Uncomfortable questions that might help us understand issues in the news
When I read many news stories about controversies these days, I often make a judgment supporting one side or another and then ask myself a question that, also often, makes me squirm a bit with discomfort.
The question: What would I think if people I support or people I oppose were saying or doing this?
This question was particularly acute as I read an Associated Press story this week headlined on our web site “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry.” The story describes how both presidential candidates are using vastly different interpretations of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol to bolster their 2024 presidential campaign hopes. No one who follows the news even casually would be surprised by the distinctions: Biden sees the events as an effort by the former president to promote an insurrection that would keep him in power; Trump sees them as a patriotic protest that has led to government repression and oppression of dissident voices.
Deeper analysis can find many more points of nuance between those two extremes, but I imagine most people following the issues find themselves leaning toward one or the other. That observation is certainly born out in our letters to the editor column, where the debate rages fairly regularly.
It’s fine and reasonable for us to argue over such an important moment in our nation’s history. But what I wonder about regarding the arguing is whether or how often those of us making judgments take a minute to examine the topic as if we were on the opposite side.
How, for example, would those who insist the events of Jan. 6 were an unfortunate excess by a crowd of overzealous protesters define those events if, say, President Bill Clinton had held a rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2001, encouraging protesters to march on the Capitol as Congress was preparing to certify George W. Bush’s disputed election over Al Gore? There certainly was cause enough for partisans to question the validity of Bush’s victory. What if we had seen images of angry Democratic supporters climbing the walls of the Capitol on that day, breaking windows, smashing through doors, assaulting Capitol police with bear spray and more? Would Republicans have considered such a response an unfortunate excess?
I suspect not.
I worry, too, that many Democrats indeed would have described it that way and would have argued that excessive passions of people who love their country got out of control but didn’t represent the true values of the party.
Similar exercises can be applied to many other controversies. For example, one could easily find such contradictions in values by extending the comparison to study how people react to Black Lives Matter protests or reports of outrageous urban crimes. Regarding simply points of argument, I am often amused by the outrage that some people express over reported cases of corrupt financial dealings involving efforts to influence Joe Biden through his son Hunter while showing little to no concern about similar claims involving Donald Trump’s children. And, of course, it also seems to me that when I see people railing against the questionable financial deals involving Ivanka, Don Jr. or Jared Kushner, they rarely acknowledge or reference the Biden issues.
Fortunately, it is in voting booths or courtrooms and not newsrooms, bar rooms or living rooms where such matters are litigated. But public opinion is still important, as the commingling of Jan. 6 and the election of 2024 appears set to demonstrate. And to the extent that the values of each of us contribute to the assessment of all of us, it can be instructive to ask ourselves that simple question: How would I respond if the people I support or the people I oppose were doing the things that I am reading about and seeing in the news?
Perhaps an even greater question could be, “Can I answer that question honestly?” It’s difficult for any of us to do so without coming up with reasons to justify our different assessments of two similar events. But, you know, I think we’d all be a little better off if we would try. And we would probably approach the news a bit more thoughtfully as well.
jslusher@dailyherald.com