A friend of mine has said for years that "Democracy is discussion". Jesse is correct. If you want to have real democracy, the constituency has to be able to talk to each other and agree or disagree as you will. Democracy is a crucible of ideas and to determine which ideas are good, bad or inbetween we must have discussion.
For as much of my life as I have gone to bars, I have heard a canard that does not seem to depend on location or level of intoxication. It is and has always been bullshit.
Back when I was more active in local politics, I attended a LOT of public meetings. I went to the public shows of votes but I also went to the wonkish meetings held by committees of or sponsored by elected officials. I interacted with architects, civil engineers, planners and our local elected officials.
I am more of a technical sort of guy. My degree is in engineering. So planning and architecture were not anything that "came natural" to me. This was stuff I had to pay attention to and learn about because I wanted to be able to understand what everyone else was saying. In paying attention, I was introduced to concepts that had never occurred to me as intentional behavior.
While there were several things I learned, of particular interest to me was the concept of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places and the behaviors that were acceptable in/at each place. (They may have 4th and 5th as well but I didn't catch it.) As I understood it, the 1st place was home - the place where you sleep and keep your stuff. The 2nd place for most people was work - office, warehouse, construction site etc etc. The 3rd place sort of depended on your personal habits. If you were a religious individual, the 3rd place might well be your church.
Traditionally (at least to hear men tell it) , the home was a "man's castle". We watched Leave It To Beaver. We learned that when a man comes home from his stressful day at work, he needs a drink, then dinner and through it all, peace and quiet. Sooooooooo, discussing issues that were causing a conflict in democracy could only happen if the man brought it up. The little woman and the offspring could give good news and ask for advice.
The 2nd place was where the man's boss was. Sure he spent a lot of time at the office but there, one talks about what the boss wants to talk about and if in fact one would like to keep the job, disagreeing with the boss is ill-advised. It aint much of a discussion if you can't say what you actually think.
The 3rd place is where things, IMNSHO, get interesting. When I was a kid, the 3rd place for my parents was definitely church. My dad was a minister at a small church so, he still had to have a "day job". As such, I strongly suspect there were issues that he did not bring up at work but once we got to the church, I have zero memories of him inviting the congregation to prove him wrong. No one argued with him while he was in the pulpit nor immediately before or after the service. Respect and tradition and the fact that my dad was known to slap a MFer on occasion might be the reason he got no pushback. Of course, it could also have been that everyone was in lockstep agreement with him. Regardless of the reason, I never noticed anyone trying to discuss or argue issues of democracy with him whilst he was wearing the collar and robes.
But what if you are not a churching sort of person? (like me) What is your 3rd place? I can't speak for everyone but for me and several of my friends and acquaintances, our 3rd place is the bar. Okay, technically it is "a" bar. One of the several that I sometimes attend but that's not important. The important thing is that for the entirety of the time I have been going to bars - which started circa 1972 (don't tell mom), there has always been someone willing to spout the bullshit about not discussing politics or religion in bars.
Now, I have certainly met any number of folks that did not handle conflict well. I have seen no few instances of fisticuffs and even weapons involved interactions. (okay sure, by "seen" I might mean, "been involved in") So I get some of the reluctance. The problem is that we are essentially out of places. Places where one might discuss issues critical to democracy in one's chosen nation are in short supply if home, work, church and recreation area are off limits. The truth is that the suppression of discussion, which is effectively the suppression of democracy, only benefits those who are in opposition to democracy.
If you are not opposed to democracy and you are not being manipulated by those opposed to democracy, why would you be opposed to discussion? Yes, I know you don't like having your ideas and beliefs questioned. Unfortunately that puts you in the "opposed to democracy" camp. If you just wanted peace and quiet, you could have stayed home and drank for less money. You could have taken a walk in a park instead of going to a bar. You went to a bar to be social but you only want to be social on your own terms? Unfortunately that puts you in the "opposed to democracy" camp.
In truth, the bar and other purely social environments are the most reasonable places to discuss politics, religion, sociology and everything else you might not have in common with co-located people. We intuitively know that discussing positions that are in opposition to your boss is bad for one's advancement potential. We intuitively know that the folks that live in our homes already know much of what we think. Discussing politics at home will frequently look like "preaching to the choir". So either you discuss politics and religion in places that are neither home nor work or you eschew democracy by reasonable understanding.
Yes, there are plenty of places that are neither home nor work nor bar. However, if one phrases it as I have, as purely social environments, the number of places that do not fall into one of the three categories dwindles to insignificance.
I doubt those that spout the idiocy that substantive issues should not be discussed anywhere they might actually make a positive difference think that is what they are doing. (TBF, I doubt they think but that might just be me being judgemental.) Still, they are actively doing the work of fascists and others who have a bone to pick with democracy. The Founding Fathers appear to have understood the importance of open discussion to democracy. The very first Amendment to the Constitution is about that very thing. While I might understand the descendents of slaves and the indigenous population and the indentured population that built the railroads might be skeptical of said Founding Fathers, I believe they got that 1st Amendment right.
If you really, honestly are dumb enough to believe that the generalized stifling of discussion anywhere is a perfectly reasonable thing, I can only hope you are smart enough to go out of your way to choose an establishment where I am not. I am a patriotic American. I refuse to participate in the suppression of democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment