The Meaning of Ferguson

In the aftermath of the Grand Jury’s refusal to indict the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, TV and print pundits are calling for America-wide soul searching.

Why?

Of course, many ill-informed, and some ill-motivated people, were upset by the decision.  The “rabble” rioted supposedly in response (as if the looting, destruction and burning of businesses in the town, some of which were black-owned, represented a reply to judicial injustice).

Others slammed the Grand Jury’s action as improper and the result of a presumed bias in favor of white police officers and against black victims.

Highlighting that attitude was an ABC interview conducted by George Stephanopoulos who questioned officer Darren Wilson as to whether he would have acted the same way, in self-defense, if the person had been white.  (Is that supposed to be a joke?  Did Stephanopoulos intend to imply that if one’s life is perceived to be at risk by a white assailant, the cop wouldn’t have shot him?)

But here’s another view.

Contrary to widely-circulated initial witness reports following the August episode, Brown had not been shot in the back; the bullets hit him in the front as he was, according to several Grand Jury witnesses, charging toward the police officer. 

The claim that he raised his hands in the air and cried out “don’t shoot” was a myth promulgated by Brown’s friends and bandied about by those in the media and elsewhere with an anti-police agenda in mind.  Yet the failure to indict, and not the reasons for it, has been the focus of protests.  The initial narrative of what happened, fostered by Al Sharpton and Brown’s allies, was plainly accepted as true by those who wanted to believe that the “unarmed black teenager”, repeated ad nauseam by CNN, was gunned down because he was.  The fact that he was a thug who had just roughed up a store owner and was high on marijuana, at least, was ignored.  The perception was aided by the intercession of attorney General Eric Holder calling for a civil rights violation investigation.  The false storyline persisted over the months since August despite leaks of autopsy reports that sharply contradicted it.

 

Why?

It is hardly original to note that blacks and whites typically view violence between the races differently.  Remember the OJ Simpson trial of many years ago?  The conflicting views are particularly stark when the white person is a police officer.  Historically, it’s hard to argue with the tendency in black communities to view such conflicts as targeting them.  Because, of course, for many, many years predominately, if not exclusively, white police forces did exactly that. 

But history also provides proof that such attitudes and conduct have changed significantly over the past half century.  Does any objective observer dispute that both economically and socially blacks are much better off and that racial prejudice is a much weaker force?

Yet people being people, lessons learned over the decades (such as to be leery of white police officers) for self-protection are not easily unlearned despite their reduced or nonexistent relevance today.

So it is understandably true that for many – maybe most blacks – there remains a predisposition to believe that when a white police officer shoots a black person, it was unjustified.  As Ferguson made clear, that predisposition stubbornly resists acceptance of a new racial reality.

[The antics of the Al Sharptons of the world, alas, seem dedicated to feeding and fueling old habits of thinking.  Their incendiary and false accusations helped to ignite the violence in Ferguson.  One can only hope that that wasn’t their objective although it is certainly fair to ask what does one expect when one lights a fuse?]

How Language Affects Opinions

Last week, the Wall Street Journal featured a headline over a story on the brutal ISIS beheading of an American aid worker:  “Militants kill U.S. hostage”.

What did the use of the term “militants” convey?  Was it accurately descriptive?  Would “savages” or “radical Islamists” have been more appropriate?  Dictionaries define “militants” as people who are “vigorously active, aggressive, often combative”.  Included are those “engaged” in combat.

Accordingly, “militant” is not incorrect as such, but it is a term that obviously encompasses a wide range of behavior from the strong supporter of a particular public policy to a violent warrior. 

Thus, its use fails to convey clearly the nature of those labeled “militants”.  In the context of ISIS, I suggest that it fails to convey the seriousness – the threat and danger – of those to whom it is applied.

Think of an individual who, beforehand, knows nothing about the organization.  He reads a headline that applies the term “savage” or “terrorist” to it.  Will he have the same view of ISIS if it were tagged as being “militant” instead?

The use of language – the use of a label – strongly influences how we perceive the subject matter.  Abortion labels are illustrative.  When the still highly-controversial Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was issued a half century ago, those in favor of the decision sanctioning abortion were viewed, understandably, as pro-abortion.  Those opposed were anti-abortion.

But then the opponents had a brainstorm.  Instead of positioning themselves negatively, they put a positive spin on their posture.  Their position was trumpeted by them as being “pro-life”.  Abortion supporters were immediately put on the defensive.  (Who wasn’t pro-life?)  But they soon found a new term for their position:  “Pro-choice”.   (Who doesn’t favor choice?)  And the verbal battle has been joined ever since. 

[Frank Luntz, a pollster and focus group leader, well known to Fox News viewers, wrote a fascinating 2007 book on the power of language in the shaping of opinions:  Words That Work – It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.]

It’s unlikely, in forming an opinion on ISIS, that one’s view of its “militant” members will be anywhere as hostile if the group were known to be composed of “terrorists”.

Labels matter.  They do indeed shape opinion.

There’s considerable irony, given the paper’s support for a strong foreign policy, in the Wall Street Journal’s “Militants” headline.  One would expect to see it in The New York Times, not there.

Do Manners Matter?

As children, we were taught – or should have been – that manners are important.  “Say please. Thank you.  Excuse me.”  And so forth.

The lessons generally took.  Politeness in human kind, I suggest, comes naturally. 

Some of us were also instructed on dinner table etiquette - with considerably less success.   Instinctive recognition that the fork goes on the left [why, when most of us are right-handed] is not exactly known as a common character trait in mankind.

But in a broader sense, manners – and the rules of etiquette which support them, are essential components of a civilized society.  What, after all, does the concept that we are social animals mean, or as john Donne put it, “no man is an island”?

