Feeling Smirched

Last week someone called me a Nazi. 

Nazis. Public domain.

Really, he only called me a “Nazi sympathizer.” But at that level of calumny, how significant is the distinction? 

I am neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer, and I’m not sure the person who called me one could tell a real Nazi from a Cumberland Presbyterian.

Cumberland Presbyterians, photo by Delmont Wilson for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, 1964. Fair use.

After half a century in which I have purposely abjured political discourse, I found myself squarely in the path of a carelessly tossed mudball. It happened when I challenged a Facebook friend’s casual labeling of certain local officials, by name, as Nazis. They were Nazis, it seemed, because they performed their official duties in a way my Facebook friend did not like.

It’s easy enough to imagine that people who regularly talk politics in public may be Nazified, vilified, and mudslung as a matter of course. 

Perhaps they get used to all this besmirchery.

I, however, cannot.

#

Karl Marx. Public domain. 

Vitriol was routine in our community around 1970. A mob of self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries dominated the UW-Madison campus. On any street corner, you could hear fellow students and not-so-students praising Marx’s theory on alienation of the workers or critiquing the more recent writings of Herbert Marcuse. 

They were intellectuals, you see. Nonetheless, they had stingers.

Clinging to ordinary, plain-vanilla political thoughts left over from the 1950s and early -60s, I was drummed out of revolutionary society. When I sought a clarification of intent in an impromptu soviet convened ostensibly to oppose a particular strategem of the Vietnam War, the organizers snickered at me and swiftly moved on to the next speaker. 

A small cell of leftist students whom I knew, busy plotting to unionize the employer who had created their part-time jobs, lowered their voices theatrically, loudly noting that “Spy Sommers” was in the room. As if I gave a damn how they amused themselves.

You may not know this, Dear Reader, but Your New Favorite Writer is one of Those Timid People. There are quite a few of us. When attacked, we choose flight, not fight. Over the years, I’ve added layers of bluff and bravado for self-protection, as many of us do, but deep inside the 79-year-old author dwells a shy little boy. 

That’s why I withdrew from politics. It frightened me. Besides the avoidance of bruising battles in boring polemical trenches where nothing I prized could be won . . . I have also kept from being wounded. 

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me,” Mom said. That sounds comforting, but it doesn’t happen to be true. Words hold power. Words can be wings, bearing you up to a soaring perspective. But words can be weapons. Words can hurt. 

For that reason, our parents and teachers, besides giving worthless advice about sticks and stones, also taught kindness and forbearance. Take care, they said, with other people’s feelings. We did not always heed this advice, but we did accept its relevance. I, and possibly you as well, Gentle Reader, grew up in a world where tact and gentleness had a place. 

But that world changed very swiftly about 1968.

I returned to college in 1969, after a few years in the uniform of the United States, to find the rules I knew had changed beyond recognition, or were simply dispensed with. 

It was now okay to flay your opponents with hateful and slanderous words. This was really nothing more than bullying and intimidation. But as with all topics in those days, it received an intellectual gloss. It was called “the politics of confrontation.” 

The politics of confrontation meant this: If someone disagrees with you, even by a trifle—in fact, especially if the disagreement is trivial—then go all scorched-earth on them. Never mind “Come, let us reason together.” Just flame them. 

If they stand in your way, use anything up to and including nitrate explosives.

I kid you not.

Sterling Hall Bombing plaque. Photo by JabberWok, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

In 1970, after the Kent State massacre on May 4 and the Sterling Hall bombing on August 24, the prospect of bloodshed to overthrow the old order lost a bit of its allure. Our society slipped into a torpid malaise in which old leftists still rumbled and grumbled, but routine commerce and something resembling normality returned to American life.

Yet we never got truly “back to normal.” We never got over the habit of subsituting invective for political discourse. It remains with us to this day. That is one reason politics is so toxic.

This problem is widely acknowledged. Hardly a week goes by without someone’s launching a new, wearily-heralded effort to “restore civility” to our national conversation. 

Such attempts are bound to fail, because civility is not the issue. Civility, in the political context, was a permanent victim of 1968. 

The only thing that will save us now is human decency. 

The vacuity of these people’s social and intellectual lives gets filled with formless, reflexive anger, which spills over into vicious utterance. They can’t tell you why you are a Nazi. It’s enough to state that you are one. Or a racist, or whatever. Just offhand, by definition or decree.

