The first Presidential visit to Kernersville since George Washington's was
much anticipated by the locals and was also met by all of 25 or so protestors along the cold and rainy route between the airport and the local factory where Bush was to tout his economic policies.
It was the prospect of protest that cemented a local mother's decision to show up and bring her "three sons, niece, nephew and mother" with her despite the weather. When interviewed by the local reporter she explained, "Because of the media reports, I was afraid there would be lots of people protesting. I wanted to make sure he knows we love and support him. There are too many Cindy Sheehans in the world."
I understand if you are rereading that last sentence. Take your time. I, too, was stunned, angered, saddened, dismayed.
But hers was not the last word.
The rest of the story is, for me, redeeming. My letter to the editor was published, and I was enlightened in ways I hope you will find worth considering and discussing.
Updated at the end -- corresponence with the letters editor
My letter to the editor was published today, in the Sunday paper:
The Dec. 6 article, "Kernersville residents excited to welcome Bush," takes note of a gratuitous opinion that "there are too many Cindy Sheehans in the world."
Sadly, there are too many Cindy Sheehans. More than 2,000 mothers have lost their children in Iraq. Tens of thousands might feel blessed that their sons and daughters were "only" seriously injured.
Another 100,000 mothers will spend this Christmas season wondering whether the next ring of their doorbell heralds the arrival of packages, carolers, or officers assigned the miltary's most difficult duty.
Too many Cindy Sheehans. Not enough empathy for grieving mothers, whatever their politics.
Writing the letter was difficult.
Yea, "too many Cindy Sheehans" is a softball asking to be hit out of the park. Many of you might have done better. But I hope it is helpful to convey the difficulties I had in composing the letter.
First, it is almost too easy for people like us to reply. We're poised to snark, rant, and pontificate with much less provocation than was given here. But the letters section has a 200 word limit, and shorter is better for one's chances of getting something published. Where to start? What not to include? Where to end?
I cannot recreate nor can I remember all of the mental drafts made in the hour it took to finish my letter. My lasting impression is one of spending a lot of time prioritizing. That in itself was enlightening. Forced to choose, I was forced to think and weigh. Should I defend the right to protest? Should I comment on the irony of the woman's being a mother herself? Should I attack the Iraq policy, or get snarky about the fact that Bush would no more stop and talk to this woman than he would Cindy Sheehan (he treats his supporters as props in his Potemkin village)? Just think of all of the thoughts that were racing through your head after seeing "too many Cindy Sheehans."
In the end, I was guided by two thoughts. First, my audience was not DKos, but was primarily fence sitters. People with their minds a bit ajar if not fully open. Second, I was not going to stoop anywhere near the woman's level. Hate was poison.
I would instead learn from the Harvard philosopher, Raphael Demos, whose essay, "On Persuasion," I share with my students. He argued in the April 28, 1932 issue of the Journal of Philosophy that persuasion depended on one coming to see the same facts in a different light. A change of perspectives. Some may only understand arguments for poverty reduction programs after they find themselves experiencing poverty. One needed to try to evoke experience, to call it forth. This was enlightening for me not just because it help guide me to a rhetorical strategy, but because, in the process of arriving there I, myself, became more empathetic. It was impossible to imagine the scene of the mother fearing the doorbell without half experiencing it myself. For that I am grateful.
Even if I persuaded no one, I count my hour well spent. I feel stronger and wiser for having struggled. I learned lessons about my priorities, my emotions, philosophy and writing. My indignation was transformed into enlightenment.
Publication day brought more news.
My letter, as those who clicked on the link already know, was printed along with three very much like it. I was tempted to be jealous of the fact that another had crafted a better phrase. I was tempted to regret I had not sounded a note that was different than the others since, as I have said, there were so many themes that could be sounded.
Those temptations were quickly forgotten when my eyes reached the next letter, the only one from someone disparaging the protesters:
A perfect example of what is wrong with liberals was on display in Kernersville on Dec. 5 ("Kernersville residents excited to welcome Bush," Dec. 6). While this nation's president visited Kernersville for the first time since George Washington, some "young Democrats" decided to protest. That is their right guaranteed by the Constitution.
