There is one overriding principle I’m hoping we all can agree on:
We need to be open to hearing voices we don’t agree with.
Take Ted Cruz. He’s a Republican running for president. Friday, while stumping in Iowa, he said when he’s elected, there will be newspaper editors and reporters who will check themselves into therapy.
Oh my!
Still, I support his running for president. Let me explain.
When Cruz announced his bid for president, I was cruising through some comments on Facebook when I came across this one from a friend:
“What kind of (country) are we living in when someone who represents less than 10 percent of the population on the major issues, and his nomination is paid for by less than 1 percent of the wealth of this country, honestly believes that he could become President of the United States?”
My friend is a retired journalist who — like many of us — has strong opinions.
Now, if you read my friend’s comment closely, what he’s saying is this:
“This guy’s voice doesn’t even belong in the conversation of who should run this country.”
For me, I mostly use Facebook to post what I cooked last night and photos of doing handstands in strange places. But I couldn’t resist getting involved in this conversation.
“Whatever you think of Cruz, your point — with all due respect — is misguided. The kind of country we live in allows (Cruz to run no matter what you think of him).
“A country that says minority viewpoints are embraced, not discarded because not everyone agrees with those points. A country that allows anyone to run for office regardless of position in society (high or low).
“I embrace positions I don’t agree with, because without that disagreement, we’d all be of one mind. And how boring would that be?”
At this point, another former newspaper friend rushed to challenge me:
“Why would you ’embrace’ a guy and his opinions who wants to take life saving health care away from millions who finally have it and food out of the mouths of hungry adults and children and leave neither group with an alternative?”
Huh?
Of course I didn’t say I was embracing Cruz. Or agreeing with his positions. I said I embraced the concept that people I don’t agree with should run for office and be heard.
Essentially — for me — this becomes a First Amendment issue. More than anything, it’s important to remember the First Amendment is not there to protect the speech you like hearing. It’s there to protect the speech you don’t like hearing.
Enter Cruz. Enter his positions. Enter his right to espouse those positions.
And enter me defending his right to do so.
Later, I would tell the one who originated the discussion that it wasn’t that long ago when people were saying the same thing about a fresh-faced, young U.S. senator from Illinois who thought he could become the leader of our country.
That was Barack Obama. He overcame those who said he had no business running for the highest office in the land.
o o o
As the Facebook discussion thread began to die down, I received a private message from a third former news guy who was following the conversation.
“Have been enjoying your attempt at rational debate with our ‘unbiased,’ professionally objective, formally trained journalist colleagues? No wonder the country is so . Better for all if most of our dilettante generation had died at a Woodstock mudslide.”
I couldn’t help but grin at that final comment as I had grinned at the original comment. (I like grinning.)
Our country is — in fact — extremely diverse. And it’s really more a mosaic than a melting pot. It’s that mosaic that creates our diversity.
And thank goodness for the First Amendment that protects that mosaic. Protects Cruz’s right to run. And protects my diverse friends to say whatever the heck they want.
And I hope I won’t need therapy anytime soon.