We live together and need each other.   Therefore, we strive to get along with one another.  Good manners are the social lubricants that make that possible. 

How? 

Search no further than the golden rule.  Treat others as you would have them treat you.

A person foremost wants to be loved or at least respected and valued as a human being, not as a tool or as a means to someone else’s end.

So when we ask someone to do something, good manners direct that we say “please” so the request is presented with the option of being declined.  Thus, the request is formally respectful of that person’s free and independent status even though the reality is that an option to refuse may not be intended as both parties recognize (think of the boss’s “request” for action by his assistant). 

Closely related is the idea of consideration for others.  Its absence is rudeness – bad manners.  Holding the door for the person behind you and waiting your turn at the four way stop sign intersection are examples.

Another critical aspect of manners is not engaging in behavior that is offensive to others – don’t chew with your mouth open or blow your nose at the dinner table. 

Of course, the form of manners is not universal.  In the Middle East, for instance, belching by a guest after a meal denotes appreciation for the hospitality.

 

And in every society what constitutes acceptable behavior is subject to change.

An interesting example, in America these days, is the popularity of gift cards.  On one level, their use, instead of the purchase of a tangible gift, reflects a lack of consideration.  The giver needn’t think long about what the intended recipient might want.  But from another perspective, maybe the recipient would rather receive a card.  He can avoid the hassle of returning an unwanted item and get directly what he rather have that the giver might be unable to discern.  Older people unaccustomed to the now common usage might view their givers as ill-mannered.  Young people, however, are more likely to appreciate their receipt. 

At the core of good manners is simple respect.  Its perceived absence likely makes a person angry since no one likes to be disrespected. 

Contemplate the current political environment.  Did President Obama show respect for the GOP by his begrudging acknowledgment of the election results:  “they had a good night”?  Or was the lack of graciousness in defeat disrespectful?

Do liberals respect conservatives in Washington and vice versa?  As I see it, the former are more at fault than the latter.  Consider the myriad comments of the likes of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi impugning Republican motivation.

Whatever the case, there is no doubt that Washington is sorely lacking the social lubricants of good manners.

A Mandate – Or Opportunity?

The Republicans are properly ecstatic over last week’s thumping of the Democrats.  Some are even proclaiming the result as a mandate for a conservative agenda.

Is that so?  Unlikely.  The GOP campaign mantra for the midterms was akin to Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential bid.  “It’s about the economy stupid.”  This time “Obama” replaced economy.  No wonder.

Election eve polling showed that 56% of the voters disapproved of the President’s performance.  Of those disapproving, 82% voted for Republican congressional polls, according to exit polls.
 

Ironically, in light of Administration efforts to pin public discontent with Washington gridlock on Congressional Republicans, those voters who are hostile to Congress voted GOP 51% to 47%.  Evidently, voters realized that Congress’ poor performance was more appropriately laid at the feet of Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid.

Further, 33% of those supporting Republicans stated that their intention of voting for the GOP was to show unhappiness with the President.  Only 19% of those favoring Democrats wanted their vote to be considered as support for Obama. 

So what do these numbers mean?  Voters focused on punishing both incumbents and challengers who were Democrats and, hence, supporters of the President, notwithstanding protestations of many such candidates about “Obama who?”

Clearly the electorate turned thumbs down on the President, as polls reflected.  Yet other polls established that Republicans in Washington aren’t popular, either.

The reasons for the broad dissatisfaction with Washington are  straightforward.  Problems fester.  Budget deficits grow.  Economic malaise spreads.  Out-of-control entitlements expand.  Promises are not kept.  Hopes are dashed.  So cynicism abounds against both parties.
 

Yes, the Democrats are blamed more.  But with the Republicans, soon to be in charge of the entire Congress, that verdict is subject to rapid change. 

In a sense, perhaps the GOP did receive a mandate, albeit a negative one.  “Don’t be like President Obama and the Democrats!”  So, more accurately, what voters handed Republicans on Nov. 4 is the opportunity to be different.   Show America that right-of-center government is best for the country.  And maybe that will lead to success in 2016, too.

Call it real hope and change.

Ebola – Err on the Side of Caution

It’s understandable that people returning from West Africa who have provided care for Ebola victims want to be appreciated for their help and be permitted to resume their American lives without delay.

But that’s what they want.

But maybe the American public has a right to insist that they be Ebola-free – for sure. 

Being without symptoms for twenty-one days after possible exposure to those infected is supposed to insure that one is not infected himself.  That’s the reason why three weeks is the period proposed for such people to be isolated – quarantined - from the general population.

 

[As an aside, no one has suggested that the incubation period might be longer than twenty-one days so it’s probably reasonable to think that beyond that period is safe territory.  But it’s also fair to ask are we really sure?]

Yet some returning healthcare workers have protested.  In particular, Kaci Hickox has loudly objected to her confinement in New Jersey when she arrived in the U.S., then in Maine where she was ordered to stay home.  In fact, she persuaded a local judge to greatly reduce her movement restrictions during the quarantine period.

The nurse’s position is that she is not sick and so any restrictions are unnecessary and, therefore, constitute an unwarranted limitation on her freedom.

And she might be right.  But maybe not.  Public health official assumptions about the potential, and method, of contracting the disease have proven to be suspect.  Assertions that are based on probability, rather than certainty, are not reassuring when dealing with such a deadly and scary illness.  There may be a lot about contracting Ebola that we do not yet know.  So as sympathetic as one might be to returning workers from infected areas of Africa, common sense demands that a quarantine be fully enforced.  Indeed, the seriousness of Ebola makes obvious the appeal of a policy that errs on the side of caution.

Viewed from this perspective, nurse Hickox is being childish and selfish.  The inconvenience of having one’s freedom of movement and association limited for three weeks hardly outweighs the potential risk one may pose to the broader community.