“A nation divided against itself cannot stand,” said Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, I think that’s precisely the point.
I recently flew with my friend Bill Maher to DC, where he was to have dinner with the Bad Orange Man. I was not attending the dinner, I was just along for the ride…but I was wholeheartedly in support of my friend exhibiting the courage to set an example and communicate to his audience (consisting of tens of millions) a desire to dampen the vitriol and rhetoric, and to telegraph that it accomplishes nothing to reside in our bubbles and hurl insults at each other from 3,000 miles away.
Instead, he felt strongly that the way to heal the divide in this country was to talk, and listen, to each other…even if we disagree to the point that it makes our blood boil. Starting with himself. That didn’t mean Bill’s senses left him and he suddenly agreed with Donald Trump about every issue or even most issues. But it also didn’t mean that he was dug in on some unhinged ideology or was unwilling to table the vitriol in pursuit of moving forward and having a conversation with someone with whom he mostly disagreed.
The plane ride from LA to DC was tinged with anticipation but also uncertainty. How would it go? Bill had been largely misrepresented as distinctly not supportive of anything Trump does or says which is false; he has agreed with him about the border, and the lost-the-plot-woke crap, as well as other issues.
But he knew that those things not only never made it through the algorithm to the mainstream or the public…they also never made their way to Trump. He knew, too, that Trump is a loyalist, and that he could believe the worst about Bill because he had never seen anything else.
We have it on good authority that Donald Trump was feeling the same way at the same time, about Bill. We took bets that the dinner was either going to last 3 minutes or 3 hours but was not going to be somewhere in between and there was not going to be an “eh” outcome (and that on the way home we might be rerouted to Gitmo).
It lasted 3 hours.
The plane ride home was an entirely different frequency. Bill is always capable of finding the humor in things, so the comedy was not suddenly absent…and he believes (as most rational people do) that Trump has done some things right and some things wrong, and agreed with him about some things and not others.
But Bill truly and authentically had come to the firsthand conclusion that Trump was neither hero nor villain, merely an ordinary person with flaws in an extraordinary situation for which he was prepared in some ways and not in others. Bill’s honest assessment was that the humble and gracious man with whom he had just spent 3 hours exists and that we, as Americans and if we want to accomplish anything in the next 4 years, need to do everything we can to get to that guy.
By the time we landed back in Los Angeles there was a feeling of hope that this could possibly actually move the needle, if not of people’s view of Trump – which was never an intention – perhaps of each other and our fellow man. We felt hopeful that when Bill went on his show (which was not until the following week) to discuss the meeting, he could demonstrate how we can move past the dehumanizing nastiness flying around directed at each other for having different opinions, concerns, and experiences. That if he, Bill, could set down the sword in a public multi-year battle, maybe we could all do the same with each other.
That hope lasted exactly 10 days.
By the time we left the studio and arrived down the street at dinner the day Bill delivered his heartfelt monologue about reaching across the aisle and how Operation Olive Branch had played out…the left was apoplectic, and the vicious attacks were already relentless. They continue to date. As far as the left was concerned Bill might as well have been Nietzsche visiting the Vatican.
Following Bill’s reveal to his audience on his show, I later posted and commented about the visit on my own social media, praising my friend for his courage and openness. The level of attack was akin to that which I had experienced during the pandemic when I took a position and openly dissented.
What I encountered was nothing compared to what Bill endured, but even merely posting that I was proud of my friend after his show aired garnered angry comments and posts that were unrelated (and frankly insane). The message was clear: How dare I support this. People unfriended and unfollowed me after unleashing a diatribe of hatred at me.
I have a rule on my pages that I welcome discourse, and that disagreement and even expression of emotions related to that discourse is encouraged, but posts that are inappropriate, unproductive, contain ad hominem attacks, and are otherwise disrespectful will be deleted.
I lost count of the number of schoolyard-level posts I had to delete. I respectfully reminded everyone to adhere to the rules on my page; that if people wanted to make these kinds of comments on their own pages they were free to do so but that they would be deleted from mine. When that didn’t work I was ultimately compelled to block people.
