We are in polarized times, emotions are high, and nerves are frayed.

So what am I calling political hate speech? If someone said, “I hate all black people” or “I don’t trust Muslims” both would clearly pass for hate speech across a range of definitions. Both are morally wrong, they would be denounced, and the social push back against them would be justified. But whenever hate speech is brought up, the limits of free speech are also brought up closely behind. Let’s frame that debate. Looking at those previous two statements, I think we can agree that both are clearly highly negative to a specific group and neither adds any real insight to society. While Americans hold freedom of speech as a fundamental right, most are also strongly against hate speech. First, entirely on the moral ground of the content. Secondly, what is gained by it? It is a large negative with no additional insight. When people defend hate speech it is not on the quality of the speech but on the ideals of free speech itself. We see freedom of speech as good for society due to its positive effects for the press, faith, science, arts, and criticism of those in positions of power. 

So once again, what am I calling political hate speech? Same structure as before but since we added an adjective let’s swap out proper nouns. If I say “I hate all Republicans” or “I don’t trust Democrats” would either pass as hate speech? Let’s look at our previous standard: how negative are those statements and how much insight does it provide society? The gut answer is actually different. Today, it is socially ok to hate the other political party. It is not seen as that negative but just part of the political process. Religious and racial identity are held in respect and are treated as a line you do not cross without facing social consequences. Political identity, you side with those crooks? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!?!? 

… and isn’t that strange? I know plenty of people whose political beliefs are held far closer to their identity than a racial or religious connotation. I know plenty of people who are passionate and closely tied to one specific policy, one among two dozen held by one party or the other, but that one policy is critical to them. They are willing to volunteer their time and money to further that specific cause. They are willing to march, preach, and take a stand for that issue. It is a core part of who they are. 

So let’s view this structurally. Let’s say two people hold mixed views across two dozen policies, some for party A and some for party B. They could completely agree on 24 of 24 polices, 100% political agreement. But the first person feels very strongly about option A of policy 23 while the second person agrees with option A but they are passive about it. Both agree on option B for policy 24 but while the first person finds that a trivial policy, the second person thinks it is the most important question facing this generation. Both people agree on 100% of the issues, but their passions lead one to party A and another the party B. 

And now because of their political alignment it is ok for them to hate each other? If they were elected representatives they would produce identical voting records, and it is still socially acceptable for them to run attack ads against each other? Why? 

Because political hate speech is socially acceptable.

But I have to ask, have you ever read an old book that used the N word? Watched some of the old Disney pieces made for the US government during WWII that featured caricatures of the Japanese? Today those make us cringe. Yet we are 100% comfortable today with political straw men and demonization?  

Political hate speech is a poison and the body being destroyed is not the political parties, but the ability to create policy. The ability to have a minimal level of discourse. The ability for us to consider uncomfortable truths. But this is not the first time we as a nation have faced this poison. 

During the founding of our nation, there was a debate over the role of the church within the state. We have all heard the reasons for why we have separation of church and state… but that story is always told from the perspective of what is good for the state. After those points were made at the constitutional convention, Rev. John Witherspoon stood up. The other founding fathers must have expected him, being the only man of the cloth among the delegates, to provide a counterpoint. He didn’t. He argued in favor of the separation of the church and state for the good of the church. 

Rev. Witherspoon moved from Scotland to the American Colonies at the behest of the Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterian leadership in England had become aware of a schism that had formed between their American congregations but they were unclear of what the causes were or how extensive the schism was. Rev. Witherspoon was a respected theologian so they were sure he could straighten out any details. 

What Rev. Witherspoon found in America was not churches split by theology, but churches split by politics, specifically, the question of loyalty to England. Given the cause of the schism, neither side wanted the nature of the debate to get back to England which is why the Presbyterian leadership was being left in the dark. Despite that, the effects of the poison of politics were so strong they were felt across the Atlantic Ocean.

We live in a multifaceted world made up of many multifaceted communities. Yes, your politics matter, but so does your job, your church, your family, and all the other touch points in your life and community. How does political hate speech filter through those? Are all of those things combined worth the poison of that hate speech?

We can blame politicians, institutions, or specific individuals, but I think we need to stop political hate speech as a society. Chris Rock once noted that as a rule he “talked about what people do, not what they are. If you talk about what they are, that hits harder”. If you want to object to a political action or a bill, do so. You should speak up. But don’t object to who people are. That forces people into camps. And when people get pushed into deep political camps they lose the ability to see the other side. Under this mind set, it is worthwhile to damage yourself once if it causes the other side to be damaged twice. In a zero sum world, that wound is a win. What this actually means is the nation as a whole gets damaged three times so the partisans can score points against that other side. 

We need to move the conversation out of the zero-sum world. A skilled politician and political thinker will be able to see the opportunities for partisan gains as well as when to reach across the aisle to build a bi-partisan bridge. If you can only do one, you are only half a politician. As I looked out at my country today, I see a lot of half politicians driven more by political bigotry than the greater good… or the basic ability to compromise so they can score points in their own districts. Political talking points of both parties are driven more by political caricatures that are closer to the cringe worthy material of the 1940’s then an actual reflection of the world today or the other sides policies. 

I am not saying both sides are equally guilty. The Republicans have been playing with fire more than the Democrats and they got burned on Wednesday. They deserved to get burned on Wednesday… but note that all of Congress got hit by that. We all need to de-escalate the hate and worry more about how to build the bi-partisan bridge then how to score the next round of political points. We are all stuck with each other and the other side is large enough they are not going away.