On Wednesdays we welcome members of our extended family to write a guest letter. Today's guest letter is from one of my favorite former students, the incomparable Steve Bakker.
President Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington D.C. 20500
8 February 2017
Dear President Trump,
You must have been aware that your uncivil discourse as a
presidential nominee brought you some popularity. You may also be aware, now that you are
president, that your conversations with foreign and domestic political leaders
have been making you unpopular in the halls of politics, and among the ordinary
residents of your country as well—according to a CNN poll, you have the lowest
approval rating for an incoming president (44%) since people began collecting
such data.
A lot of people around me have been critiquing civil
discourse, leading me to question it too. Some argue that many of the terms of
polite national discourse are set primarily by people in the upper and middle
classes. Our words for uncivil language suggest this connection: bad language is
“vulgar”, “crass”, “crude”, “boorish”--words that have historically been used
to negatively describe the lower class. Some argue that subduing vulnerable
emotions in civil discourse issues from dominant pressures deemed masculine in
our culture, undervaluing forms of expression deemed feminine. Some argue that
European Enlightenment values pushed a false notion of objective authority onto
civil discourse worldwide, pretending detachment from emotion and subjective
interests. The dominant voices of European colonialism, assuming the
superiority of the so-called white race and its role in the world, have
undervalued other modes of human discourse which do not try to so cleanly
partition intellect, interest, and emotion. Polite discourse, as we often think
of it, discourages many displays of strong emotions and forbids outbursts from
people who may be under serious, ignored distress, suffering under the yoke of
oppression. Civil discourse can be used to silence marginalized and exploited
people in our society. In short, it can perpetuate oppression—classist, sexist,
racist, or otherwise.
This is not to say that I don't value civil discourse, just
that I try to see how its rules and its consequences vary in different
contexts. A soft answer can turn away wrath in one place and decree carnage
elsewhere. The most troubling example of this for me was my relationship with
the Obama presidency. He seemed more civil to me than his predecessor, and you,
so far. There was much I found to criticize:
Obama continued with bombings and military operations in more countries
than Bush had, conducted 10 times as many drone strikes, and oversaw increasing
domestic surveillance in his tenure. He oversaw a record number of deportations
under a presidential administration, and had spoken in favor of increased
border fencing and deportations (having voted for both as a Senator). And yet
because he didn't seem as bellicose, domineering, or “crude” to me in his
public discourse, he didn't raise my ire as much! Nor did he seem to raise as
much ire in those around me. Was this also true of many other people who
roughly share my politics--that we were disappointed with Obama, but due to the
way he comported himself, we were not as animated as we were by Bush to resist
US war and repression? If so, then there were severe costs as well as benefits
to his overtures of civility.
Conversely, it heartens me that so many have protested
against your arrival as President and many of your executive decisions thus
far. I am not heartened that your incivility has animated this resistance, but
given the circumstances, I'd rather there be resistance than not. I'm heartened
that most of it is nonviolent. Yet I wonder if you would have faced less fierce
opposition at the airports and would have made more progress with your refugee
ban had you taken your time implementing it through the established channels,
conferring with state officials, etc. I wonder if added flourishes to your
border wall plans, such as promising that Mexico would pay for it, will compromise
the amount of success you would have made with more measured, polite speech and
deliberation toward the same ends. I'm quite confident that, for better or
worse, the resistance which I believe you deserve has been elicited by your
crass discourse.
Martin Luther King, Jr., is of course remembered for taking
nonviolent civility into the heart of deadly repression. He also said, in
response to black riots of his day, “a riot is the language of the unheard.” I
believe in masses of people making demands of political leaders, not in a
complete vacuum, but as a force which ruling classes must negotiate with,
ideally civilly. I have been part of nonviolent protests since you took office,
and I have seen a handful of people be uncivil in these marches. I'm struggling
to learn how to engage in civil resistance without castigating entirely those
strangers who take more extreme measures than I would, or say things less civil
than I would imagine myself saying in exchange with people in power.
How do we be civil in conflict with each other, Mr.
President? I aspire to move people to join in protest, to grow Dr. King and
Stanley Levinson's vision for civil conflict: “Mass civil disobedience can use
rage as a constructive and creative force. It is purposeless to tell Negroes
they should not be enraged when they should be. Indeed, they will be mentally
healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and use its
energy peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive
society. Civil disobedience can utilize the militancy wasted in riots to seize
clothes or groceries many did not even want.” I am not a black American in the
1960s, but I and millions of others today have rage and creativity to spare.
May we share them constructively, as civilly as we can in our contending terms,
in word and in deed.
Sincerely,
Steve Bakker
