[Originally published in the Front Range Voluntaryist, article by Noah Leed]
I'm really enjoying NFL football this year. Some years I'm more into it than others, and it really has little to do with the "quality of the product" and certainly nothing to do with politics. It has to do with me: my state of mind that particular year, my free time (or lack thereof), and the people that I will be watching games with. I grew up watching games with my (now deceased) father, so there is a nostalgic aspect that may wax and wane but will never disappear.
I recently gave up cable TV, being sick of high prices and poor service (that's you, Comcast). But I still watch nearly as many games as I used to, if not more, viewing them with friends and relatives. So I am part of the reason that NFL viewership is officially "down" even though my actual viewership is probably "up."
How many of us fans tune into a football game to watch the national anthem being performed, or to keep track of who is or isn't "respecting the flag" or who otherwise might be failing to exhibit proper levels of militaristic or nationalistic patriotism? Until very recently, that number was zero. So it is with great amusement (and a little bit of contempt) that I find an associate of mine boycotting the NFL on that basis. To my mind, he has taken marching orders from der Fuhrer, and has agreed to punish himself by forgoing a beloved pastime as a matter of maintaining ideological purity. He is engaging in a form of "political correctness" in order, rather ironically, to protest political correctness as commonly perceived.
There is a real danger when our political leaders start talking about what people "should" do, as if loyalty to a particular ideology is the ultimate expression of good citizenship. It is not.
Of course there is nothing wrong with any citizen, in displaying mere personal preference as an individual, to speak of what he'd like to see other people do. That is a "should" with a small "s" that simply reflects the way we'd like things to be. We all like to see behaviors that supposedly would make life simpler, happier, healthier, better and more affordable for us all: people "should" floss their teeth, wear their seat belts, help little old ladies across the street and donate blood for the Red Cross. But we don't need laws to force that behavior and turn them into "Should" with a capital "S."
We "should" also respect the varying individual values and preferences of others, so long as those others are not harming anyone, even if our own preference would be for others to hold values that might be more similar to our own. We can be offended by the values and preferences of others, and not be fans of their actions, while still respecting them enough not to interfere or intervene. We intervene when we see the real potential for harm and injustice, not when we are merely offended or annoyed.
But political leaders have had a tendency through history to talk about "Should" with a capital "S" and start demanding, rather than just preferring, that people behave according to certain rules. These rules may be set down as formal laws, or obedience and compliance may be pursued through social and political pressures or media propaganda.
So while the age-old knowledge that one "should" or "should not" behave in certain ways is always subject to the reality of positive or negative consequences in our day-to-day lives (drink more alcohol than you "should" and you end up alone, and dead) there are periods when we overlay the government-dictated "Should" on top of existing reality (one sip of alcohol is more than you "Should" ever drink, produce, or sell, so We The State will now throw you in jail).
In times of war, the State has demanded a conformity of loyal sentiment. You "Should" support “us.” If you do not support the State in its war efforts, you are essentially a traitor and an enemy of the State. As Randolph Bourne pointed out a century ago (in "War is The Health of The State"), people confuse the concepts of government, nation and State. For some, it is their very love of their nation, land, people and culture the leads them to speak out against government and State and the lust for war!
What are we really saying when we "demand" expressions of loyalty and respect for a symbol like our flag, or when we "demand" actions that show a profession of patriotism in ways that we've established as appropriate? Well, if the people we are making such demands of are not actually loyal, respectful or patriotic, we are essentially demanding that they be dishonest, to profess to hold values they may not currently hold. What is the benefit in making liars out of people?
Or perhaps some people are actually loyal, respectful and patriotic but they place those values at a different level than we do in our hierarchy of values, or they simply don't believe in conforming to the most traditional and established way of expressing those values. After all, to not always and everywhere show respect and loyalty in ritualistic fashion is not always the same as actually being disrespectful and disloyal. Failing to put on your wedding band is not the same as cheating on your wife.
Suppose by failing to wear your wedding band, just once, you automatically became branded as a "cheater" since cheaters often remove their wedding bands. Or suppose that by failing to hire a minority, just once, you automatically became branded as a "racist" since racists often hire only those like themselves. And now suppose that by failing to stand for the national anthem, just once, you automatically became branded as "traitor" since traitors often fail to show ritualistic respect for their country.
In applying such labels, any complexity or gray area of your individuality is ignored. The nuanced reality of the situation surrounding any supposed transgressions is ignored. You have a new identity, courtesy of identity politics. You are now identified on the basis of a grouping, on the basis of a label, without regard for whether you actually even belong in that group or fit that label!
The rise of what we call "political correctness" over recent decades has inspired quite a backlash, and deservedly so. By playing identity politics, PC has helped direct the evolution of social consciousness such that many people refrain not only from speaking their minds, but from speaking what they know to be true. It is easier to just play along and not rock the boat, for fear that saying anything un-PC might be offensive to someone, somewhere, for some reason.
What being PC tells us is that one should hide his bad thoughts, feelings, and biases. Be dishonest for the sake of appearance. Go out of your way to favor an individual not on individual merit or personal preference or shared values, but on the basis of that individual's membership in a group identified as disadvantaged. If you should somehow not favor an individual that belongs to one of these groups, admit that the reason(s) probably have to do with the fact that you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It's absurd.
Enter the "alt-right”
The alt-right has risen to combat the political-Left's identity politics, but by what means does it often wage that war? By playing its own form of identity politics, and breeding its own forms of political correctness! It's fighting the Left by playing the Left's game. Many may object to this characterization, and say the alt-right thrives on political incorrectness. But that's the whole point: to be politically incorrect, even if simply for the sake of being so, is a requirement if you want membership in the alt-right collective.