Of particular interest to me, when looking at the psychology, is that I never once took a position. I did not say I agreed or disagreed with Trump, or his policies…in fact I did not mention Trump in my post at all. I said I was in support of ending the vitriol in this country and was proud of my friend.
Similarly, Bill never said he was switching allegiances that day, or that he agreed with Trump on every issue, or that he would have voted for him, or even that he wouldn’t continue to make fun of the blunders…merely that he was on board with ending the vitriol and dampening the rhetoric. AND that Trump had been too. He specifically didn’t try to convince anyone of anything…He didn’t say, “You all should love Trump now and go buy MAGA hats.” In fact, he didn’t mention politics at all. Only that if he and Trump could do it, maybe the rest of the country could start handling things like adults.
You know who had equal reason to attack? The right. You know who not only didn’t attack but instead said “You know what? This is cool, we applaud this, and we welcome our former enemy if not with open arms, with appropriate skepticism and a healthy dose of side eye?” The right. And fair enough.
Apparently though, this was a bridge too far for the left. As it turns out tolerance and lack of hate are not attitudes the Preach Tolerance and Hate Has No Home Here sign-wavers endorse.
Someone sent me the New York Times piece Larry David wrote as some sort of proof (?) that somehow Bill had done a bad thing.
Yes, I’m aware, thank you. I’m aware that the NYT decided it was a slow news day and ran a story about how Trump is Hitler…which doesn’t make them sound deranged at all. I’m well aware that someone who has a big platform and Trump Derangement Syndrome so badly he should probably be on lithium went on yet another rant about how we should definitely not stop going on rants and, what do you call it, DO something.
The thing is though, for all the (melo)dramatic hand-wringing about how this administration has “ruined my life” or “made me go through ‘fucked up shit’” (those are direct quotes) and how miserable everyone is under Trump…I can’t get even one drilled down example of what those things actually are. Literally not one. It’s only ever this generalized melodrama, yet try as I might, I can’t get anyone to cite ONE example of how their lives have even changed under Trump, much less worsened. They will site industrial strength propaganda with histrionic accompaniment like nobody’s business…but no one can give me one specific rational example.
When a friend answered my post with rants about policy issues, I pointed out that wasn’t the point of the post. When she persisted I (after deleting the inappropriate comments) said: I understand you’re frustrated and disagree with this administration on many if not all issues you are hearing, some of which are true and some of which are not true. But it seems to me, if you disagree with, for example, legislation, then there is something you can do about that.
Personally, I don’t find it useful to complain on social media; I prefer to do something about it. You don’t have to agree with me or my beliefs, but I am taking actions aligned with those beliefs towards what I would like to see accomplished. I am working on ballot initiatives, legislative reform, and fighting bad bills in my state and federally. I’m taking judicial actions. I am organizing grassroots and grassroots lobbying. I am talking to my senators and congresspeople as a constituent.
What are YOU doing? Besides posting memes on my wall and venting about things that may or may not be factually accurate in the first place? Her reply? She’s calling her friends who are “also suffering” and making sure they’re okay. Translation: She’s bitching and holding complain sessions. While condemning me for not wanting to do that. She’s unwilling to take action…but wants to complain about people like me who are taking action. So while I’m trying to affect change according to my beliefs and opinions – with which she may agree or disagree – she’s ranting to other people who agree with her and condemning people like me for trying to do anything about it…and further condemning me for wanting at the very least to end the vilification of people who disagree.
That sounds like mental disorder to me, especially when you consider that my post wasn’t supporting Donald Trump policies, or even Donald Trump. My post was about Bill and the hope to set an example for ending the hatred and the divide.
The pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, and the realist adjusts the sails. What are we going to do for the next four years – scream into the void? Rant? Why are these people so relentlessly committed to doing nothing? That’s taking your toys and going home which is fine…but then you don’t get to condemn or even judge those who are staying in the sandbox, and which tells me that resolution is distinctly not the objective.
