Here is yet another conversation that, for many, is very difficult. However, this conversation is not that difficult when you look at it from a reasonable person’s standard. Difficult discussions are uncomfortable but necessary to promote open communication, advance diverse ideas and perspectives, and ultimately lead to positive growth. The conversation I am speaking of deals with the issues of discrimination, antisemitism, freedom of speech, hate-crime-related violence, terrorism, and the concept of being either pro-American or anti-American. Therefore, I make no apologies for having it.
But first, let me be clear: this is not about American politics, though many have tried to make it that way. Politicians, from the President of the United States and Vice President to members of Congress, from Democrat to Republican, to Independent or Green Party, have often placed their political agendas ahead of those they were elected to represent. Politicians who platform on supporting and protecting marginalized or under-represented communities support laws that primarily victimize these same communities. Politicians who platform on law and order practice fraud and corruption, believing they are above the same laws they introduce. Politicians who have platforms on anti-discrimination, equality, and inclusiveness spew hate-promoting rhetoric or join hate mobs calling for the discrimination or victimization of people. All in the interest of building their voter base by feigning support for whatever cause dominates the media airwaves.
But like politicians, some people with no real social value other than “celebrity” status achieved through various ridiculous reasons push their political and even skewed personal views into emotional situations. They somehow believe that because they make millions of dollars doing nothing of any real social benefit, they are qualified to dictate social norms, behaviors, and values. Some of these politicians and celebrities do so because they have no moral compass, and this is simply who they are at the end of the day when no one is looking, which is even more concerning. Interestingly, this support by politicians and celebrities often evaporates after elections are over, the limelight dies down, and other causes gain the spotlight and become rich voter fishing holes or a means of keeping one’s celebrity status alive. This cycle will repeat over and over again. Albert Einstein once stated that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing(s) over and over again, but expecting a different outcome. “How insightful and right he was.
Thus, regardless of any political party or who we view as “role models,” we, as Americans, and more importantly, humans must use individual intellect instead of groupthink to avoid insanity. Doing the right thing should never be swayed or impeded by political agendas or groupthink, lest we never reach the destination everyone claims to seek. It is not about morals because social norms form morals, and it would seem our social norms need an overhaul. It is, however, about human decency.
Case in point: Lately, you cannot step outside the sanctuary of your personal quiet place without hearing about the endless chaos occurring in American cities and on American higher-education campuses. The media stirs the public into a feverish frenzy to garner views, promote private agendas, and ensure they maintain some relevance in a world growing more weary and less trusting of them. Celebrities join the fray to garner lost or diminished recognition and perceived relevance. Politicians change their positions to garner support from ripe voter groups who would otherwise not give them a second look. Media groups create chaos, discontent, and sensationalism to build ratings and attract viewer groups they perceive as easily swayed and easy to capture.
For example, CNN recently gave a platform to a podcaster named Kara Swisher. Ms. Swisher embarrassingly believes herself to be qualified to speak to what is pro-American and anti-American. When speaking about the out-of-control, antisemitic protests occurring on college campuses, Ms. Swisher stated in her interview, “There are heinous things that are said, but there is a line where you have to support also young people, especially when they do things that they do badly. Not to support them is sort of anti-American in a way,”
Well, that is an interesting spin on what is anti-American. So, supporting intellectually dishonest and ignorant students spewing hate speech, supporting calls for violence, and even eradicating certain people based on their religion, ethnicity, or place of origin should be supported because not doing so is “Anti-American”? So, what is pro-American?
Of course, this is the first question that should have been posed to Ms. Swisher, but it is the mainstream media, after all. So consider this: Is pro-American the support for all the people of America? Is it the support of our belief in freedom and its inherent value? Is it our support for freedom of expression, speech, religion, freedom of choice, prosperity, and freedom from persecution or discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, or national origin? Is it our sincere commitment to the principle that “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?”
Or is it the support of calls by one group of people for discrimination, violence, death to jews and America, or the extinction of an entire group of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, or national origin? Is it the belief that all people, except for Jews, are created equal, that only some people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?”
I think we would all agree that the first option is more aligned with being pro-American. Particularly since it does not call for death to America or any of its citizens. America is the world’s melting pot, meaning it is a nation of diversity. Thus, to be pro-America means embracing diversity, embarrassing those whom we are different from, and ensuring safety and freedom for everyone within our great melting pot. The second option does not do this; it does exactly the opposite of this and is thus anti-American, yet Ms. Swisher states otherwise.
Let us consider a couple of scenarios that call her position into question. Would it be “Pro-American” if white supremacist protesters openly spewed hate speech, spit on, and called for the discrimination of and violence or eradication of black people on campuses? Would it be pro-American to prevent black people from attending school or feeling safe while at school? Of course not; it would be very clearly anti-American.
Would it be pro-American if Jewish protesters openly spewed hate speech, spit on, and called for the discrimination of and violence or eradication of Arab or Muslim people on campuses? Would it be pro-American to prevent Arab or Muslim people from attending school or feeling safe while at school? Again, of course not, but according to Ms. Swisher, to not support these two groups would, in essence, also be anti-American.
The scenarios are all the same; just those doing the hate and those receiving it have been changed. It is also insufficient to argue that places around the world engaging in what some perceive as bad acts justify this behavior. If this were true, then it would be justified to carry on this practice against Black people of African descent or origin because genocide has and does occur in African nations. It would be justified against Palestinians because of the mass act of terrorism committed on Oct 7, 2023, where 1200 innocent lives were lost and many more negatively impacted forever. It would be justified against Arabs and Muslims from other Middle Eastern nations in response to the mass violence and human rights violations committed against women and innocent civilians within Arab or Muslim countries and around the world as acts of terrorism. It would be justified against the Russian people because alleged war crimes and human rights violations occur in Russia, the same for China, and the list goes on and on. Thus, under this intellectually dishonest thinking, we would all be justified in hating each other and advocating for or supporting violence or the eradication of every group of people in America. Well hello insanity!
If this sounds rational or reasonable to you, then it is you that is anti-American. Where do we draw the line, and who decides that line? I believe it is all of us who consider ourselves Americans that draw that line. Thus, we need to draw it at the point before we accept hate, discrimination, and violence and call for the eradication of others. We as Americans need to hold everyone accountable to that line, with no exceptions, and in doing so, that is pro-American. Ms. Swisher and those who accept her argument are extremely intellectually dishonest and are, therefore, ignorant and lacking common sense, or they are intentionally practicing discrimination and hate and are themselves anti-American.
At the end of the day, it is our diversity and rejection of hate, discrimination, and violence against groups other than the one(s) we as individuals support or belong to that makes this America; we must have the courage of our convictions to hold ourselves and others accountable. Advocating for or supporting discrimination, violence against, or the eradication of any group of people is not pro-American; let’s be clear about that: it is anti-American and anti-humanity.
Again, this is not about politics, it is about being a rational, reasonable, and intelligent human being. The argument that not supporting antisemitic behavior and calls for hate related violence is anti-American is intellectually dishonest and ignorant. History will not honor people like this, but it will condemn them forever. This is a lesson, Ms. Swisher; politicians, celebrities, and all of those students and people who support this horrible behavior do not understand but would be well advised to make an effort to understand, lest you risk repeating world history related to hate and inhumanity, thus becoming yet another example of Einstein’s theory of insanity.
Intellectual Dishonesty: The slippery Slope to Insanity
