There seems to be no greater time to acknowledge both sides than now.
A friend recently told me that his dad was worried about what Texas has been doing to me because I had ‘liked’ Donald Trump on Facebook. Perhaps what went unnoticed was that I also ‘liked’ Tomi Lahren, a well-liked conservative voice on social media. What is the issue here?
The issue is not that I ‘liked’ Donald Trump, or Tomi Lahren for that matter. The issue is that listening to the voices that contradict my social network is a trigger for the people in it to ‘worry’ about me.
This perfunctory issue is a result of a fundamental problem. The people with the microphones and cameras pointed at them do not construct arguments, evaluate new information, or rid themselves of trivial eloquence and fervor when they speak, because the people whose ears and eyes are listening and looking are not, to quote Neil Postman, “able to distinguish between sensuous pleasure, or charm, or ingratiating tone (if such there be) of the words, and the logic of their argument” (Amusing Ourselves to Death, p. 26).
Are you immune to eloquence and fervor? Can you peel away the words, ignore the emotions, the makeup, the white teeth, and evaluate the logic in a person’s argument? How well can you understand Donald Trump when you disregard anything he says as fast as his supporters disregard Hillary Clinton?
Here is a case in point.
I took a close look at Colin Kaepernick’s eighteen-minute interview and Tomi Lahren’s response to it. Specifically, I evaluated their arguments on the basis of logic.
Some background: Colin Kaepernick is an NFL quarterback who has not stood up during the nation anthem in his last four preseason games in order to raise awareness about problems with law enforcement in the United States. Tomi Lahren is a popular conservative TV and video host who thinks what he is doing is irreverent and unhelpful.
First Look: The Eloquence and Fervor
What Colin says: He wants to bring awareness to some of the injustices in the United States, specifically police brutality and accountability. He respects veterans (some are his family and friends) because they fight for something greater than a flag or a song – they fight for principles. He felt he needed to do something because, as a famous athlete in the position to have his voice heard, he aims to help express what is happening to people who don’t have a voice. He sees his action as something that can unify and start tough conversations. He is self-aware of his privileges and luxuries as a professional athlete, and recognizes his social responsibility as such to be informed about these issues. He also clearly distinguishes his football responsibilities from his responsibilities as a citizen. His definition of successful or significant change on the issues of police brutality and accountability is vague and hard for him to lock down.
What Tomi says: She asks a lot of questions. What does Colin mean by wanting things to significantly change? She mentions things like economic oppression, black-on-black crime, and two-parent household statistics as potential metrics for change. She claims Colin is not genuinely interested in the injustices, but rather just wants some more of the media spotlight as he struggles as a professional athlete. Does he know where all his money comes from, namely the American people who buy tickets to his game? If so, will he forfeit his money, since his money is also American, like the national anthem and the flag? Will he not play with his helmet, since the helmet has an American flag? What will his impact be? Will he actually do anything for the cause? She argues that standing during the national anthem is a moment of unity that demands we overcome our differences to show that we have more in common than we do divisions. She believes Colin is playing the ‘victim card’, and asks, where does that get you? At the end of the day, Tomi argues that people must still respect your country, even if you dislike certain things about it.
Second Look: The Logic of the Arguments
Colin’s argument is made out of a genuine concern for people who have experienced police brutality. He is self-aware of his privileged position in society, and is acting out of a desire to leverage that position to bring awareness to it. While very noble, his argument fundamentally lacks a measurable goal beyond “the brutality must stop, and there must be accountability.”
Tomi’s argument begins by stating Colin’s fundamental flaw – “What is the significant change he hopes to see?” However, instead of demanding metrics to measure police brutality and accountability, i.e. the issues Colin wants to raise awareness for, her logic more or less stops there. Near the end, she argues that not standing during the national anthem violates an American principle of respecting the American flag regardless of the circumstances.
Third Look: What Remains
Tomi correctly identifies the flaw in Colin’s argument, but she becomes too distracted by the violation of one of her principles (respect the American flag) to address it logically.
Conclusions
I think the susceptibility to eloquence and fervor is the most fundamental deficit in public discussions. However, if you can evaluate the logic of someone’s argument, you can understand both sides, and forget about the name-games and nonsense.
There seems to be no greater time to acknowledge both sides than now.