However, some parents felt their school-age children needed to be present.
Let's not teach our children reading, math, science, and social studies; no, let's teach them to hate anyone who doesn't believe what they do.
Shame on liberal parents! Children belong in school, not out protesting the good work our president is doing.
What now? Indignation again? No, that temptation passed with but a moment's reflection. The hate letter said more about its author than it did about the protesters. The hate letter was comically dramatic. Nothing like an exclamation mark!
Besides, the letters section limits writers to one published letter every thirty days. Curiosity and a sense of irony is what remained after reading the hate. Who would bring their children? Anyone who thought a President wouldn't come back that way for another 200 years is an easy answer. But the irony is that the only mention of children I recalled referred those accompanying the Bush supporter! If you have already read the linked article you might have shared my experience.
Back to the keyboard. I was already in the midst of writing this diary. I needed to collect the links anyway. So while I was there I checked the original article again (the recyclers come on Friday so I no longer had a paper copy). Sure enough, no mention of "young Democarats" and the only children mentioned were with the Bush supporter.
I could not rest the urge to click on the e-mail addresses of the reporters of the article along with the e-mail of the letters editor to ask:
Two questions:
- Did other editions of the paper include the words, "young Democrats" and any indication that they were school-aged (I'm 50, and young Dems mean different things to different people :-))?. Maybe the letter writer is really referencing the wrong article?
- If no such words were there in the first place, or the citation was wrong, was the letter to the editor fact checked? Do you publish letters without fact checking them, especially when the letters call other people "hateful?"
I did not waste time pondering it, but I think that tiny bit of time that interrupted this diary writing was well spent.
Food for thought. Questions I'm asking myself, questions that ya'll might find worthy of further discussion.
How best to balance the time "preaching to the choir" here with reaching out? Do I spend too much time trying to get the last word in here and not enough time getting the last word in the broader public sphere? This place is definitely good for needed writing practice. It does test ideas. But is it more a laboratory than a real public forum? It boosts morale to be here with ya'll, but I really found deeper satisfaction closer to home. Update: Now that I made the rec list I may need to retract the preceding sentence. At least for tonight. If I really should spend more time elsewhere, then the recommendations are counterproductive!
Should I move on to op-ed attempts? I would get 600 or more words. More people might notice.
Can I make a habit of turning hate into opportunity like I did with this experience and as I did when I found The Gift of the MAGI? What can I do to more routinely play rhetorical judo?
How does my experience relate to the diary today on research on left wing versus right wing blogs and their amplification in the MSM?
Most importantly, can I cultivate the habit of mind that Demos extolled? I am closer to being Cindy Sheehan now. I want my diary recommended and just now I see there is one of hers. I once might have regretted that for the "damage" it would do to my chances of making the rec list. Not tonight. But can I continue to practice the empathy I preach?
The last word.
There really never is one, is there?
Update: Last last words?
I have recieved interesting replies from the authors of the article and from the letters editor. I hesitate to reproduce them, because I do not want folks to nit pick and flood the in-boxes of these folks who, in my opinion, have exhibited professionalism.
The basic deal is this: the letters editor and a colleague " looked at the Kernersville photo and found enough young-looking faces to feel the statement in the letter was substantiated." He admits there was a close call there. He invites replies to the offending letter and says he likes it when there is a string of back and forth letters. That's his opinion. I expressed my opinion that I wished there were more letters commenting on a wider variety of subjects instead. I have a hunch, only a hunch, that they don't get enough good letters in the first place. If that is the case here, it probably is also true of papers in other mid-size cities. Perhaps that will encourage more of ya'll to write a letter to your own paper.
The letters editor really would like a reply to the "hate" letter. Since my monthly quota is filled, I am going to talk to some local friends and am confident they will do the honors. If any of you here are from the Winston-Salem area, go for it!