SEE is the acronym for “Significant Emotional Event” that a management consultant used in a Ford Aerospace management seminar I attended decades ago. One idea from that course was that it takes a SEE to make sudden changes in our thoughts and behavior.

The spectacle of so called “protesters” shutting down a Trump rally in Chicago and disrupting others in Vandalia, Cleveland, and Phoenix is too disgusting to describe without obscenities. So-called Black Lives Matter “protesters” disrupted a Sanders rally several weeks earlier. Make no mistake, whether I deplore Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders more is hard to say, but undoubtedly I deplore these “protesters” far more than either and those who seek to apportion blame to anyone but the “protesters” and their sponsors more than either. We now know that the disrupters were a mob admittedly organized by MoveOn.org via social media and therefore effectively if not literally sponsored by George Soros. Surely, if we had recorded the faces, we’d find the same thugs at Occupy events, Ferguson, Baltimore, and all these rallies.

My SEE was that, despite our documents and institutions, we remain fundamentally savages when we react in anger. Political thugs know that and deliberately provoke anger to ‘nudge’ us into making bad decisions and I SEE a few conservatives nourishing their anger, making bad decisions, and behaving (arguably) as badly as Soros’ mobs. I hope everyone reading this, whether or not they share my views of who the rent-a-mob folks are, can unequivocally and vehemently deplore their actions and reject the notion that disrupting rallies is a legitimate or tolerable form of expression.

As tempting as it is to fix ‘blame’ on those I disagree with, sometimes vehemently, I SEE that my own side (Conservatives) and party (Republicans) is infected with a few pugnacious, vulgarity spewing, embarrassingly ignorant thugs. I have not heard them interviewed but I surmise they have no more knowledge of the issues and hold no more ingrained values and principles than does the candidate they support. But this is not about Donald Trump or any other candidate: It is about personal behavior.

At the vsTV “Above the Fold” taping March 16, I said much the same. Although the other panelists seldom share my views, it was gratifying to hear them affirm that they also categorically reject violence as a political tool and observe that, despite disagreeing, they accepted that I had a different take on issues and they found hearing it worthwhile. Two of them, opponents in local races, observed that despite the election this year, they would for decades to come still be neighbors and friends shopping at the same grocery store. They tempered their speech, knowing that.

I share conservatives’ fury at the Alinsky tactics used by some liberals and the absurdity of weaponizing “political correctness.” Despite their assertions, I do not wake up each morning and spend the first two hours plotting to enhance my white privilege, make poor people’s lives worse, facilitate mass shootings, deny women access to health care, or institutionalize police killing black men who pose no threat. Being accused of it is infuriating and the temptation is to react by escalating the level of insult. Hearing Donald Trump take it to (those) liberals, using their own tactics, felt good.

But that got old and embarrassing pretty quickly and it appears to me that’s all there is to his candidacy. Too many of his supporters have no ability to articulate their reasons for supporting him. Worse yet, it seems that the dialogue has degenerated, if that’s possible, and all but abandoned informed and reasoned discussion of ideas for addressing the challenges and threats our republic faces. On both sides there are those who pervert democracy to mean mob rule and promote using violence to chase anyone who disagrees out of the forum. That will not be done in my name and I’d hope not in yours. We do not have a right to impose our views on others or pervert government into an instrument that forces others to behave according to our standards. We cannot continue to abandon consensus for tyranny by the majority.

So, as tempting as it is, I refuse to be part of the problem. I believe that Marco Rubio spoke eloquently when he said a President can’t just say anything he’s thinking. We can’t either, unless we choose to be the problem rather than the solution. It’s not about winning. It’s not about forcing others to conform. It’s not about shutting down speech to prevent other ideas from being considered. We all must meet at Hannaford, hopefully at church, or surely on the street. If we seek genuine consensus, we’ll eventually find the best solutions to problems and if we can accept that no matter how ‘right’ we are, others will disagree and choose another path, not because they hate us, but because either we were unpersuasive or maybe even wrong.

———

Another View, a Maine Press Association award-winning column, is written on a rotating basis by a member of a group of Midcoast citizens that meet to discuss issues they think are of public interest.