Anyone who has ever met me knows that I am a pretty huge nerd.  So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that I went to see the new Batman vs Superman movie tonight. (Despite the reviews.) In honor of this battle of epic super heroes, I’d like to  talk a bit about two epic forces that seem to be vying for control of US politics.  It is shaping up to be an unforgettable battle, but in this case it is two super villains (in my opinion) that are squaring off: Donald Trump vs. the Thought Police.

Let’s start with the relative newcomer, the Donald. I grew up in New Jersey so I remember Trump being around from an early age.  I don’t much like the guy.  I’ve never much cared for his casinos. I think he is egotistical, arrogant, and at least a little bit ignorant.  And I’m still at least a little bit upset for what he did to the United States Football League (USFL), but that is a whole other story. I believe that Donald Trump is running for President for selfish, egotistical, and disturbing reasons.  I believe that Trump is appealing to the lowest common denominator of the masses.  I believe there is a very real possibility that Donald Trump will become the next President of the United States, and if he does, he will have gotten there using a weapon that has been created by his enemies for decades: repressed hatred, anger, and bigotry.

It has been somewhat surprising over the last several months to watch Donald Trump gain momentum and move to the front of the polls.  Early on, it seemed like nobody gave him any kind of real chance.  Everyone seemed to see his candidacy as a novelty, some entertainment to help us get through the elections. But he kept gaining popularity because he kept providing what many people want and what some people need.  Some have credited his outsider / non-politician status for his success.  Some claim that he is the best chance for real change to our political system.  Those things have a level of truth to them, but I think he provides something even more fundamentally basic and somewhat insidious. He has given people permission to say all of the things that they have been thinking for years but bottled up because they’d been told that they weren’t allowed to think those things.

When I was a child, my father would occasionally tell me, “It’s a free country and you have every right to be wrong.” I think that Donald Trump and most of his supporters are wrong, just plain wrong.  I also know that is my opinion. And I know that they are entitled to their opinions. I personally feel like I’m watching a scene from the movie Idiocracy whenever I see a clip of Trump speaking.  In the past several months I have seen and heard people (including friends) say some things that I would not have ever imagined them saying.  I have heard more hateful, hurtful, racist, sexist, and bigoted things in the past year than I ever remember hearing before. Some of it is because the entire nation has become more divisive, but some of it has been because Donald Trump has made it acceptable again.

Donald Trump has not created this hatred and anger.  He as exacerbated it, but it has always been there.  It has been smoldering beneath the surface, just cool enough that most of us were able to ignore it.When Donald Trump started speaking his mind and saying the “un-PC” things that he has become known for, others decided that they didn’t need to hold their tongues anymore either and things have snow-balled from there.

So, why was all of this negativity smoldering just below the surface?  We can blame Donald Trump’s opponent in this colossal battle of liberty-hating villains: the thought police. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is supposed to guarantee our freedoms of religion, speech and the press, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government. There is a tremendous amount of debate that has taken place as to what all the Founding Fathers meant for the First Amendment to include. Most agree that it doesn’t include the right to insight a riot or a panic.  But should there be other exceptions to the rights of free speech?

Should people be able to say that they believe in something that is illegal? Depending upon the topic many people would say yes.  Many advocate for the legalization of recreational marijuana use.  I don’t see any reason that they shouldn’t be able to express that opinion. Should they be able to say something that is offensive?  Should they be able to say something that is historically linked to violence? Now we start to get into ethical and legal shades of gray.

Consider a hypothetical situation. Suppose there were a group that believes that cocker spaniels are nothing but pure evil.  They believe that they should be able to kick, step on, mutilate, torture, and/or kill any cocker spaniel. Most people, myself included, would find such beliefs to be repulsive and intolerable.  So, if a group of people was in your state capitol demonstrating to the government and expressing their beliefs that laws should be changed to allow people to attack cocker spaniels, should they be allowed to do so? Many people would say no; they should not be allowed to express such views.  I even have some friends who might take rather extreme action against such people.

