Category: Words

I am confident that people who know me in real life will tell you that, while I exhibit at least the usual complement of flaws, odd quirks, and irritating peccadilloes, being hateful is not numbered among them. That’s probably because I’ve been fortunate, and can’t think of anyone who has seriously wronged me or wronged someone I love. Hate simply isn’t an emotion I experience, and the word is not one I use.

I would like to believe that this is true of most people — that they don’t really feel hate much, if at all — and that the word is simply too casually used.

Certainly it is overused. It has become a convenience for some to label a difference of opinion as an expression of hate. This hurts everyone, simultaneously undermining the language, denigrating the person or group so labeled, and forestalling any possibility of discussion and understanding.

We can disagree about even important matters without hate being a factor. We can favor open borders or controlled borders, high minimum wages or no minimum wages, legal same-sex marriage or only traditional marriage, socialism or free markets, free abortion or no abortion — any of these extremes or anything in-between. We can vote Democrat or Republican, have Bernie stickers on our cars or wear Make America Great Again hats, embrace a rainbow of sexual promiscuity or prudishly advocate abstinence, fully accept the apocalyptic claims of the global warming alarmists or be skeptical of their science or the policies they advocate, be an enthusiastic supporter of the trans movement or think it’s a bunch of faddish nonsense, oppose the private ownership of guns or be a pro-gun fanatic in favor of no regulation at all.

None of these positions requires that someone be hateful, and it’s small-minded, presumptuous, and rude behavior to ascribe hate to someone simply because he or she disagrees with your position on these issues — or, indeed, on the vast majority of issues.

I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t hate: how much of your life you want to devote to hating is your business, not mine. I’m saying you shouldn’t accuse other people of hating based on something as superficial as their opinions on topics about which you happen to think differently.

By far, most of the claims of “hate” I hear and read suggest more to me about the person making the claim than about the ostensibly hateful object of the accusation. I think it most often reveals that the accuser is shallow, lacks self-awareness and empathy, is uncharitable, and/or cynically uses the ugly label to silence people whose arguments he or she is unwilling or unable to engage.

Too readily smearing others as “haters” seems itself almost… well, it certainly isn’t an act of love.

My friend Susan Quinn wrote a post recently suggesting a Men’s and Women’s March as a way of re-acknowledging the differences between men and women and re-asserting support for a more traditional understanding of our respective roles. I commented on it, and rained on her parade more than I probably should have, since there’s absolutely nothing wrong with showing support for traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity — shoot, that’s a pet topic of mine. I let my general lack of enthusiasm for public events, and my suspicion that the press would be able to spin such an event in a way that makes it counter-productive, color my comments, and perhaps too much.

There’s room for all kinds of action, all kinds of ways of reaching people with a message. I’m a cantankerous old crank who doesn’t like joining things, but if this inspires you, by all means pursue it. We need everyone contributing in the way he or she feels is best. Go out, make a joyful noise, and spread the word. It’s a worthy cause, and I wish you well.

But that conversation got me thinking about the cultural clash between right and left, conservative and radical, and about the most productive way to meet our cultural opposition in the battle for ideas. It occurred to me, and not for the first time, that the left avoids debate and the discussion of ideas whenever possible. The left is most often about theater, about waving a sign and coining a slogan and drowning out the conversation.

The left thrives in environments where ideas flow in one direction: universities, the press, television, entertainment, protests and mass events. That makes sense: a lot of the left’s ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny and won’t survive a thoughtful challenge; many of their proponents barely understand their own ideas and can’t defend them. Cold facts and figures are not as important as feelings — and in particular as the strong feelings of anger, resentment, outrage, and fear.

Rallies are good for building moral, and sometimes they actually educate people. I was involved in the TEA Party movement in its early days, and I thought the rallies were uplifting and productive. The March for Life is a beautiful and inspirational event, and I applaud the many thousands who take part.

But I think we should focus our greatest attention on confronting the left in the realm of ideas. They own the protest space; they enjoy clashes and confrontation and the noise that silences their critics. That’s what they do best — indeed, it’s all they do well. They excel at loud and meaningless action, and the appearance of righteousness they think it gives them.

We own the battlefield of ideas, where substance matters more than slogans. Most of us step on to the battlefield every single day, and have opportunities to speak up — calmly, thoughtfully, politely — and present a new perspective, perhaps change a mind. We’re all competing for the same minds. We have the advantage that we can actually engage those minds in thoughtful conversation, and impress them with our reasonableness. We should press that advantage at every opportunity.