The Rise of Political Bigotry

When a person is a bigot, they are intolerant towards a specific group of people. Unable to separate a group member from their beliefs, they reject the person.


1
61 shares, 1 point
Donate All donations go towards promoting independent journalism and this month's charity.

On June 22, 2018, Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, refused service to Sarah Sanders, the White House Press Secretary for the Trump Administration. Wilkinson asked Sanders to leave on “moral grounds” for supporting Trump’s policies including the practice of separating of illegal immigrant parents from their children.

Discriminating against Sanders was not against the law. In January 2017, Greg Piatek was refused service at a New York bar for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. A judge ruled that the law does not protect against political discrimination.

However, just because it is legal to refuse service to Sanders or a Trump supporter does not make it moral. On the contrary, it is an act of bigotry: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.”

When a person is a bigot, they are intolerant towards a specific group of people. Unable to separate a group member from their beliefs, they reject the person. To a bigot, a person’s worth or value is based on what they believe.

Consciously or unconsciously, a bigot looks down on a member of a group and considers him or her a morally inferior human being. (If they regarded the person as their moral equal, they would not reject them.)

Bigotry is self-righteous behavior. It is tantamount to saying, “I’m a better person than you, and I’m not going to associate with you.” Bigots believe that their intolerance is justified because of the group member’s beliefs, values or actions.

Since Donald Trump became President, Democrats are more intolerant of Republicans than Republicans are of Democrats. According to a 2017 Pew Research poll, 35% of Democrats (and Democrat-leaners) said that if a friend voted for Trump, it would “put a strain on [the] friendship.” In contrast, only 13% of Republicans said it would put a strain on a friendship if a friend supported Hillary Clinton.

Whether Democrat or Republican, a political bigot can become so intolerant (because they believe they are right) that they shun people who they believe are wrong.

Shunning is an age-old practice of social control. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s 1850 novel, The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is shunned by the members of her community because she committed adultery. Shunning serves as a warning to others: If you violate certain social norms, you will become a social outcast too.

One problem with shunning is it often results in living by a double standard. If you shun a person on “moral grounds” then you become obligated (by your own moral standard) to shun anyone else whose behavior is equally bad or worse.

Instead of shunning, it is better to engage in dialogue with the person we disagree with. Speaking the truth is the right moral response to someone whose beliefs or actions we find offensive. Too often, shunning someone is hatred and contempt masquerading as a virtue.

Shunning can be justified to safeguard our physical and/or mental health. For instance, if someone threatens to harm us, then we would be wise to have no contact with them and report them to the police.

However, if a person intends us no harm, and has done us no wrong, then there are no “moral grounds” to shun them. The act of shunning only serves to dehumanize them.

When a business owner shuns a Trump supporter (by refusing service), they may rationalize it as a form of protest. While it will no doubt gain media attention, it is not about protest.

Shunning is a form of punishment. When Wilkinson refused service to Sanders, she wanted the White House Press Secretary to pay a price: to become a social outcast for supporting Trump’s policies.

Hence, when used as a political strategy, shunning is an attempt to make oneself appear on the side of the angels, and the person you disagree with, a devil.


7 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. You touched on a very important point in both our posts – morality. It’s impossible to strictly define morality, especially with the vast array of ideologies permeating the globe, creating variations of right and wrong, just as it’s impossible to define all responses from a moral standard as bigoted.

    In a strict definition, every decision we make that differentiates between ours and someone else’s morality is a form of bigotry. Yet; just as with morality, bigotry has variations, or acceptable and unacceptable applications.

    For example: There are people who become extraordinarily upset upon seeing a woman breast-feed her baby in public. I’ve seen this happen in many restaurants. Why, I haven’t a clue, but it seems to be a major issue for some.

    Likewise; I personally have no problem with words; poop is the same as shit as far as I’m concerned, neither words are offensive to me. Yet; there are many who, for whatever reason, differentiate between the two.

    Are restaurant owners bigoted in asking a person to leave if that person is using “foul” language? Or breast-feeding? I don’t think so at all, but some may. Are patrons immoral for swearing or breast-feeding in public? Not as far as I’m concerned, but to some, absolutely.

    For both morality and bigotry, the variations would be inconsequential observations based upon personal convictions and consequential judgement derived from law and/or societal norms. The first, an expression of personal convictions and personal judgement based solely upon the person’s ideology, the second a matter of very real legal, and/or social consequences.

    I think that’s where we differ. In the “bigoted” response I see the proprietor as just in her actions and you see her as unjust for the same reasons, and we both see the action through our own hegemony. But, then that’s the very cool thing about varying opinions and perspectives, we get to learn from one another and even bounce our hegemony off one another.

    Sadly enough, I think like you; too many people are convinced that one of us must be wrong. And, in reality, we’re both right.

    Metaphysics and philosophy are so very fun, aren’t they? 🙂

    1. Thank you, Bob. You make many great points. Restaurants are within their rights to refuse service based on behavior inside the restaurant that violates their own code of conduct (i.e., no shirt , no shoes, no service.)

      But to refuse service based on behavior outside the restaurant is problematic for it will invariably result in double standards. Once you refuse service to one person for their life outside the restaurant, you will quickly have to add a lot more people to the blacklist.

  2. BTW – I am enjoying the hell out of this discussion. Thanks for stopping by my place and commenting. I hope to hear and learn more from you.

Christopher Lindsay

Sept 30/18: My Kindle eBook, The Donkey King and Other Stories, is FREE on any Amazon website!

Choose A Format
Story
Formatted Text with Embeds and Visuals
Video
Youtube, Vimeo or Vine Embeds