November 20, 2024|י"ט חשון ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Hypocrisy or Healthy? Meeting with the Vilified
Print Article
After a vicious campaign season with billions of dollars spent vilifying one another, name-calling, and competing who could label the other the bigger threat to democracy, the election has finally been decided and whatever outcome you were hoping for, we should all be relieved it’s over.
Given the rhetoric leading up to the election, one would have expected to see the vitriol kicked up a few notches higher after it, if that is even possible. But instead of escalation and increased warnings and predictions, refreshingly, there are reasons to be hopeful and optimistic that we can learn to get along even through disagreement.
If you didn’t know the history and just saw the smiles, enthusiasm, and spirit of cooperation when President Biden welcomed President-elect Trump to the Oval Office last week, you might have thought it was a reunion of two old friends rather than two bitter enemies observing protocol. The two men seated in front of a roaring fire smiled, shook hands, and pledged a smooth and cooperative transition. They then met for two hours for a discussion that the press secretary described as “very gracious and substantive."
Two men who had spent months—if not the last few years—calling each other names and railing about the disasters the other is responsible for, found a way to shake hands, smile, and make us believe it was more than just for the cameras.
While the presidents were following protocol, an even more surprising meeting took place this week that didn’t need to happen. Two of Trump's fiercest critics, MSNBC anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, opened their show by reporting that they had visited Mar-a-Lago to essentially extend an olive branch to the president- elect.
The meeting was the first time they had seen or spoken to Trump in seven years. Scarborough shared that while they don’t see "eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so," they discussed such topics as abortion, mass deportation, and threats of retribution against political opponents and media outlets.
Clearly braced for strong criticism, they shared: "For those asking why we would go speak to the president-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back – why wouldn’t we? Five years of political warfare has deeply divided Washington and the country. We have been as clear as we know how in expressing our deep concerns about President Trump’s actions and words in the coarsening of public debate. But for nearly 80 million Americans, election denialism, public trials, January 6, were not as important as the issues that moved them to send Donald Trump back to the White House with their vote. [We] realize it’s time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but also talking with him."
President Trump was also positive about the meeting and their commitment to restart communication. He said, "I received a call from Joe Scarborough requesting a meeting for him and Mika, and I agreed that it would be a good thing if such a meeting took place. Many things were discussed, and I very much appreciated the fact that they wanted to have open communication … In many ways, it’s too bad that it wasn’t done long ago…The meeting ended in a very positive manner, and we agreed to speak in the future."
While many applauded the effort to heal our country and its discourse, some cynically suggested that the meeting was driven by fears of retribution and governmental and legal harassment from incoming administration. Others were outright critical of the hosts, labeling it “disgusting” and calling for a boycott of their show, asking, How can you call a man a fascist, imply he is a Nazi and then go meet with him and make nice? One person wrote on X, “Bend the knee to the King in order to save their careers.” Another tweeted, “Total capitulation after years of railing about his lack of fitness. Not even an interview to show their ‘journalistic integrity.’ Just a pure kiss-the-ring session. Disappointed and done with them and their show.”
While many of their fans felt that the hosts were hypocritical, I actually came to the opposite conclusion. The approach should not be to avoid meeting with someone you have called names, labeled the enemy and described as the greatest threat to democracy. The approach should be to avoid the name-calling and labeling in the first place.
One lesson of this election cycle and the meetings of the last few weeks is to think before calling someone a name, assigning them a label, or framing them in an overly negative light. Consider what would happen if the opportunity presented itself to meet with that person. Would you be a hypocrite, based on your prior comments? Disagree, argue, advocate, debate. Do so vociferously and determinedly. But do so civilly. Do so by arguing about policies and positions, reject behaviors and choices. Don’t call names and make comparisons you can’t walk back. Express concerns; don’t offer prophecies.
There are powerful debates taking place now in America and Israel. From abortion to combatting antisemitism, judicial reform to IDF service, emotions are high and feelings are strong. Dialogue and debate are healthy and helpful but drawing firm lines in the sand, setting up paradigms of people being either with us or against us, getting to a point that we cannot find any commonality, is destructive and dangerous.
The Torah tells us that Yosef’s brothers hated him to the point that v’lo yachlu dabro l’shalom.” The Ibn Ezra explains, “v’lo yachlu dabro l’shalom – afilu l’shalom.” It isn’t that they just couldn’t talk about the issues they disagreed about. It isn’t just that they didn’t want to be close, loving brothers. It isn’t just that they couldn’t debate respectfully. “Afilu l’shalom” – they couldn’t even give each other a shalom aleichem. The hatred and intolerance had grown so deep that they couldn’t stand to even extend greetings to one another or to be in a room together.
Rav Yehonasan Eibshitz in his Tiferes Yonasan has an additional insight. When we disagree with people, we withdraw from them and stop speaking to them. We see them as “the other,” different from us and apart from us. As our communication breaks down, the dividers rise up stronger and stronger and we can’t find a way to break through them.
If there is a person who you more than simply disagree with, but their opinion or practice repulses you, and that person were in a position to help you when you needed them, would you not reach out them? Would you not go meet with them? If they lost a family member in a terror attack or tragedy, would you not cry for them or feel their pain?
Yeshaya HaNavi said: ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ, “And your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for all time.” Commentators interpret: when we are “kulam tzadikim,” all righteous and worthy of the land? V’Ameich. When we are part of one nation, united, unified and getting along.
By the time you read this, the reset on civility and communication may have been short-lived and ended. But the lesson for us should endure. Disagree, debate, reject opinions or practices but don’t vilify or call names that would make you a hypocrite or cause you to not be able to meet with them or be in a room.