White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders went to have dinner at a local restaurant the other day. The owner, who is adamantly opposed to the policies of the Trump administration, politely asked her to leave, and she did. Now (who says human behavior is hard to predict?) an intense discussion has broken out concerning the role of civility in public discourse and our daily life. The Washington Post editorial board, in particular, called for public officials to be allowed to eat in peace, and people have responded in volume.
I don’t have a tweet-length response to this, as I think the issue is more complex than people want to make it out to be. I am pretty far out to one extreme when it comes to the importance of engaging constructively with people with whom we disagree. We live in a liberal democracy, and we should value the importance of getting along even in the face of fundamentally different values, much less specific political stances. Not everyone is worth talking to, but I prefer to err on the side of trying to listen to and speak with as wide a spectrum of people as I can. Hell, maybe I am even wrong and could learn something.
On the other hand, there is a limit. At some point, people become so odious and morally reprehensible that they are just monsters, not respected opponents. It’s important to keep in our list of available actions the ability to simply oppose those who are irredeemably dangerous/evil/wrong. You don’t have to let Hitler eat in your restaurant.
This raises two issues that are not so easy to adjudicate. First, where do we draw the line? What are the criteria by which we can judge someone to have crossed over from “disagreed with” to “shunned”? I honestly don’t know. I tend to err on the side of not shunning people (in public spaces) until it becomes absolutely necessary, but I’m willing to have my mind changed about this. I also think the worry that this particular administration exhibits authoritarian tendencies that could lead to a catastrophe is not a completely silly one, and is at least worth considering seriously.
More importantly, if the argument is “moral monsters should just be shunned, not reasoned with or dealt with constructively,” we have to be prepared to be shunned ourselves by those who think that we’re moral monsters (and those people are out there). There are those who think, for what they take to be good moral reasons, that abortion and homosexuality are unforgivable sins. If we think it’s okay for restaurant owners who oppose Trump to refuse service to members of his administration, we have to allow staunch opponents of e.g. abortion rights to refuse service to politicians or judges who protect those rights.
The issue becomes especially tricky when the category of “people who are considered to be morally reprehensible” coincides with an entire class of humans who have long been discriminated against, e.g. gays or transgender people. In my view it is bigoted and wrong to discriminate against those groups, but there exist people who find it a moral imperative to do so. A sensible distinction can probably be made between groups that we as a society have decided are worthy of protection and equal treatment regardless of an individual’s moral code, so it’s at least consistent to allow restaurant owners to refuse to serve specific people they think are moral monsters because of some policy they advocate, while still requiring that they serve members of groups whose behaviors they find objectionable.
The only alternative, as I see it, is to give up on the values of liberal toleration, and to simply declare that our personal moral views are unquestionably the right ones, and everyone should be judged by them. That sounds wrong, although we do in fact enshrine certain moral judgments in our legal codes (murder is bad) while leaving others up to individual conscience (whether you want to eat meat is up to you). But it’s probably best to keep that moral core that we codify into law as minimal and widely-agreed-upon as possible, if we want to live in a diverse society.
This would all be simpler if we didn’t have an administration in power that actively works to demonize immigrants and non-straight-white-Americans more generally. Tolerating the intolerant is one of the hardest tasks in a democracy.
I believe in self-determination for countries and for individuals. I draw the line where your self-determination infringes upon mine, just as everyone else does. In most cases we do not need rules to be imposed upon us from without (sociopaths and psychopaths aside). I give as an example, the spontaneous generation of the rules fro lining up in front of an ATM machine. No one posted those rules, yet we conform to them quite strictly.
I think it is imperative that we allow speakers with contrasting, even repugnant views to speak on college campuses. If we do not know who our neighbors are, we are in the position of someone who doesn’t look in their kitchen for cockroaches, so there are none.
“If we think it’s okay for restaurant owners who oppose Trump to refuse service to members of his administration, we have to allow staunch opponents of e.g. abortion rights to refuse service to politicians or judges who protect those rights.”. SCOTUS declared in upholding the Civil Rights Act that it is illegal to deny service to individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin (and this has been extended to sexual orientation). But we can still use other criteria for exclusion – e.g. we might refuse to serve those who work on untestable theories (this would apply to both theoretical fundamental physicists and to theologians).
Intolerance should not to be tolerated. The explicit xenophobia displayed by this administration has led to a policy that goes against the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has freely defended the position taken by this administration. As a result, the restaurant owner symbolically asked her to leave. SHS wasn’t forced to it, but could not have been more eager to picture herself as a victim.
When a baker recently refused to produce a cake for a gay couple, liberals should have seized on the precedent to deny Republicans the fruits of liberal creativity (vaccines, cell phones, modern surgical techniques, MRI, pretty much all scientific advances, music, film, language, fire, etc).
Civility and the rule of law all the way. If I’d owned that restaurant, I’d have tipped off some reporters and when Sanders finished her meal, I’d refuse her payment, saying, “We don’t take money from professional liars here.” So then she has nothing to complain of and I’ve make my point in the news.
It seems to me that the commonsense principle is this: other things being equal, you should be civil to other people who pose no threat to you, even though you may greatly dislike certain things about them. You are not obliged to be civil to your enemies, i.e. to people who actively wish you harm. If you are a citizen in an occupied country, you are not morally obliged to be civil to an enemy soldier. If you are, people may legitimately see it as an act of cowardice. Conversely, not being civil – for example, refusing to serve an enemy officer a meal – may be regarded as a brave and inspiring act.
In this particular instance, people will have different intuitions. Some people will see the refusal to serve Ms Sanders as an act of incivility to a fellow-citizen who just happens to have opinions very different to their own. Other people, however, may consider a leading apologist for the Trump administration as a member of the enemy: a person who, wittingly or unwittingly, is acting as the agent of a foreign power and attempting to do great damage to the US, for example by subverting its laws and undermining its relationships with its closest allies. These charges have now been leveled against the Trump government many times, for example in a recent lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party against Trump and his associates.
I don’t know what the truth of the matter is. But I think that’s roughly where the dividing line goes.
I appreciate your essay on the subject of free speech and shunning, and I already agreed with your general position when I read it. That Americans now need to consider this subject seriously and apparently urgently is uncomfortable because so much is at stake. American history revolves around the theme of how to make, and then keep, our society both civil and functional. We may find out how deep our commitment to democracy is, and how engaged our population is with the state of the country and public discourse.
It surprises me that the actions of a single obscure restaurant among the probably millions could generate such controversy. In the spectrum of opinions, there are probably outliers with many similar responses on entirely different topics. It seems that the media often select among the near infinite choices to illustrate their agenda and the public generalizes this to reach conclusions,.
It’s beyond upholding the ideal of liberal toleration. Taken to its extreme, that value self-destructs when it faces a determined opponent that doesn’t share it. As Justice Jackson famously said in 1949 with his work as a prosecutor at Nuremberg fresh in his mind, “Democracy is not a suicide pact.” And as you say, there are limits; lines must be drawn. Our current problem isn’t whether we should be civil to those who hold a political opinion contrary to our own. I violently disagree with a lot of people I might have dinner with. But a look at Trump’s tweets (self-contradictory on consecutive days, or even hours) makes it clear that those who enable him aren’t just politically conservative — they are enemies of reason itself. If we engage them in dialog and treat their views as acceptable, we do so at the risk of the Enlightenment. Anyone for 1600, the year they burned Giordano Bruno? Given the stakes, (poor choice of words there) I really don’t care whether Sarah Sanders has a quiet dinner or not.
There is a difference between reacting to someone’s beliefs and to their behavior. Sarah Sanders is not merely someone who “agrees with Trump.” She has, in her capacity as a public employee being paid by taxpayers, consistently lied, derided members of the press, and actively obstructed the dissemination of truth. For that alone she merits public shaming and, I would say, a refusal of service.
But that’s not why she was asked to leave the restaurant. The owner polled her employees and most (if not all) of them took strong exception to Sanders’ complicity in the administration’s positions re LGBTQ persons. Oh, and for what it’s worth–she was asked *civilly* to leave.
It’s a tricky issue indeed. The problem is that there are pretty much only two ways in which citizens of a liberal democracy can voice their disapproval: protests and votes. I consider what the restaurant owner did as a form of civil disobedience, a strategy that has worked several times in the past. Yes, it’s always possible that the other side can retaliate, but given how things are going, they’re doing that anyway. We cannot always refrain from doing something (the one exception in my book is violence) simply because of fear of being rewarded in kind, especially in an environment like this which is far from normal. And just so because it doesn’t seem to be obvious to everyone, the restaurant did not act against an entire group based on their identity – that would have been wrong – but against a specific individual because of her loyalty to a repressive administration.
“maybe I am even wrong and could learn something”
As someone who has tried to engage you as to whether monochromatic mass functions are an appropriate characterization of the merging population of black holes, and the implications for the proportion of dark matter, I would love to have the opportunity to talk to you about it. Is that in the cards, Sean?
The issue of Sarah dinner may be complex, but it’s unimportant compared to kidnapping immigrant
children and cutt ingMedicare, etc. under cover of Sarah and the kidnapping
Popper’s paradox of tolerance is straight forward on this one. A tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance. Trump is a fascist and so is everyone who supports him. Don’t give them anything. Don’t take anything from them. Make it hard for them to leave their houses. Let them know you see them and you know what they are. Lose friends. This is a moral imperative.
I have considered and re-considered the issues raised by Saunders’ treatment. I do not subscribe to the ham-handedness of the current administration, nor do I believe that Republicans, generally, think their elected official is particularly fit for the office, however, he IS their elected official. The incident in question has no equivalent in our current legal and/or moral lexicon and represents the divisive culture which has been fostered by a neophyte group of politically inept hacks—people who equate government with business; upsmanship; and, Trump’s own emphasis on getting the best deal for America. If I were that restaurant owner, I like to think I would have used better sense. Sarah Saunders may be a lot of things. But she is not someone who should be regarded as morally reprehensible. She is doing the job she was appointed to do. That is all anyone should expect of her. The picture, Mr. Carroll, as you well know, is much bigger than all of this nonsense. I intuit that the republic will survive this mess. Will it be better? That is another very large question…
Your post and the comments posted on it are fascinating. I applaud anyone who is willing to explore your current political impasse. I admit I am Canadian so maybe I should butt out of Uncle Sam’s business, but if you will let me, perhaps I can add my take on the discussion. I am a dedicated follower of your political scene. It’s clear that there are two entrenched sides, each side digging its heels in deeper and deeper, proclaiming the other one wrong. As Trump increases the rate and severity of his personal attacks on others by tweet, late night talk show hosts seem, almost like a mirror, to ramp up their ridicule of him. If I have to choose a side I sympathize with, it is yours but it’s starting to feel like a hamster wheel going around and around, ie.: stuck.
In therapy, when couples are at an impasse, they can learn to step off the wheel by switching from “you” statements to “I” statements, and by listening to what their partner has to say about how they feel. I noticed that when I stopped watching the late night hosts I started to feel pretty damn tense and scared about Trump. I guess they were my distraction from that fear (and my catharsis). Now I find myself wondering how the Trumpers feel. What’s underneath their bluster and aggression? Is it fear too, and if so, of what? Is there any common ground to find?
“Tolerating the intolerant is one of the hardest tasks in a democracy.”
–
Funny, this is *exactly* what Conservatives say about the left. Tolerance as a value is only meaningful when dealing with people you really don’t get along with. Declaring someone Hitler and no-platforming them is succumbing to base tribalism. You want to be civil? Then find some “moral monsters”, and ask them to explain why they feel the way the feel. Don’t pick the stupidest one you can find on the street to make your life as comfortable as possible, find someone who will articulate their point of view well. Let Hitler eat at your restaurant, because after a fine meal you’ll probably find they aren’t so Hitler-like after all.
“The incident in question has no equivalent in our current legal and/or moral lexicon…”
Sure it does — Charlottesville. And btw, no one was violent with Sanders.
“She is doing the job she was appointed to do. ”
So was Goebbels (in fact, same job).
She IS morally reprehensible, unless you deem her constant, blatant lying to the press to be morally neutral because it’s what is expected of her. All press secretaries have evaded, been disingenuous, and probably lied, but nothing like this. And she’s doing it in support of a President who, as someone recently said, lies with every breath. None of this is acceptably within the normal limits of politics. Trump’s demagogic attack on the press, and Sanders’ extension of them via her own incessant lying, are fascist in spirit. She deserves all the public condemnation and shunning she gets, and more.
Sean, I respect your views and would have completely agreed with you until recently. But Trump and his cronies have worn me down. In my opinion Trump would be comfortable walking in the shoes of Stalin. I even think that Gandhi would have smacked him in the jaw.
I think it was in ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’ that Karl Popper formulated the paradox of tolerance: indiscriminately tolerating even those who oppose that very tolerance eventually leads to the disappearance of tolerance. Hence, tolerance must have a natural boundary if it is to be sustained.
Furthermore, regarding the specific incident, there is a clear difference to, for instance, a baker refusing service to a gay couple: you can fairly refuse people for their choices of action or behavior, but you cannot refuse them just on the basis of who, or what, they are. The simple reason for that is that one can (and should) as a responsible adult be held morally accountable for one’s actions, but not for what one is. So throwing out somebody whose behavior is morally reprehensible is not comparable to discrimination of protected groups.
Having said that, I still think that seeking discourse if at all possible is the right action to take.
Christopher Hitchens once said he would rather join Neo Nazis as they marched through a Jewish suburb than block them from expressing their views. His point was similar; he preferred to engage those with whom he disagreed, rather than ban them outright.
V.v “non-straight-white-Americans”. What are they? Many like myself find it morally repugnant to ascribe folk to categories such as ‘white or black’. They are anachronistic ,debunked and totally false racial ideas and completely meaningless genetically yet appear to be eternal in the minds of so many. If I was to take a moral position on this and show the door to those who use the terms life would become very difficult. Best to engage, as Hitch did, and explain ….> no one is white, no one is black and skin tone in our spp is a spectrum of light to dark shades of brown which vary seasonally. Moreover skin tone is perhaps the poorest indicator of genetic diversity that exists and should not be used to define populations.
@pdvanpelt, how do you feel about Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen? Was she obeying an illegal order when implementing the “zero tolerance” policy to rip the infants of asylum-seekers from their mothers arms, drug them, cage them, and send them to foster homes from which the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says 86% of child sex trafficking victims originate?
I subscribe / follow your Blog Seán because I was originally a physicist( not in your league, a researcher and then an Institute of Technology lecturer) , so I was a bit surprised at first , but then found your Blog on Sarah Sanders very interesting. I have for almost 50 years beenn an Irish Labour Party activist, and for 11 years after retirement from education a Labour Councillor ( local government) , so I consider myself on the left, a social democrat/ democratic socialist. I still find it hard to believ3 that Americans elected Trump, an egotistic sociopath, possibly a psychopath. But…. I believe tolerance to be very important. Trump is President, Sarah Sanders a Whitehouse employee, but when not at work she is( I presume!) a US citizen , and a private citizen. I could understand, and not even condemn, another customer having a go at her, verbally and within limits. But I am uncomfortable about the owner asking her to leave, unless she donned her employment hat , and started upsetting other customers by speaking out about Trump. .
The difficulty here is that no one on the far right (i.e., those that are in power) has any interest in a civil conversation. I am a liberal, and I have conservative friends that I have productive conversations with on a semi-regular basis. Great! You’re welcome in my restaurant anytime. But then watch the rhetorical tactics of, e.g., Tucker Carlson. He is not interested in having a conversation, or in reaching any kind of common ground. He wants to shut down debate, or at least sow enough discord that at the end of a “debate” with him you are forced to pick a winning side based on in-group loyalty and argument by authority instead of reason and presented facts. We don’t have to be rude about it, but I don’t think we have any obligation to engage with people like Stephen Miller or Sarah Sanders.