If one has opportunized conflict to elevate themselves in a social system, such that their position and very identity within that tribe is contingent upon the conflict, and someone tries to resolve that conflict…that becomes an existential threat. It’s like a political party made up entirely of an NGO of divorce lawyers. “Good God no, don’t’ solve the problem! Don’t settle…he/she is evil and is deliberately trying to screw you over! You’re the one in the right here! They are wrong and bad and you have to fight! (And keep paying me for years to do it).”
One friend had a meltdown over a subsequent post that was also unrelated to Trump or the administration, but she chose to comment anyway, and to reference my previous post about Bill. She ranted about how Trump is directly and dramatically “making her life hell.” I told her I was sorry to hear how much she was suffering and asked her to elaborate about the specifics – ANY specifics – to help me understand. She cited exactly zero examples, only ranted some more about how terrible he was.
Sorry, I asked, but HOW? How is Trump affecting your life directly right now? She’s a wealthy white American who owns her own business and lives in an affluent town in the Northeast. “Trump who?” is how I approximate the level of unaffected she is by Trump or this administration. Yet she was so dramatic about how this administration has ruined her whole life – again, her words. I submit that neither Trump nor his administration is affecting her life in any way except that she’s taking time out of her day to answer people’s posts about not-that-topic to complain about that-topic. I reiterate that the post on which she commented was unrelated to Trump or her, and was separate again from the Bill post.
That’s not to say there aren’t people affected by these changes, or that I’m unsympathetic to those whom these policies have legitimately hurt first and worst (though it’s also true that righting a ship that’s been adrift for so long doesn’t come without sacrifices, downstream consequences, collateral damage, optics problems, upheaval, and a certain amount of “readjustment,” but that’s an op-ed for another day)…that is only to say that this individual is not one of those people.
Similar to the hijacking of the #MeToo Movement, we didn’t hear about the ACTUAL victims, like the single mom with 2 jobs in Flint, Michigan who’s afraid to go to work because her boss gropes her but she can’t afford to lose the job…because we were too constantly saturated with the experience of an actress making millions who went to a hotel room (twice) only to (gasp) have her boss (ish) make inappropriate advances.
There ARE people suffering under the changes happening right now but we won’t hear about it because their authentic experiences are drowned out and hijacked by people who need to make it about themselves. (See: the entirety of women on the internet shaving their heads after the election). It’s this weird co-opting of victimization by the most able and the least victimized. I am all for empathy and activism but that’s not what this was, nor was it the argument anyone was making…the people attacking me were all merely making it utterly and only about themselves.
Do these people need the attention – for it to be about them personally? Like the people who, upon hearing an account, skip straight to some event in their life when they were a victim and that victimhood trumps (no pun intended) every other victimhood in the history of ever?
Remember AOC at the Capitol? It had to be about her. Was that so everyone would accolade her and give her sympathy? I don’t know but maybe. Never mind that it didn’t happen. It seems like these people live in the victim world because it’s the platform upon which they can stand to elevate themselves in some weird competition of victimhood. The TraumaDome.
Like the people who tell you about all of their nonspecific health problems on repeat, but when offered solutions never want to do anything about it, only complain. Give them an action item and they wave their hands and say “No no, that won’t work, it’s useless to even try, I’m just doomed to live like this.” And we’re all doomed to hear about it apparently. It’s as if they want “How awful, you poor thing, you win the award,” and anything short of that is an affront. Even if they have to create it out of thin air.
Everyone is starring in a Shakespeare tragedy and cannot be convinced it’s much ado about nothing (see what I did there). Oh, and it’s scored by Sondheim, too. It’s such a peculiar blind spot. It’s not just that it’s histrionic vitriol and nastiness…and it’s not even that it seems to be that people are not realizing that they’re ranting…it’s that they experience a level of unhinged rage at anyone who doesn’t want to rant with them, they tramp on that accelerator, and then they cling to it like it’s the last chopper out of Saigon.