What that means is you go along with the party line of taking a politically incorrect stance always and everywhere, even if reason and truth and common decency threaten to take you elsewhere. And going along with the party line when it does not comport with reality is exactly what political correctness is.
The identity politics of the Left is a form of collectivism, where any individual can be deemed a member of an oppressor-group or of a victim-group by virtue of sharing traits common to that group. This is the exact opposite of individualism and libertarianism. The goal of identity politics is not to see individuals as such, as unique beings, but to see them primarily in their group context and to then value and classify them accordingly. But haven't some on the Right started doing virtually the same thing?
Colin Kaepernick made a decision to not stand for the national anthem prior to the football games in which he played. To many of us, this was an individual's action that we did not approve of, because it introduced an undesired element of disorder into our expectation of an NFL game, and seemed to be neither the time nor place for political protest. It may have offended our patriotic sensibilities. But we didn't bother to view his protest as our battle to fight. Hey, let's play ball. How is what one guy does for thirty seconds, before the game even starts, somehow going to "ruin" the game?
Of course for those viewing Kaepernick’s protest from the Left, to be politically correct one had to support his actions. Likewise, for those viewing Kaepernick’s protest through the lens of a Right-identified perspective, to be politically correct one had to condemn his actions. (Identity politics requires that you must take sides.) His actions were automatically placed by some into a larger narrative, either Left-leaning or Right-leaning, that rested on group identification for its thrust. By his refusing to stand for the anthem, he identified himself as a character in a story, as either one of "us" (the righteous protesters who fight for social justice) or as one of "them" (the politically correct, complaining, self-righteous protesters and players of identity politics).
If you simply shrugged your shoulders and said, "whatever, let's play ball" then you were not taking the correct stand that a member of either the Leftist collective or the competing Right-leaning collective is expected to make (if you are going to actively support "Your Collective" by being politically correct, or are going to actively oppose the political correctness of the "Other Collective").
Many of us are content to let the market take care of these things. We have our opinions, but see no need to project them into the public sphere as political statements, such that we ourselves become characters in the story. It is apparent that through his protests, Kaepernick helped turn himself into a liability in the view of some NFL front offices, and so his actions perhaps carried a cost that the market imposed. He is not currently playing.
All's well that ends well. Except it didn't end; a handful of other NFL players decided to protest in a similar manner. Not being strongly identified with political collectivism on either the Left or Right, I frankly hadn't noticed, because I watch football to watch football, not to watch who does or does not protest before the game. Hearing the national anthem is honestly not the reason I tune in to football games. Football is.
Here I am, admitting that I do not always pay attention to our national anthem when played before a game. And if the song was not performed so close to kickoff, I frankly would never watch it. For me, the game starts at kickoff, and the game has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. Does the fact that I don't make a point of observing that anthem before every game mean that I am disrespecting the flag, or that I am unpatriotic? I don't think so. (In my personal opinion, a song about war and battle is not even the suitable choice for an anthem; I would prefer a song about amber waves of grain and shining seas, a song about the actual nation rather than about the guns and bombs that helped create its political independence.)
Now, if I am actually attending a game, of course I stand for the anthem. Is that because I feel deeply patriotic at that moment? Perhaps. Or perhaps it is because I am simply a conformist, and I stand because (almost) everyone else stands, and it feels better to stand than to not stand. I have no reason not to stand. Most humans will conform to the social norms around them without even thinking about the origins of those norms. Things go smoother when we all conform. Conflicts are avoided. We can focus on what's important: football.
Enter Trump
So what compelled Donald Trump to speak out regarding the ability of these players to protest without consequence? Other than perhaps his own failings in the football business, we must suppose it to be an illustration of the "new" political correctness of the Right. You see, just as the Left-collectivists cannot generally let any opportunity to complain pass them by, we now have Right-collectivists that look everywhere for opportunities to complain. Opportunities to divide, and force people to take sides.
Those on the Left have for decades decided that their hierarchy of values was most valid. Now the Right, having taking heavy losses as social norms on gender and sexuality have evolved, seems to be fighting back against the left by playing on the terms of the Left: identity politics and political collectivism. But aside from satisfying egos, does beating the other side at their own miserable game really count as victory?
The goal of identity politics, practiced from either the Right or the Left, is not to solve problems. The goal is to divide people, to more sharply define competing collectives. Wherever things are basically running smoothly (as in the NFL), the goal is to find the slightest problem and blow it out of proportion so that things stop running smoothly. Donald Trump has become a master of practicing Leftist identity politics from the Right. Injecting his presidential opinion into how NFL owners deal with protesting players is perhaps the clearest evidence of that yet.
Identifying with a collective is ironically a primary feature of being a football lover, where fans can become "fanatics" about their teams and even resort to violence as a result of taking that identification too seriously. Frankly, I think people should not take their identification with ideology, political party, nationality or religion any more seriously than they take being identified with a sports team. Relax, and pay attention to your family and friends, and be of service in ways that you are passionate about. Being passionate about beating the other collective, and "winning" at any cost, is unfortunately the kind of passion that has cost a few hundred million lives in the past century alone. Football may be violent, but its toll is substantially lower.
As a Pats fan, I am not so passionate as to avoid appearing disloyal, and to venture a guess that the Steelers will beat the Vikings in this season's Superbowl. Go ahead, call me a traitor...and I will laugh in your general direction.
