gonna do about it, huh?”
One particularly insightful (and far less childish) comment coming from the left (someone on a late-night TV talk show last night whom I did not recognize) was this – as paraphrased by me:
“Sarah Huckabee Sanders is one of the most powerful people in the country. For an ordinary citizen to stand up to her and refuse to serve someone in that position is the epitome of freedom”
A similar comment in opposition to that was that this refusal was the epitome of discrimination. It’s a little Orwellian, actually, because there are protected classes against whom it is highly illegal to discriminate – LGBTQ, People of Color, Pigs That Walk On Two Legs – and others who enjoy no such protection and for whom discrimination is tacitly applauded – Republicans, “Trump Supporters”, white males, Christians. Imagine a similar scenario involving Barney Frank instead of Sarah Sanders. Or Cedric Richmond. Or Ken Salazar. Each of these is a member of one of those protected classes, and despite any intent on the part of the Red Hen owner to be speaking only to policy, this refusal to serve would have taken on an entirely different hue.
I agree with the comment that I paraphrased, but I also agree with what he said after making that comment – which was something about the details of the issue and the “nyah nyah” attitude that is surround it (at least on social media).
Maxine Waters’ call to Americans is particularly interesting. Perhaps she sees herself as a modern-day Thomas Paine or Samuel Adams, fomenting the outrage and (hopefully) sparking a grassroots revolution against an oppressive government, but I think she’s more akin to Preston Brooks. We’re not there yet, but the divide is widening. Civility and intelligent discourse have already fallen into the chasm, we are left with a sort of playground mentality of “AM NOT” “ARE TOO” and a juvenile retaliation for perceived offenses that are grossly misunderstood.