On “The Bullpen” with Dr. Rashad Richey
Please excuse the aggressive cover image on the video below, and check out my appearance on “The Bullpen” with Dr. Richey. This was my third appearance on this segment and I felt like in this go around we finally started to get somewhere. I still disagree with his attachment to majority rule, and I believe the framework of debate needs to shift, but I enjoy speaking with Doc. I elaborate on the framework below, but check out this discussion before moving on.
FYI – We experienced some tech issues in the middle of the show. Credit to Doc’s team for quickly throwing up a graphic to cover up the issue without missing a beat. I barely heard the question he asked as the entire Zoom meeting quit and restarted around minute ten.
After the interview wrapped up we were briefly hanging out in the digital “green room,” and Doc mentioned that he enjoyed our conversation because it was conceptual and challenged the trend of sticking to headlines and current events. As I have thought about that comment more since Monday, I think the reason why high-level conceptual debates are essential deserves to be made clear.
The Constitution has fallen short. The media, as an institution, is not doing its job. Most news would be better defined as entertainment. We need to be having more conversations, and deeper conversations, about Principles, conviction, and belief in the context of current events – not the other way around. I was thrilled to quickly get away from something as mundane as Trump vs. Haley and get into a more productive upstream conversation because that conversation can do more good.
The battle currently unfolding in American culture is one of belief. What makes this moment in time interesting, and frustrating, is that one side rejects the importance of belief, and instead frames their strict view as an absolute truth. The progressive movement is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a belief system with very strict guardrails, even as they change frequently. When the cornerstone of belief is placed on shifting sands, it is no great surprise that we have seen so many leaders get swallowed up. This particular snake always eats its own tail.
A debate over how to administer law where one side allows for the diminishing of some people for the benefit of others is not a productive place for peaceful resolution of disagreements, but it is very effective if the only goal is to justify the use of force and violence to achieve your end.
I reject the premise that is too often found in American entertainment media that current events and popular opinion are the proper battlefields to reach peaceful, productive, and value-added ends. We can expect to see greater consolidation of power so long as we continue to believe a view that allows for individuals’ rights to be eroded with the protection of law has a place in policy debate.
We could, alternatively, draw a line and rightly peacefully laugh such people out of power.
I was invited to go back on the show in early March for a fourth appearance, and I asked Doc to read through Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience before we speak again.
I’ve tweeted my 28 favorite quotes from that brief essay before, and will post those here tomorrow.
It was a joy to get into a conversation about the nature of time, joy, and what we do with an imperfect reality with Doc – and I’m looking forward to doing it again soon.
