Contributed commentary from Bob Yates:
While we welcome all residents of Clarksville to contribute to the public discourse, comparing a sitting US congressman to a perpetrator of domestic violence is beyond the pale. Mr. Joel Diemoz’s opinion piece published on Jan. 17 argues that Rep. Mark Green blackened the nation’s collective eye by supporting President Donald Trump throughout his administration and by questioning the integrity of the election. Further, he asserts Rep. Green’s recent calls for unity in the wake of the Capitol Hill riot is akin to an abuser asking for forgiveness so he can continue the cycle of abuse.
Let’s first examine the abuse Mr. Diemoz is accusing Congressman Green and his colleagues of. His first and worst action according to the opinion piece seems to be supporting President Trump’s administration. Mr. Diemoz paints this support as a wholesale endorsement of everything the president said and did during his four years in office. We would be hard pressed to find any lawmaker that agrees with everything a president of their party did no matter which side of the aisle they are on. The case in no different with Congressman Green.
It would be more intellectually consistent to consider the things Rep. Green openly endorsed from the president’s agenda. From a cursory look at Rep. Green’s website and social media it seems Rep. Green’s primary concerns are that of the free market and national security. Rep. Green has expressed more than once that he wants to see less regulation and more freedom in the marketplace. He has also expressed grave concerns over the growing influence of China. These are two things the Trump administration also emphasized in his policies. Is it possible that Rep. Green’s support for the president stems from policy preferences instead of an open endorsement of the president’s personality and character?
Further, few would disagree that the Trump administration had some major failures, yet it is just as myopic to claim that there were no successes. Should we ignore the handful of Middle East peace deals, the pre-coronavirus booming economy, the record-breaking vaccine development, or President Trump’s successful pressure campaign to get our NATO allies to pay their fair share. I don’t suggest that these successes outweigh the failures or excuse any of the president’s actions, but I do suggest that a wholesale dismissal of this administration is an unfair dismissal of those that supported it.
Another major problem with Mr. Diemoz’s analysis is that it not only shames President Trump’s supporters in Congress, but his supporters across the country. If support for the president means one is a wife beater, then we have over 74 million wife beaters in the country. Mr. Diemoz forgets that we are a republic and that Congressman Green represents not only his own opinions, but the opinions of his constituents. If Rep. Green’s constituents didn’t agree with his endorsement of the Trump administration, he would not have been re-elected to a second term with over 70 thousand more votes than he got in 2018.
Mr. Diemoz’s last charge claims Rep. Green is complicit in the Capitol Hill riot because he called the integrity of the election into question. As is typical of fallacious accusations there is some truth mixed in. While Rep. Green did vote to object to the certification the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania and while he did support some of the president’s election lawsuits, he never said the election was a fraud or claimed that it was stolen from President Trump.
We have reviewed Rep. Green’s videos, social media posts, and statements. It just isn’t there. Rep. Green repeatedly called for a fair process, for every legal vote to be counted, and for states to follow their own election laws. Yet he himself was careful never draw conclusions about the results of the election.
Why did Rep. Green then object to the electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania? Like Mr. Diemoz pointed out, Rep. Green had been sounding the alarm about last minute changes to election laws that went through state executive branches or the judiciary instead of the legislature as well as rushed implementation of mass mail-in balloting. Whether or not you agree with Rep. Green’s stance on election security, calling for election security is not the same as saying an election was stolen.
Further, it is ridiculous to liken Rep. Green’s calls to adjudicate election claims in court and to publicly debate election irregularities in Congress to the lawless acts that took place on Jan. 6. While Rep. Green’s actions embody the rule of law our country was built on, the Capitol Hill rioters completely disregarded law and order in favor of chaos and anarchy. To compare the two is to degrade the former and elevate the latter. Comparing non-violent actions (support for a president and election integrity) to lawless and violent actions (wife beating) is precisely the logical problem with Mr. Diemoz’s opinion piece.
Lastly, Mr. Diemoz’s characterization of Rep. Green as an abuser is precisely the problem Rep. Mark Green was pointing to in his calls for unity. He was communicating that it is time to stop looking at those on the other side of the aisle as enemies instead of opponents. Rep. Green was not calling for agreement. That seems highly unlikely considering how far apart the two parties are on most issues, but he was calling on the country to remember one thing, we are all Americans, we all live in “one nation under God.” Calling someone an abuser or a criminal is a way to not only dismiss their views, but their humanity as well. Our politics have become far too dehumanizing today. This is one thing we must correct, and it is something Rep. Green was attempting to do in his post-riot statements.
Accusing Rep. Green of perpetrating domestic violence on the nation because he tried holding the nation to its own standards of law and order in an election does not hold water. Further, his calls to rise above violent political rhetoric and unify under the flag is in no way akin to an abuser seeking forgiveness rather it is a statesmen looking for a better way forward.
We are neither endorsing President Trump or Rep. Mark Green, but we are pointing out that if we did, it would not make us a wife beater. Trivializing domestic abuse has no room in this publication, and therefore, Mr. Diemoz’s piece cannot stand.
Bob Yates