There are always costs placating hate both in the present and in the future. Hate is a powerful negative emotion that encourages mental aggression and the manifestation of that aggression into and onto society (The brain goes into flight and fight from improper coding of symbolism and in turn become heightened in aggression. Even more so when supported politically and/or socially through a diminished sense of responsibility. Usually the higher the amount of hate is associated with certain personality traits and disorders. i.e. scapegoating). When collectively we find hate to be an appropriate pathway to achieve certain political, racial, or religious/ideological goals against people we don't like (typically these are the minorities and easy targets with less inherent protections as built into the perceptions of a number of officials.) our nation will misstep (Do that on a large scale and we may never truly recover.) When a higher percentage of Americans feel political violence is ok, we are likely going to run into two large emerging trends that will compete for influence (Reuters Article Political Violence).
(This is one of the reasons why I encourage our political leadership to think bi-partisan and think about shared American identities. We can't function well limping in human capital and we can't function well when people are trying to divide our communities. Being bi-partisan and thinking critically about all the arguments is not well received in our political environment. That could be a leadership issue in general where the small pictures overshadow the larger national purpose. As with most things, good and bad all mixed together. Some helpful, some destructive and lots of followers. I vote for people who bring us together and have a vision mixed with a reasonable action plan. )
This story and other similar writings are fictitious rhetorical thought experiment dribble designed to help us think of hate and its dangers on a local and on a national scale. To me, anytime we can take a large group of people and tie them into a shared identity with shared goals of an organization, we will likely flourish. If we do the opposite, encourage differences, and then support those differences in our local institutions (include clubs and clans) we have a issue that will limit our full potential as a people and a nation (Dividing our skills, resources and opportunities.).
Every nation that grew together and found a shared sense of purpose were more likely to succeed (beat the global market) when compared to those who are trying to separate people. Its a natural mechanic of resources and efforts being focused in the right places. If you don't have purpose, you don't have much of a plan and can't draw people into a solution through shared ultraistic collective gain (Think of that from a political perspective. You need a good purpose to have a good plan. One must come before the other. Yale has an article on people voting more party than vision. As a risk only 3.5% would vote against their partisan politics to support democracy. Study: Americans prize party loyalty over democratic principles).
Our leaders and institutions should be encouraging togetherness and fair treatment across the board to maximize engagement and in turn American values and support our economy. When they don't do that, they run into issues not only of trust but also essential purpose of some institutions(Likely while were seeing some level of backlash. That discontent could grow if we don't find a way through the divide American/"American".). For example, allowing clan based third world justice to supersede first world democratic principles isn't likely going to be a good route forward.
Let me give you a hypothetical example that might help highlight the issue. Don't get upset at the topic. No matter which way you lean, there should be some wisdom here. If someone who worked for the police department wanted to enrichment themselves they could easily use rumors and hate narratives to prepare the stage for that self gain (That also includes manipulation of the sick and elderly for money. 2X). This could be even more true if friends are part of a closed cultic circle and don't receive adequate information about others from outside their group (i.e. too much dominance from a couple of personalities. General language that encourages belittling others and raising false image of self/group. )
Imaging if personal loyalties superseded every other consideration (including the law, Constitution, or Bill of Rights) and people acted on those rumors in a long term targeting campaign against the minority family that include following home, pulling over kids, picking fights, making false police complaints, spreading hate narratives and general trying to cleans their town of anyone different (...and not within their social hierarchy.). This would create an unfair and unsafe environment where social contracts are not followed and rules are subjective by nature.
Imaging if we gave any supporter and actor of hate a free pass, not based on the merit of their behaviors, but because we have extremist type leanings mixed with our social clan networks within a number of local institutions. As the family tries to shield themselves from group hate and associated corruption, they become ever more responsible for the perpetrators behaviors even if the justifications are not accurate and unknown in general (Mostly their feelings. They have rights to say "no" to this group.). Now image if the perpetrators behaviors were learned from prior bad behaviors and enrichment using intentional hate narratives but given a free pass to continue on into the future making more victims. Smart?
Would this be moral? Would such behaviors increase? Should we consider something like this unfair in society? Are there differences between how laws are used/misused and the potential essential truths of the situation (i.e. misalignment in concepts of justice)? Imagine if we do that in a lot of places and we have no mechanisms of self-correction. Without thoughtfulness by our politicians and discouraging third world type of behaviors we will likely see extremism grow in our communities and impact our institutions in a negative way (Seen more as tools when compared to being seen as having an important function in society. i.e. protect and serve others before self.).
Supporting our institutions, good police officers and the essential purpose does require talking about how to fix problems. Not political surface rhetoric designed to enflame a crowd, but thoughtful and well meaning discussions on solutions. When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the are no exclusionary relations, races or social clans. How do you sell an environmentally and strategically aligned America to our fellow Americans? How do we sell it to our politicians? Parties? The next 5 years will determine where we successfully as a nation passed this test and/or begin the chaos of decline (Moving up to the next stage of democratic development. Some have called it a Universal Democracy as a natural growth from a long line of democratic development dating back to ancient Greece.)
(It appears that the clan system is overshadowing the official democratic system in some places and there is little to no way to correct until our leadership decides our country is worth the hassle of thinking beyond themselves and their small faction of followers. In such places one can commit crimes, in some ways encouraged, as they see fit as long as its social crimes against those of the wrong religion, politics, skill color and the many other unamerican and undemocratic justifications for hate. No backstops in these locations. We should see similar cleansing crimes grow over the next five years in our nation when the wrong expectations are set and socially supported among certain cultic circles and tainted local institutions. Might makes right in the short run but also crumbles in the long run. Where local institutions were touched by corruption, they need to change for the health of the whole system and its long term viability. Wouldn't it be nice if they cared about all of us?).
(Just in case you are wondering where my political values lay. I swore an oath to our Constitutional and our liberties. I'm a light Right with lots of liberal friends. A RINO-DINO of sorts but conservative in outlook and general perspective. More conservative in values but less on surface for show. i.e. protecting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion is incumbent on every conservative and liberal alike.)