While the right certainly has its own problems and disqualifiers of moral high ground, this particular phenomenon is unique to the left. One person said to me about the post: “I’m not ready to make peace, I have more to bitch about.” I mean okay…but we’re not saying you can’t disagree about issues…and this isn’t an “issue” or “disagreeing.” This is about the vitriol itself…and about supporting an attempt to bridge the divide. That was the whole point.
Our position was “start to heal by leading by example, extending an olive branch, and finding grace.” We can’t even catch that train? I guess you can’t fall out the basement window. The truth is they don’t want to make peace because peace discourages tribalism, and it’s the tribalism that allows them to make everything all about them. Without that, they’re not more important, their words don’t carry more weight….they’re just like everybody else.
Entitlement and victimhood are two sides of the coin of narcissism. Everything is about you, so when it’s positive it’s TO you and you’re entitled to it, and when it’s negative it’s also TO you. Not just “life” or “this happened, but “this happened TO ME.” “Why are you doing this to me?” is the favourite mantra. And it’s not enough to be a victim…they have to be the supreme victim.
Why does everything so exhaustively have to be all about Trump, even when it’s not? Why does everything so exhaustively have to be all about YOU, even when it’s not? It’s Trump’s fault! Definitely not just the ups and downs of life! Is it because it foments them as a pillar of their tribe? I submit that is exactly what it is. Which then makes anyone who would seek to alleviate that intensity the enemy, and a threat to their position as omphalos.
It seems to me that Trump Derangement Syndrome (I don’t mean disagreeing with him, or disliking him or even hating him, or fighting for your preferred candidate against him…I mean unhinged TDS to the point that it extends to anyone who disagrees with you) is a cross between narcissistic personality disorder and some weird form of Munchausen’s disease.
Bill is a comedian; not a journalist or a reporter. Additionally, the algorithm only amplifies confirmation biases, so while he has said positive things about Trump with which he agreed, and negative things about the left with which he disagreed, no one really saw that, so his unwillingness to pretend to be crazy was seen as betrayal.
Bill is not an ideologue. In my experience with him, which extends over 2 decades, he is open to new information and in fact consistently shifts his position with new or deeper information and understanding. He’s a nuanced thinker and isn’t married to a “side” unless you consider common sense and reality a side. You don’t have to agree with everything he says…I don’t…but I think it’s a wonderful quality when someone isn’t dug in about anything and gets some things wrong and some things right in their quest for the truth. All that being said…he also has a show to do and is an entertainer so people shouldn’t get too up in arms when he picks up this or that for fodder because, at the end of the day, he is an equal opportunity offender.
If we set aside conviction, usually, when we investigate people and their actions with fairness, (like Bill did with Trump) we find that there are no black or white characters in this script. No one is a hero or a villain; no one is twirling their mustache in the mirror every morning nor riding in on a white horse. Usually we find that, like us, everyone is just trying to figure it out and do the best they can with the information they have at the time. We are all just Bozos on the bus.
It is the accepted and normalized vitriol and rhetoric that is reminiscent of the tool the Nazis used: mainstream dehumanization. When the left does it, it’s the what-about-ism of “the right does it too!!” When the right does it it’s “tar and feather them,” and therein lies the distinction. The normalization on one side vs the condemnation and “see how awful they are” on the other. The implication is: there is a circumstance under which this kind of behavior is acceptable. Dehumanization in all its pernicious forms, while not illegal, only serves to fortify the divide and pours lighter fluid on an already raging fire. That dehumanization is vilified by one side and institutionalized by the other.
I was the target of such an incident in October, in which the far left thought-police tried to limit my use of guest facilities at the establishment where I was staying due to my “disgusting political views” (which they did not know – only overheard me say Trump’s name while talking to some good friends in the lobby about the upcoming election) and that “’you people’ cause problems” and the other guests needed protection from us. At that time, more alarming than the fact that the police were called because I refused to be confined to my room, was the NORMALIZATION of this kind of behavior.
