The Principled Art of Nuance
Nuance is dead in American politics. We should work to bring it back.
Nuance, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a subtle distinction or variation.” As a practice, nuance is the art of saying or doing something that is unpopular with all sides. It represents a principled stance on some position or policy, and the courage to defend that stance under constant assault.
Nuance, in the world of American politics, is dead.
Let me pose a question to my readers; do you remember your position on NFL players kneeling for the National Anthem? What about DACA? When Congress passed its first stimulus bill in the spring of 2020 with its $1200 checks and airline bailouts, can you recall your position on the bill?
Now, can you remember your party’s position on it?
In the case of players kneeling, the Republican Party was outraged at such an affront to America. The party line, by and large, was that any player who disrespected the American flag ought to be punished for their transgression, and that the NFL ought to be boycotted for allowing such a practice to occur. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, wholeheartedly supported those who kneeled, calling the action an act of bravery, a courageous stand against an unjust nation represented by the flag and the anthem.
Do either of those positions really make any sense? If you break down the reasoning behind them, do they hold water? The answer, unequivocally, is no, they do not. Any reasonable person can agree that kneeling for the anthem is not an affront to the US; there are far worse aggressions against the country than refusing to stand for our anthem, or our flag. Calling for the NFL to punish players who do so is equally as absurd; those players have the freedom to express their views, and the NFL is wise not to strip them of that right. Likewise, nothing about kneeling is particularly “brave”; the US is not some third-world dictatorship that will throw you in jail for disagreeing with the government. The sheer fact that these athletes have the opportunity to make their stance on national television without worrying about their livelihood should be enough to show that the US is not an unjust nation. These positions aren’t principled by any stretch of the imagination; they’re designed to maximize outrage. And they’ve worked.
Me personally? I am not a fan of kneeling for the National Anthem. I don’t believe it accomplishes what those who do it hope to accomplish. However, I have never called for those players to be fired from their jobs; I would not ban their right to kneel, and I would fight vehemently against anyone who tried to. I believe in our nation, and I believe that those living in this great country have the freedom to express their beliefs (peacefully) however they see fit. This position has nuance; it has layers, it has depth, and it requires a level of critical thinking to come to. It is also unpopular to large swathes of the nation because it this (or, at least, those parts of the nation that are loudest).
I could repeat ad nauseum about the rest of the issues I listed above, but the point is simple; American politics and those who work in it have lost the ability to compromise, to represent nuanced positions, and instead have defaulted to the first knee-jerk response that comes to mind. As a result, politics has polarized; every fight becomes “the last fight”; every proverbial hill becomes the hill to die on. The art of political polarization has usurped the art of nuance, and the results have been as expected. But it doesn’t need to be this way. Not every fight is the last fight; compromise, and more importantly nuance, is needed in politics, and in life itself. If we as a nation can remember that, we will be better off as a whole. We have fallen off the principled path, but we can get back on it if we stop and think. I will always take the latter option.
Principles are paramount, and nuance is the only hill worth dying on.