Square pegs and round holes

There is civic value to be had in political differences

There are several books from the past few years that argue that complacency toward democracy is probably an inevitable outgrowth of democracy. “Why Liberalism Failed’ by Patrick J. Deneen is only the best-known of these books.

I’m not sure I wholly buy into Deneen’s prescribed solutions, but his description of our current overriding civic issue is spot-on: Too many Americans - on both sides of our gaping partisan chasm - view the other side not as a rival or even opponent, but as the enemy.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center finds that both self-identified Democrats and Republicans view members and supporters of the other party as dishonest, immoral and stupid.

The only bright spot I could see is that for all the talk of a disappearing center, fully 27 percent of those surveyed think both parties are useless, and 39 percent said neither current party represents their views.

So there is hope.

Yet there is ongoing chatter from the extreme wings of both sides about states seceding and creating two new countries, one conservative and one liberal.

Putin and Xi have to love reading nonsense like that.

Texas state leaders talked openly of secession during the Obama administration, while California followed suit during the Trump years.

Considering that the Civil War was supposed to have answered that question, I’m not sure how nobody in either state got charged with treason.

This idea that we’re all so fragile that we need state-sized “safe zones” to protect us from encountering viewpoints we don’t agree with or like is infantile. And let’s be honest: even within both liberal and conservative political movements, there are fairly wide-ranging disagreements on a whole range of issues. Are we going to have “moderate conservative” states (Iowa, maybe?) vs. “really conservative” states (I’m looking at you, Tennessee)? “Mildly liberal” Minnesota maybe can take those Californians who don’t want to live in a “super liberal” Golden State?

Democracy - what used to be called, in a less partisan age, simply “liberalism” - is based on the foundational notion that we get to disagree with the government.

And each other.

And that that’s okay.

Over the past couple of decades, though, our celebration of dissent has given way to an almost Orwellian demand for both consensus and a deference to the supposed experts in charge.

Consensus is a crappy standard by which to decide anything.

I’ll take the majority during elections - as Winston Churchill pointed out, democracy is loud, messy and inefficient, and it’s also better than anything else we’ve ever tried.

But consensus goes beyond majority rule - it places ultimate value on eliminating the input and participation of the minority.

How often have we read news articles over the past few years earnestly pointing out that “88 percent of experts agree that ...” on this or that issue as if that simply settles the question?

And how man of those consensus viewpoints have already been proven wrong?

Heck, close to 100 percent of astronomers and physicists of the time agreed that Einstein’s theory of relatively was wrong.

There’s your consensus.

Real progress comes from people trying something new, thinking about things from a different angle.

We as a society, as a culture, need to be encouraging that - not acting like a bunch of frightened rabbits who value reassurance above all.

Self-segregating into little pods of the like-minded is not only petty and foolish, it’s bad for our culture.

Your brother sees things completely different than you - so what? Your boss is so utterly wrong in his politics you can’t stand it? Okay, if he runs for office, don’t vote for him.

Take a hard look at the alternative forms of running a country - not too many of us from either American political party (or no party at all) truly want to live under Moscow’s or Beijing’s rules.

And if the United States starts breaking up into little partisanocracies, it’s not the European democracies that will fill the global power gap.

Agreeing to disagree with our family, friends and co-workers may cause consternation and mild stress - but it’s a whole lot better than living in a system where your only choice is to agree to agree.

January 25, 2003. It’s opening night of “Fidelio” at San Diego Opera, and I’m reviewing it for the Riverside Press-Enterprise. I have an extra ticket, so I invite my friend Jackie - who also enjoys getting dressed up and making an evening of such events.

We get downtown, park, and begin walking down C Street toward the Civic Theatre. As we cross Third Avenue heading west, the sidewalk narrows to make room for the light rail San Diego Trolley. It was fairly busy for a Sunday evening - but the Super Bowl was in San Diego the next night, and so downtown was bustling with visiting revelers.

An elderly and tiny couple clearly on their way to the opera - he in a tux, she in a shimmering evening gown - is being jostled by pedestrians trying to squeeze by on the narrow sidewalk, and the octogenarian opera buffs are slowed by the husband’s use of a walker.

Jackie nudges me and points to the couple, suggesting we should walk behind them to buffer them from the crowd. Before we can get there, though, a very large, imposing figure takes up a spot just behind them.

He is about 6'2", a solid 250, 260, tatted up, with a full beard and biceps the size of my thighs. He is also wearing a leather vest with his Raiders colors on it, and a large helmet sporting horns of some sort.

The rest of the crowd gives that little trio a very side berth as they make their way to the large stairs leading into the Civic Center complex.

Jackie and are tagging along, also glad not to have to wade through the sea of impatient humanity.

As we get to the stairs, the couple is able to step outside the flow of the sidewalk, and the elderly woman turns to thank their large, muscled protector. I slow my progress to listen in.

“Thank you, kind sir! We greatly appreciate it.”

“No problem, ma’am.” (His voice is down in Johnny Cash territory.)

“What are you headed this evening?”

“Well, ma’am, I’m a Raiders fan, and there is a fan rally tonight here at Golden Hall.” (Golden Hall is the pre-Convention Center convention center, now mostly used for weddings and high school proms.) “What brings you and your husband downtown?”

“Oh, we’re here to see ‘Fidelio.’”

“‘Fidelio’? I love Beethoven! Well, have fun.”

And with that, the vested crusader is off to eat light bulbs, smash beer cans against his forehead, or whatever it is that Raiders fans do for fun.

As we walk toward the will-call window, Jackie turns, and observes, “She didn’t say Beethoven wrote ‘Fidelio.’”

Indeed she hadn’t.

It was as perfect a cautionary tale about judging books by their covers as I’ve ever experienced. This rough-hewn Raiders fan with the chivalry of a knight (and the heart to go with it) had also betrayed his knowledge of classical music.

I had a tribute to San Diego jazz singer, pianist, composer and band leader Jeannie Cheatham on the occasion of her 95th birthday in San Diego Troubadour’s August issue.

Jazz guitarist Will Bernard was kind enough to chat with me for AllAboutJazz.

-30-