The officers (as bewildered as I) and I had a lovely chat and together we were able to de-escalate the situation. The owner (who was mortified) profusely apologized and comped my stay. I will absolutely patronize them in the future, because they handled it beautifully and made it right, but mostly because my goal is resolution. I do not need to pour concrete on the confirmation bias that created this situation in the first place, and my impetus is towards ENDING conflict, not furthering it.
Nevertheless, all I could think was: if the roles had been reversed and the view-offending-party had instead been a Democrat…can you imagine the outrage? It would have been all over social media and regular media by morning and the collective national outcry would have been tremendous, 3 weeks before a federal election. I think I can say with confidence that de-escalation would have been neither intention nor the result had the shoe been on the other foot.
It’s never been about reality, or disagreement, or working out differences, or even conviction. If that were true, when they finally conceded (a multitude of) issues about which we were correct, their position and opinion about us should have then been altered, too, but it wasn’t. Instead, they pivoted positions but doubled down on hating the side that turned out to be right about it. There is no amount of talking that will resolve something that one-half has zero interest in resolving. It’s a bait-and-switch.
In true narcissist fashion the fury, gaslighting, and vitriol is an admission of guilt. It’s not about “both sides,” or “issues,” or even differing experiences or concerns…I was attacked for supporting cessation of the attacks, and received vitriol for being against vitriol. Brecht is currently rolling in his grave in envy. When it comes to ending the dehumanization of our fellow man one side is struggling more than the other with the concept. I’m not comparing trauma…one side is unwilling to submit THAT there is a problem that goes beyond their position or being “right.” One side is unwilling to even meet at the starting line. If that’s not unwillingness to acknowledge unity I don’t know what is.
The spirit of ecumenicalism clearly does not extend to political party lines in the sand. Discouragingly and worryingly, many would rather we continue to merely complain and rage at each other instead of attempting to find common ground with our fellow man…and they certainly don’t support finding a way to move forward. Actions would indicate that it’s more important to many people to escalate the hate.
People are angry with me because I don’t want to complain and do nothing for 4 years, and angry that I don’t think it’s productive to participate in the vitriol. And they’re REALLY angry that I support someone with a voice brokering peace. Even when I WAS the left, I never experienced attacks like this from the right. Not ever. I understand lunatic fringe on both sides…but the non-crazy right does not do this. The (previously known as) non-crazy left does it with impunity. It’s like a bad marriage with an alcoholic.
One side is against any attempt to make peace because the chaos is existential for them and their dynamic. I’m not talking about either extreme – the entire middle of the left now IS extreme, and specifically around the unwillingness of anyone who does not wish to also be extreme. The word for that historically is: fanatic.
A famous politician once said: “If you agree with 5 out of the 10 things I stand for you should vote for me. And if you agree with 10 out of the 10 things I stand for, you should seek professional help because that is just not reasonable.” RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, and now Bill Maher are refusing to wear the full uniform of crazy and are exhibiting a desire to be reasonable and rational. Democrats are running out of their best minds who no longer wish to perform Madam Butterfly in a vacuum. And to that they say good riddance. It’s Rachel Zegler in an entire political party.
If we continue to look at the framing as “Ourselves” as the centre of the universe and the evil “Other” “over there”…if we continue to dig in on our perceived superiority, supremacy, authority, or even just importance…if we allow the powers that be to make enemies out of each other…we’ve lost. We will splinter off into smaller and smaller factions, become weaker and more diluted, confirm and engrain our tribalism deeper and deeper, and make it further untangle-able in the future.
It makes narcissists of us all. It gives permission to intentionally wish harm, rationalizes naked lack of integrity, and excuses and institutionalizes unethical behavior. We all become witting Machiavellis and Svengalis. It appeals to and sanctions the very worst of our natures: to separate instead of unify; to make it all about us instead of making all of us one.
We need to stop seeking to be right and vilifying anyone who disagrees, and instead seek to be in the light of oneness. We have far more in common than that which divides us. If Donald Trump and Bill Maher can do it, surely there is hope for us all yet.
Read the full article here