The press seems to suddenly remember that there are different kinds of Democrats. How is it that we define "harmful"? Perhaps more importantly, what do we do about it?
The sudden reappearance of the Moderate Democrat...
Maybe it's just me, but I've been hearing and reading the words "moderate Democrat" (referring to state politicians) a lot more in the last few weeks than I can recall hearing or reading in the years prior.
I got curious enough to Google the phrase "'moderate democrats' [Name of Colorado Left-Leaning Media Outlet]". The results are in the screenshots attached.
I won't claim anywhere near an exhaustive look or study, but in considering the results that came up, it did seem that recent mentions of the phrase "moderate democrats" (referring to local politics and not national as seems to be the mainstay of 9News' results) do outweigh the older ones.
That led me to wonder why.
Are moderate Democrats migratory? A new creation?
Or is it just that the media are beginning to draw a distinction between Democrats?
I personally think its the latter and I'd pin it to two different things:
1. The Democrats running this state have, until now, been quite disciplined. Give the devil his due here and recognize that they have had a solid party machine in this state for some time now. They've more often than not moved in a unified direction.
2. The media (regardless of ideological/political orientation) thrive on conflict. It sells. Anything that plays up differences among Democrats will get play on the news.
I'm also reminded here of something I read once. I forget the fancy sociological term, but the upshot was that we perceive those from other groups as being less differentiated. In other words, we tend to downplay differences among the members of a group we're not a part of.
So to me, the label "moderate Democrat" for any Democrat in this state is laughable, while to someone who is more liberal, it would seem perfectly appropriate (while I get frustrated at how the lefty media refuses to draw a distinction among conservatives).
Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see the moderate Democrats resettle in Colorado. Not so much because I think they'll bring policy that'll be easier to swallow for me.
No, more for the fact that our media now must reckon with the fact that extremists exist in both parties. More for the fact that the Democrat party discipline seems to be breaking down (which will make it easier to force the ruling party to the negotiating table).
And, let's be honest, it's fun to watch people you don't like tear at each other. Doesn't speak well for my soul, but it's there nonetheless.
How do we define "harmful"?
Harmful to your body is relatively easy to define. Outside of some idiosyncratic quirks of physiology that might make you more sensitive to something than me, it's pretty easy to know that, say, drinking motor oil will cause some form of harm to humans.
What about psychological harm, however? How do we define that? Can we define that?
Put another way, is it okay to say to someone they shouldn't be insulted or put out by something?
I'm leery to enter the fray on that one precisely because I can't read minds and thus have no ability to tell whether or not someone is faking their harm. How on earth can I tell whether you are being sincere in telling me something harms you?
But let me turn this around a little bit here. Let me approach this from another angle; debating at the level of harm or no-harm is missing the point.
I think it's better and more fruitful to ask:
Should harm to one mean no one can see the harmful thing?
Should harm mean the topic is now off the table and not to be discussed?
I say no.
I say no from the standpoint that, with some exceptions, we live in a voluntary world. If something offends you to the point of psychological harm, do not engage with it. We cannot police everything for everyone. Just as we cannot remove every physical danger in the world, we cannot remove every psychological one and attempting to do so would not work.
I say no too because removing/erasing things that others say harms them removes our ability to have discussions about our past, our present, our future. Why throw away an opportunity to sit down with other human beings to try and reach a mutual understanding? To do otherwise strikes me as simply inverting the current dynamic.
You're just switching which group is on top now, you're not fixing the problem or ironing out the issue.
That's my general approach. I want to turn now and talk specifics. What spurred this post is the article linked below.
The essence is that the Denver Museum of Nature and Science is closing its Indian Exhibit pending a re-working.
In reading all the complaints that indigenous people had, I don't know that I entirely disagree. I think that discussing modern contributions and modern Indians is a perfectly worthwhile and valid thing to do.
Some of the other things, however, I fail to see why they should be removed or changed. Taking out the names that people used to use for the tribes mentioned in the exhibit? Taking out references to how Indians used to live (I admit this one here is more speculative as there was not direct mention that past Indian lifestyles would be scrubbed)? Removing artifacts that the Museum has because they don't have ongoing consent or what one group sees as respectful attribution?
What would be wrong with teaching the past here, with discussing the disagreement? Why not mention the old names people used, their etymology, why current tribes do not go by that name? Why not give the past and present? Why not mention the artifact alongside mention of how the museum came by it (whether that's good or bad)?
One of the things I hope to do with this page is to NOT tell you what to think. I hope to give my approach to things as a way of showing you what I think is a middle-of-the-road paradigm is on hard social issues.
That being said, I have reached the age where I no longer believe I know everything or that I'm always correct. If you disagree, especially if you disagree, I invite you to include your civil comment below.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/05/18/denver-museum-of-nature-and-science-to-close-american-indian-exhibit/