Topple That Straw Man!

Henry Rollins, best known as the singer of the legendary punk rock band Black Flag, is currently doing a speaking tour in the US, and I had the pleasure of watching him do his thing the other night.

Two hours and twenty minutes of rapid-fire anecdotes, observations, personal history, and political musings. He started exactly on time, with no opener or introducer. He stormed onto the stage, dressed in a black tee shirt and warmup pants, took the microphone off the stand, wrapped the cord twice around his left hand, held the mike to his mouth, and launched like Usain Bolt. His elbow never uncrooked, he barely ever paused except for dramatic effect, and despite dripping sweat from the low point of his elbow the entire show, never sought a sip of water. Astounding energy, putting the lie to his frequent 'I'm an old man with soft bones' self-deprecation.

As a story teller, he's superb. A solid 45 minutes was devoted to an incident with a stalker at his Hollywood home, but I never once even felt an inkling of "move on, already." I was engaged the whole time.

As an observer of human nature, he's also well worth listening to. By his own count, he's been in 87 or 88 nations and all seven continents, and has interacted with and been enriched by a far more diverse set of people than you or I or most of humanity will ever have a chance at. He's also, self-reportedly, a very ethical person - he was a year short of being a "senior" when he went to his local supermarket's early access hour, and despite there being no line and being invited in by an employee, opted to sit and wait 30 minutes for his non-senior access.

He is humble and self-effacing, clearly has a powerful work ethic, and lives an almost ascetic life in certain respects (exercises regularly, eats once a day, and doesn't drink or smoke or use recreational drugs. He's also, by his accounts, high-strung to some degree of impairment. By his own telling, he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night, and sleeps fully clothed and shod on top of his bed, so that should someone break into his (quite secure) house, he'll not risk having to encounter that person in only underwear, and you get the idea.

Much of this is admirable (except the high-strung and sleeping parts, but...), and served to amplify my disappointment when he went on a couple political rants. Yes, Rollins rants. Affably, or as affably as one can get when ranting, but rants nonetheless.

I'm not one to snark at politically disparate viewpoints - when they are both genuine and honestly formed. But, Rollings, right after going into depth about listening to everyone without judgement to hear a range of beliefs, trotted out several risible caricatures. Among them, the right-wing ready-for-revolt right-winger, with a 4XL tactical vest covered in Velcro, an AR-15 that he barely knows how to use, and spouting the word "libtard" at anyone who disagrees with hoo-rah old-ways-are-best 'Murica. Implied in the rant was that the Right consists mainly of such phony-toughs, and that their "old ways" are an embrace of racism, sexism, and the conquest/slavery roots of the nation. He also went on a rant about women's bodily autonomy, derided the Founding Fathers as chauvinists who, because they didn't give women the vote, saw them as chattel... and therefore those who oppose abortion do so out of the same "ownership" notion. He never mentioned Trump by name, but railed at him, those who voted for him, and the dark time that he was President. He also mocked those who have many children, attributing such behavior to "this one isn't good enough, let's try again," and aspersing such large families as typically unable to properly feed or clothe their broods.

There were more such false stereotypes and caricatures.

Meanwhile, the worst he could say about Biden was to mock Joe's incessant old-fogey anecdotes.

This isn't about differences in political opinions. I strongly disagree with his assertion that Americans should have far fewer kids - a sentiment that got a loud "Yeah!" from one audience member, and thus reduce the nation's population, and I have ample evidence on my side. I also disagree with his assertion that young, smart people should be leading the country (though I'm fine with his criticism of old, cynical careerists) because implied therein is the same Best-and-Brightest argument that has proven so wrong so often (and that I mock so relentlessly). Good governance isn't about having smart people run everything. Good governance is about doing a few things and leaving people alone after that. Yet, I can abide his right to such wrongheadedness.