I disagree.  I find these hypothetical ideals awful and wrong, and… I believe that people should be able to express their views regardless of whether they are offensive to me or not. Now, if they actually began to hurt dogs or perhaps even if they began making plans to go hunt down dogs, then I believe that they have crossed a line. But if they want to express their views and want to try to convince others to see their perspective and try to change enough minds to be able to change the law, that is their undeniable right.  I think they are wrong, but they have every right to be wrong.

How about a less hypothetical scenario: Same-sex marriage? Many people believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married and have the same rights as everyone else.  I completely agree.  There are people however who find that idea in conflict with their religious views and therefore offensive. They have a right to their religion and to their opinions. I do not much like their opinion, but I would defend their right to express it. Conversely, many find those religious views to be offensive and think that religion should have no place in law-making.  The right to express these views should also be defended.

Now it really gets complex as we get to the more difficult questions.  Should homosexual couples be allowed to celebrate and express their love publicly?  How about on the same park bench with a very religious couple that finds it offensive? What about if it creates genuine emotional distress for that couple? Take the other side… Should a baker be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex marriage? Should a religious baker be forced to endure the emotional stress of supporting something that she finds offensive? Should the couple be forced to deal with the offense of being denied service because of who they are? Would it be different if it were an inter-racial couple instead of a same-sex couple?

Recent events have sided with those who have more progressive views, which i think is great in many ways. In turn, many with more conservative views feel like they have been told that they are not allowed to believe what they believe.  To many of them it feels like they are being persecuted in a way similar to how homosexuals felt they were being persecuted when they were denied the right to marry. They feel like they are being told that their beliefs don’t matter. It isn’t a perfect analogy, I know. There are no perfect answers when two groups of people perceive their rights as mutually exclusive. Do I agree with either side? Not completely. I think that the right to your life without interference trumps (pardon the pun) the right to not be offended, but I can see where some people feel like they have been subjected to a double standard.

This is the trouble with legislating morality.  People don’t agree on all morals and ethics and somewhere along the line you are bound to step on at least some people’s rights.  Unfortunately, in many cases, rather than people being convinced of the value of treating all people equally regardless of how they choose to live their lives, they were simply told that they were not allowed to have certain beliefs anymore.  We all know the efficacy of just telling people that they are not allowed to do something.  It works with a few people, but it only makes many other people angry and bitter.

This is why Donald Trump and his supporters are winning this battle so far. They are being fueled by the anger of their repressed opinions.  Trying to legislate morality doesn’t change minds it only suppresses freedom of opinions.  Those opinions do not go away because of laws.  They can only be changed over time with real, open, and honest sharing of ideas.  That process isn’t easy and it often isn’t fair. But unfortunately, none of the shortcuts seem to work. I think that part of the current  divisiveness in this country is driven by people trying to tell one another what they are allowed to think rather than listening and talking and explaining and understanding. Everyone wants to be heard, but not enough people are listening. Too many people avoid and unfriend people who express opinions different from their own.

So who wins in this battle? Nobody. We all lose. We lose freedoms to the government. We lose friends to arguments. We lose credibility and respectability internationally. Is there any hope for the future? Of course there is. Eventually enough people will get fed up and begin looking for something different.  Many people already have. As a libertarian, I have put my hope in the idea that a legitimate third party in our political system can bring about real change. The sub-title of the new Batman / Superman movie is “Dawn of Justice.” My hope is that this year’s election will finally drive enough people to look for an alternative: a third party. If that happens we may just have a new dawn of justice.

As always, these are my opinions.  I do not claim to speak for all libertarians.  In this blog, I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself.  I’d like to know what you think.  How do you feel about Donald Trump? Are you ready to see a legitimate third party? Is the Libertarian Party the third party you want? Where do you draw the line on freedom of speech? Please share your thoughts in the comments below or suggest a topic for a future post. Remember that I believe that everybody is entitled to their opinions, so I ask that all comments remain polite and respectful.  If you enjoyed what I had to say please give this post a like. (Even if you don’t necessarily agree.) If you want to see future posts, please be sure to subscribe to receive updates by email.