By Lance Simmens
I am sitting here organizing my thoughts around the horrendous attack upon former President Donald Trump on Saturday. Don [Schmitz] and I agreed that we ought to comment upon this instead of the topic we originally agreed to, so you will have to wait another two weeks on that one. I trust we can agree on one thing: Namely, we have to dial back on the division that has gripped this nation and it is the responsibility of our leaders on both sides of the aisle to reduce the ugly demeanor that fosters such division.
Just off the top, I must say that as a Catholic kid growing up in Philly, attending Catholic school and as an altar boy when the mass was conducted in Latin, the assassination of JFK struck very hard in my household and neighborhood. As precocious 10-year olds, I and my buddies were quite confused for the extra days off, but the nonstop television coverage brought everything into clearer and mesmerizing focus: Namely a certain air of unreality and sadness.
That was my impression of the early years in the 1960s. The later years, particularly 1968, brought considerable misery as we lost MLK and RFK. Violence has no business interfering in our desires to advance society and make this world a better place.
All we are saying, is give peace a chance! For God’s sake citizens of the world, life is too precious, too demanding, and yes, too short to spend time trying to impress upon each other the often mistaken notion that instead of working things out, listening to each other, defending positions, we should contemplate resorting to violence.
We have become so wrapped up in our blankets of insecurity that we do not allow our positions to be moderated or to accept that others may actually have good ideas. We view with disdain compromise, reason, open-mindedness, and the God-forsaken notion that others may have ideas that allow for both discussion and implementation and encourage actual progress. It is the essence of this magnificent system of democratic governance that protects us against tyranny and authoritarianism.
The temper of the argumentative nature of our current society is much too high and accomplishes little other than a festering cesspool of I win, you lose, I’m right and you’re wrong, I have the answer and you are the problem. This simplistic paradigm neither has the atmosphere nor the bandwidth for constructive problem solving.
If we do not realize the importance of involving others with differing viewpoints into discussions of how to best benefit the society at large, we will end up segregated behind impenetrable walls of disillusionment and distrust. I have a great deal of trouble with core elements of what masquerades as current Republican political orthodoxy today; however, I am willing to engage in a lengthy and wide-ranging dialogue over how to overcome differences and seek compromise. But in order to do such a thing requires mutual trust and respect for differences. In all my years of political posturing and policy-making I have never insulted differences and/or beliefs so long as such accommodation was reciprocated. I believe this is required now in the worst way.
So now we sit back and ponder the extent to which violence plays such a pivotal role in how we proceed into the future. Violence is no stranger to history, yet the attempt on Trump’s life this past weekend in Butler, Pennsylvania, raises the temperature considerably. It reminds me, unfortunately, of my younger years when violence that appeared to be beyond belief struck against a society struggling to find itself.
The violence that accompanied Sept. 6 quite likely was the closest thing to an insurrection that the nation has ever seen. It was an atrocity that simply cannot be accepted in the world’s most democratic society. Similarly, let this assassination attempt upon the former president stand as an unacceptable act that defies everything that both parties stand for. Both candidates could and should agree together that each should be judged by the tenets of their respective platforms for moving the country forward.
Those who disagree with how either one wishes to move the nation forward can resolve their disagreement through the ballot box, not through the barrel of a gun. Violence is not the answer. We hopefully have advanced past the point where the gun and or the sword shall dictate who is the most formidable leader. It is incumbent upon all of us to learn how to exist in a world where differences and diversity can render positive outcomes as long as there is mutual respect for our brothers and sisters. Violence must not be allowed to infect our ability to agree to disagree.