This is about the hypocrisy of saying "listen to and be kind to those who have different opinions than yours" while falsely deriding them with exaggerations from the fringes and overt mischaracterizations. The abortion bit was the tell-tale for me that Henry, despite his wide travels, his tough life, and his obvious interest in observing the world, still lives in an echo chamber. Reinforced, I'm sure, by the self-selecting nature of crowds that go to see his shows. The abortion bit was emblematic. Rather than consider that the ranks of those who oppose it not only include millions of women, but that the opposition is based on a belief that life begins at conception, he made it all about patriarchy, misogyny, and subordination of women to male dominance - and then went into a long bit about bans even in the case of rape. Utterly lacking was a legit understanding of the Dobbs decision, which did not actually ban anything, nor a recognition that a major chunk of the country supports some limits on abortion.

If I thought he was insincere or a carny act, I'd accuse him of gaslighting his left-leaning audiences into further despising the Right. But, I believe he's completely honest in his sharing, which is worse in some ways. For all that talk of listening to and hearing the "other side," and as a libertarian I'm used to being on neither side and having both sides yell their opinions at me, he turned to mockery of cheap, grossly exaggerated stereotypes of his ideological counterparts to advance his views. As yet another example, he put forth the conclusion that parents who oppose a child's use of "they" pronouns are either abusers or ignore others' abuse. As I mentioned above, both risible and repudiative of his exhortation toward kindness and listening.

That's not to say the show sucked. Such political stuff was maybe 20% of his time, and he was both factually and concludingly correct in some of it. He covered the nation's very poor handling of the mentally ill - an observation that dovetailed with his stalker story. The stalker, who ultimately broke into his home, was hearing voices, and Rollins concluded that jailing the young man for a decade would serve no one, so he pushed for treatment.

It's OK that I didn't agree with all he said - we all need exposure to viewpoints not aligning with our own. And, it's OK to criticize ideological counterparts. I do it all the time, here and elsewhere, and not being either of the Left or the Right, I find much to pick on. But, I try not to expand the wackiest of the fringes into generalized depictions of the entire community. I try to adhere to my "one idiot" rule - one idiot does not necessarily represent the group - and I try not to grossly misrepresent the views of those I criticize. In the abortion debate, I understand both sides' arguments, and I believe that both sides are sincere in their beliefs. I think there's an unresolvable divide between the two, as I blogged HERE, and while I think that the "my body, my choice" argument is hollow and hypocritical, as I blogged HERE, I nevertheless 'get' the premises of the pro-abortion side. Just as I 'get' the premises of the anti-abortion side.

What I reject, and where I think the pro-abortion side is either dishonest or self-blindered, is that the anti-abortion side is rooted in the subjugation of women. Mr. Rollins might take a moment and listen to some pro-lifers - really listen - and in doing so practice what he preaches. He doesn't have to agree, and he can still stand on the pro-abortion side with honest conviction and a set of arguments that aren't rooted in misrepresenting the other team, but he'll serve both himself and society better by not resting his arguments on tendentious or false narratives.

I spend a lot of time here criticizing collectivists. I think their worldview is at fundamental odds with human nature, I have ample evidence and historical examples that it is irredeemably destructive and murderous, and I find it wholly incompatible with liberty or human dignity. That doesn't mean I don't get their motivations, or why they might choose to embrace it... and more importantly I don't believe that I grossly misrepresent their views.

I also draw a sharp distinction between the Leftists I consider the biggest threat to the nation and to liberty itself and the much larger number of liberals who haven’t gone down that destructive path.

Henry Rollins cited Sun Tzu several times in his show. Among Sun Tzu's aphorisms was,

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Rollins even asserted this point in his anecdotes. That he went down the path of 'right-wingers are toy soldier wannabes who hate women and will fail miserably if the shit hits the fan' (FTR, that's my characterization, not a quote) was the big disappointment.

Do such exist? Obviously.

Are they the essence of the Right, or of all Americans not of the Left?

Please, just stop.

Classic straw-man. I expected better.

It does serve as an object lesson for each of us, though. If we grossly misrepresent those we criticize, we invite dismissal from those who we are trying to win over.

---

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends. Social media has proven wholly unreliable in sharing my posts, subscribing is mightier than the shadow-banners, and subscriptions motivate my productivity.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon. I’ve started offering an expanded serialization of my short book, “End the War On Drugs,” every Sunday, for my paid subscribers.

Chapter 1 - A Catastrophic Failure
Chapter 2 - A Brief History
Chapter 3 - A Society Rooted in Individual Liberty

Thank you, again, for your support!

Peter.