We all hear a lot about “us” and “them” these days. Donald Trump Tweets something vile or stupid, and this becomes evidence that “they” are also vile and stupid. “We” are the enlightened ones, and we can’t understand why “they” can’t see things our way—or maybe we can. After all, we’ve just said that they’re vile and stupid, right?
Or to put it another way, Roy Moore or Matt Lauer get accused of vile and reprehensible things, and suddenly we feel vindicated. This proves it, we think. They’re a bunch of lying hypocrites.
We like labels and categories in our culture, and for good reason. Labels and categories allow us to make sense of the chaos. Calling someone conservative or liberal can convey a lot of information about her very quickly, and since politics is so complicated and touches so many different issues, being able to quickly make sense of things by use of labels can be helpful.
But our culture is also increasingly diverse and divided, and not just in the obvious ways that the word “diverse” connotes in most conversations these days. Right now people typically talk of “us” and “them” as Trump supporters and those opposed (you decide for yourself who the “us” is”). To the #Resistance types, Trump supporters are easy to identify: they’re white nationalist racists. To Trump supporters, those who don’t support him are Crazy Commies or (perhaps worse) “Establishment.”
To anyone who thinks about the matter for half a minute, this way of seeing things is obviously and even comically simplistic, of course. But that doesn’t stop folks from seeing it that way—and not just Twitter activists.
One of the reasons that I think that Captain America: Civil War is one of the two or three best comic book movies is how well it encapsulates the conflicts that divide Americans. And at first glance, you might think that it encourages the same simplistic view of people that I’ve just been complaining about: the heroes end up divided between those who support the Sokovia Accords and those who don’t. But things are more complicated than that, and that complexity can teach us something about America.
The anti-Accords side includes Captain America, Falcon, Wanda Maximoff, Hawkeye, and Ant Man. Though they’re united in their opposition to U.N. control of the Avengers, their reasons for it are as diverse as they are themselves.
Cap’s opposition is motivated primarily by the corruption that he discovered in S.H.I.E.L.D. If Hydra can infiltrate the most advanced intelligence agency in the world, what chance does the U.N. have of stopping a similar takeover? Falcon no doubt shares Cap’s worries, but he’s also motivated by loyalty to Cap himself. Wanda’s opposition is fueled by her experience as the subject of Hydra experiments and her life in an impoverished eastern European country. What good did the U.N. ever do her? Hawkeye clearly places a lot of value on personal privacy, and Ant Man is about as anti-authority anti-Stark as a person could get.
The pro-Accords side is perhaps even more diverse. Iron Man, War Machine, Vision, Black Widow, and Spider-Man each support the Accords for different reasons. Back in 2010, Tony Stark would have rejected the Accords out of hand. But after his recklessness leads to the destruction of Sokovia in Age of Ultron, it is easy to see how guilt would drive him to support government oversight. In addition, Tony is a futurist, and since he thinks that the Accords are happening whether or not he supports them, it makes sense for him to fall into line. Rhodey supports it because he’s a colonel in the U.S. Air Force; it’s natural for him to obey the approved authorities. Vision supports it because his mind is coldly utilitarian, and he thinks of life purely in terms of numbers (though I think that he sees things differently at the end of the movie). Spider-Man supports it mostly because he’s been manipulated by Tony. Black Widow is an interesting case because she isn’t acting out of conviction. It’s not that she buys into the Accords. She’s simply “reading the terrain,” and she decides that survival (both for her and for the team) requires signing the Accords. And Black Panther supports the Accords for deeply personal reasons: many of his fellow Wakandans were killed during a fight between the Avengers and Crossbones.
Why does all this matter if their motivations all lead them to one of two positions? It matters because lumping people together makes it too easy for us to reject the concerns of others, too easy to attribute to people beliefs that they do not hold, and too easy to blame them for things that they have not done. If I think that all Trump supporters are alike and that they all support Trump for the same reasons, then I can attribute the blind hatred of the Charlottesville mob to people who are as moral and tolerant as you could ask for them to be.
And it matters because people are far more diverse socially and politically than news media, pundits, and others would have us believe. I know an enthusiastic Trump supporter who is also a loving husband to a Hispanic woman and a devoted father to two mixed-race children. I know a Bernie Sanders supporter who is also an avid gun enthusiast. I know a man who supports same-sex marriage but who also believes that bakers shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences if they oppose same-sex marriage. I know a man who voted for Jill Stein but who is fairly conservative socially speaking.
We have to live with political labels and categories because to do without them would be terribly inconvenient, and they do generally allow us to understand the playing field and alliances between the players. But we have to stop thinking that there is a monolithic “them” out there somewhere.
Close, but not really on the point IMHO.
One the “Right” we do have a lot of different reasons for choosing that way forward, some good and some the darker side of those good reasons. In that, you’re pretty much correct about us.
However, on the “Left” there’s far LESS diversity because they don’t tolerate diversity that is more than skin deep. Hence, you’re off the mark there, at least in practical / applied terms. I’ll give you that some hold differing agendas, but they do so quietly lest they be turned upon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the reply!
I think my response to your comment is going to be similar to your response to the post. I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it.
Both sides of the political spectrum can be intolerant of dissent, but this is especially true of the left. You are right about that.
But having been in the academy (a place full of leftists) in some form for the better part of fifteen years, I have seen a wide variety of people who fall to the left of center. That might not be true of politicians or of Twitter warriors, but it has been true in my experience.
(By the way, I try not to reveal too much about my own partisan opinions on this blog; if I ever seem evasive, that’s why.)
LikeLike
As to your caginess – That’s fine and understandable. As you’ve stated, you’ve been in the “academy” and i can guess the risks you’d take by voicing a political stance these days.
For me though – I’ve been described as being far to the right of Temuchin, the Genghis Khan. Not a Libertarian though; I do like some level of order, just organized closer to those with boots on the ground.
LOL I’m so far to the right on some things that I come up with the same answer as the Left, just for different reasons, e.g., gays in the military. And boy, do they seem to hate even more for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An important reminder, and one, in a moment of passion, I occasionally allow myself to forget. Republicans aren’t bad people. Democrats aren’t bad people. Neither are necessarily good or right, either. There are good Dems and bad ones, good Pubs and bad ones.
I disagree with Jon on the point that “the left” is less tolerant than the “the right” for the very simple reason that it’s the same trap you’ve asked us to avoid. I know some extremely intolerant right-wingers, some incredibly diverse and accepting lefties, so the same principle should apply: stop boxing folks into labels. We all just folk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Tom! I agree completely. When we mostly interact or see people from the other side of the aisle on social media and the internet, it’s easy to miss nuances in their views. And yes, both sides of the spectrum have become intolerant of different opinions. On the right, I think that this is especially true of Trumpkins and Never Trumpers.
LikeLiked by 1 person