As JJ’s readers know, I was strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president. I won’t rehash the reasons because I don’t have the energy now to re-litigate the fiasco of 2016.  I will say, though, that this political position cost me friendships, got me kicked out of progressive discussion groups, and pissed off long time friends and allies.  What surprised me, though, in no small measure, was the vitriol that my opinion generated.  I was called a misogynist and a lot worse. The anger just jumped out from the screen of my laptop and was acid in people’s voices.  From strangers I kind of got it; but from friends I had known for years, I was gobsmacked at the anger and hatred.

I guess I was naive, but my opinion, based completely on simple facts and strategy I believed would win the election, was dismissed because I am a white guy.  It didn’t matter that I was ultimately proved correct.  It didn’t matter than many others felt the same way.  What mattered in the eyes of many was that, because I’m a white male, I was automatically disqualified from deserving an opinion.  Those who know me well KNOW that I’m not any of the things of which I was accused and that I often write about social justice, equality, and diversity in our society.  In this particular case, though, simple genetics took away my right to free speech and free association.

Today, Frank Bruni wrote about the same subject.  He spoke about how our college campuses and other organizations have become forums for the aggrieved where opinions are automatically qualified or disqualified by the sex, race, religious affiliation or social standing of the speaker.  Now, before you start screaming at me, I (and Frank Bruni) certainly acknowledge the reality of racial and sexual privilege.  There’s no question that it exists and is pervasive in many cultures including ours.  However, that fact doesn’t automatically disqualify the opinions of those people because of those unchangeables.  As Bruni put it, often people’s response is, “Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B.”  That’s unfair, especially when you know the person speaking.

Can the “privileged” KNOW the plight of the oppressed by personal experience?  Certainly not, especially without sincere effort to learn about that plight.  However, does a person’s genetics, ethnic origin, education and place of residence permanently disqualify that person from deserving an opinion?  Of course not, and that’s the point, isn’t it?  Mutual respect of others is the key to exchanging opinions.  We are endangering that exchange by this growing gap that we profess to be closing.  Sometimes we have to take off the colored glasses that we all wear to actually communicate with one another.  And, we have to avoid personal character assassination, especially over who we support politically, and more especially of those we know well but with whom we have a disagreement.

There are people with whom I agree on 99.9% of issues.  But I no longer talk with, or associate with them because of that .1% disagreement.  That’s just stupid, and doesn’t help anyone.