It absolves them of any compunction, relieves them of any responsibility for the well-being of others. There is no need to treat anyone with what we used to call kindness or decency.

#

Dear Reader, it is clear you are not one of those I am talking about.

Yet I hear a whisper from the back of the hall: “In the face of pure evil, niceties can become irrelevant.” 

The thing is, I don’t think we often come in contact with pure evil. 

I think, rather, we have grown willing to transgress all boundaries of decency in our outraged harassment of those we disagree with, whom we define as evil to salve our consciences. 

That’s what I’m torqued about: The abandonment of those curbs and boundaries—that kindness and forbearance—that once kept our politics in a manageable state. 

So sue me.

Oh, by the way, I re-checked my facts just five minutes before posting this and can definitely affirm: (1) I continue to think my ordinary, plain-vanilla political thoughts left over from the 1950s and early -60s—and (2) I’m still not a Nazi.

Blessings,

Larry F. Sommers

Your New Favorite Writer

Police

In the spring of 1965 I flunked out of Knox College. The timing of this was pretty spectacular, as there was a war on. 

I lost my student deferment and went to the top of the Draft Board’s list for two years’ service in the Army or Marines. Instead I volunteered for a four-year hitch in the U.S. Air Force. They sent me to Monterey, California, to learn Chinese. 

After learning Chinese, I spent a year on a Taiwan mountaintop, monitoring Chinese Communist radio communications; then spent about fifteen months flying out of Okinawa, grinding away at the Chinese Problem from recon aircraft over Southeast Asia. 

RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft. Photo by Tim Felce, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

I completed my service in September 1969 and came home to a land I barely recognized. Gone was the familiar America of Walt Whitman, singing its varied carols. In its place wallowed a society designed by, or for, Saul Alinsky and Howard Zinn.

The culture shock was starkened by my having gone immediately from military service to the University of Wisconsin campus at the height of its anti-war, revolutionary, zeal. The serious leftists in Madison, some of whom I got to know pretty well, were dedicated, if mostly amateur, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist agitators. 

Revolution

Turned loose by Uncle Sam, I sought now to redeem myself as a student. This time around, I promised myself, I would shun all-night poker parties and all-day Frisbee flinging. I would hit the books with righteous fervor. Admitted to the university on academic probation, I was determined to clear my name in one semester. 

Meanwhile, the campus of 35,000 students seethed with anger, revolt, socialist machinations, and broken windows.

On the twelfth floor of Van Hise Hall, East Asian and South Asian language students gathered to read, translate, argue, and kibbitz. From a perch nudging the stratosphere we gazed down on ant-like protesters surging at straight lines of National Guardsmen and police. Puffs of white smoke plumed the ground here and there—signs that our homeward treks at day’s end would be tinged with tear gas.

“The Pigs”

One day a young man whose name I no longer recall complained about the police—whom he called “the pigs,” in the argot of the day.

Pig. Photo by BadgerGravling, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

“I wish you wouldn’t call them pigs,” I said.

He frowned. “Why not? That’s what they are.”

“No. Pigs are animals; police officers are people. They may not share your ideas, they may be ranged against you in a riot. But they are human beings. If you call them pigs you deny their humanity and make it convenient to disregard their human attributes. They may have a viewpoint  of their own, but you will never bother to consider it, because they’re only pigs.” 

For me, this was a long speech.

Policeman. Photo by rocor, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

The young man gazed at me for a moment and said, “You’re right. I hadn’t thought of that. From now on I will not call police officers pigs.”

A transformative moment, in the midst of the Revolution?  Fat chance.

If this young man was changed by my earnest entreaty, then he was the only one. I soon figured out that I was not made for political battles, or any other kind of battles. I gave up trying to engage intellectually with my friends on the left and shunned politics from that day to this. 

The protesters of 1969-70 opposed the police not only in practice but in principle. Policemen enforced the law. Thus they were tools of the Establishment, defenders of the status quo. The enemy.

Kent State, Sterling Hall

On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guard members killed four students at Kent State University. Then on August 24, here in Madison, revolutionaries planted a huge bomb that demolished Sterling Hall, a large academic building, and killed a physics researcher.These grim events took steam out of the anti-war movement; but only in January 1973—when President Richard Nixon pulled the U.S. out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government collapsed, and Ho Chi Minh’s communists took over the whole country—did that movement end.

Pre-Vietnam normality began to seep back into the United States. But the gaping wound in our national fabric did not heal. Fifty years later, we remain mired in distrust of one another, of our government, and of authority in general.

Today’s Crises

“Authority” can mean two different things. Let’s call them “intrinsic authority” and “conferred authority.” 

Intrinsic authority speaks for itself. Jesus was said to have taught “as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” When you have a knee replaced, you may rely on the surgeon’s medical diploma; but your go/no-go decision might be based on your gut’s  confidence in the surgeon, not on his formal qualifications. That’s intrinsic authority.

Conferred authority is legal, or legalistic. It is the authority of a city clerk to license a couple for marriage. It is the authority of a president to okay the launch of nuclear-tipped missiles. 

When intrinsic authority and conferred authority coincide, one of the results is a high-trust society. Unfortunately, such coincidence is becoming a rare thing. We give little obedience to conferred authority because we discern no intrinsic authority within it. We jeer our leaders; we defy those to whom they delegate power, including the police. 

Then and Now

The long-drawn-out war of our present day, being fought in Afghanistan since 2001, does not attract the intense interest that the one in Vietnam did fifty years ago. Fewer American troops are involved, none of them are draftees, and Southwest Asia seems even farther away now than Southeast Asia did then. 

Today’s great controversy is not war but race—racism, racial discrimination, white privilege, and the oppression of blacks. But in one way our time does resemble the past: Police and policing stand at the center of the conflict.

I have not heard the term “pigs” applied to police in recent years—not even in the past two or three weeks. They are still regarded as humans, which is good. Recent events, however, paint them as racists—which may be worse than pigs.

Because of this, people keen on public order rush to point out that “most police” are dedicated, overworked public servants and should not be tarred with the brush of racism.

Defunding

But people keen on social justice assert that racism is systemic in our society. They profess that “defunding” the police would be a good step toward redressing the balance. The general public views this concept with horror, so the would-be defunders belatedly explain they do not mean complete defunding but only partial defunding. This satisfies nobody, because some folks really do want to abolish the police, while everybody else thinks the police need more funding, not less.

In all this palaver, what gets lost is any mature reckoning of the unique position that police occupy in our society. 

Mao Zedong in 1963. Public Domain.

The late Chairman Mao got at least one thing right: Political power does grow from the barrel of a gun. That is true always and everywhere. In a free society, we place that gun in the hands of a police officer and expect that officer to exercise conferred authority within limits prescribed by law.

George Orwell in 1943. Public Domain.

George Orwell said, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Police are the people we hire to do violence on our behalf.

Protectors

What I am getting at is that, while police officers are humans, they are humans of a special kind.

Most of us fall into the category of the Protected. Police officers are the Protectors.

My wife’s cousin was a police officer in a Chicago suburb. He said that within a few weeks of putting on his badge, he had learned to lump people into two categories: good folks and bad guys. And he made this distinction within seconds of entering a situation. Such swift decisions must have included a large reliance on intuition. Was he ever mistaken in his assessments? The conversation did not extend that far. 

Those who have the “take-charge” kind of personality that leads them into law enforcement, and who need to survive in potentially hazardous situations, will most likely develop the same reliance on snap judgments that my wife’s cousin described. 

So when we, the People, lay plans to send out social workers in place of cops, let’s get real. When we modify police training and rules of engagement, let’s remember that police will need to translate their instructions into action in fluid situations. We should not be surprised when they find their powers creatively enhanced by statutes that we had thought would curb their power.

Remember that we license the police to use violence—brutal acts labeled as “authorized use of force”—on our behalf. If we do not wish to confer this authority, perhaps we should completely defund the police; abolish the departments. 

Then all of us, including those who “abjure” violence, would need to become the Protectors for ourselves and our families. Thirty-one states allow firearms to be carried openly. I suppose a general defunding of police departments would bring us back to the old Western ambience of Dodge City. Is that the outcome we seek?

#

What we face, in practical terms, is a need to improve the way we confer authority upon our police officers.

But the greater issue is seldon spoken of. It is simply this: Unless those who wield conferred authority combine it with intrinsic authority, our problems will continue, will intensify, and will multiply.

Intrinsic authority = character. 

There is no substitute for character. Its short supply, in the police and in the whole population, is our real problem. 

When can we start working on that?

Blessings,

Larry F. Sommers, Your New Favorite Author

Author of Price of Passage—A Tale of Immigration and Liberation.

Price of Passage

Norwegian Farmers and Fugitive Slaves in Pre-Civil War Illinois

(History is not what you thought!)