To Bring Justice, We First Need Compromise

Silence is acquiescence but we need to come together to create change

This week, I got published by one of the bigger publications on social justice here on Medium (An Injustice!). My article was about recognizing my white privilege in relation to the way we consume media and how we vote in elections.

While I don’t regret anything I write or publish, there is one sentence from it I’d like to clarify.

“(Here on out, I will not call him “President” Trump in my writing — as that title is only deserving for people who have earned my respect.)” — Noah Levy, June 4, 2020

Was it “right” for me to post this, since this is how I feel? Yes. But was it constructive?

Let’s examine.

Constructive v. Destructive: Progress Relies On Compromise

Just now, I had a conversation with my step-dad on the subject of my article. He was making criticisms that I was initially skeptical of, but after thinking hard on it I realized his thesis.

These aren’t his exact words, though this is a good paraphrasing of what his message was.

“What’s the goal of your writing, Noah? Is it to put yourself in a camp of people who already agree with you, or to get people on the other side to convert to empathizing and compromise?”

It’s the latter, not the former.

Ironically, I criticized echo chambers while being in one.

I can justify my words all I want, and to be honest, it’s pretty easy to rationalize my statement on Trump: that all four living presidents have openly criticized him; that I shouldn’t respect someone who doesn’t respect black lives; that enough is enough.

At the same time, is this really constructive?

No.

I could’ve easily made my point without bringing Trump up in my piece.

If you’re in agreement with the points in my last article, you’re probably wondering why I would take my statement back on Trump. The reason is simple: it’s destructive, not constructive.

Think of a time when you were intellectually challenged, a time when you read something that genuinely changed your mind. Did you feel attacked by it? Did you feel that the piece was polarizing? Did you feel that the piece attacked somebody else?

Probably not, because polarizing content is the least challenging of them all. My mom always said to listen more than speak because, whenever you speak, you’re recycling shit that you already know. We don’t learn from speaking, we learn from listening.

Let’s do another thought experiment — let’s say you’re liberal. If you read a piece on why “all lives matter” that was published by Breitbart, how would you really feel? Would you look in the mirror and say, “hey, I learned something today”? Probably not. You would instead get angry and tweet about it (been there, done that). Other than enraging your fellow friends who already agree with you, what do pieces like this do?

Nothing, other than enrage those who we’re trying to convince.

The points in my article were not necessarily polarizing. I talked a bit about my own white privilege, then the relationship between polarizing media and the need to vote in local elections. It was the delivery of the Trump statement that fucked it up.

Politics is a game of identity — as in, we tend to identify our action of voting with ourselves. If you have voted for Trump and don’t agree with what he’s doing today, you still might feel like I’m attacking you. That’s not what we want though, because you would ignore the rest of what I had to say.

Instead of dividing ourselves into camps, we should ask each other as fellow writers, what can we do to bring about real change?

It means getting people from “the other side” to see ours. It means having conversations that are uncomfortable for all of us.

I’m ready to have those conversations. Are you?