Many of my readers (and a lot more readers than I often have!) congratulated me on last week’s post, the text of my Friday night speech at Farpoint. A lot of members of the audience congratulated me too. That was very kind of all of you, and it’s nice to know my words hit home. A writer is a performer, and all performers live for audience feedback.

Unfortunately, last Saturday evening, the parameters I had laid out, for who is and should be welcome at our convention, were tested. That test has caused me a lot of soul-searching.

Here are the facts:

One of our regular attendees approached me late Saturday night to complain that another of our regular (so I was told) attendees was wearing a MAGA hat. The complainant wanted the other woman to remove her hat for the duration of the weekend and suggested that at least the hat and possibly the woman did not belong there. [There was a D.J. playing music.]

The complainant referenced my opening address saying all are welcome. She said the hat made her feel unwelcome and unsafe. Further, the hat represented a desire to stop all members of the queer community from attending S.F. conventions.

I listened politely without responding, other than to say our foundation’s board would discuss the concern. I met with two members of the Board that night (a quorum) and briefed the other two the next morning. We agreed that, since a MAGA hat is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice as a symbol of hate or terror, since “Make America Great Again” is the slogan of the sitting President, and since our rules and bylaws on harassment only forbid hate statements/symbols, we had no reasonable grounds for asking that the hat be removed.

I met with the complainant the next day and explained the Board’s stance. She indicated understanding, and thanked us for taking her concerns seriously.

She left me with the following points:

• She feared that by next year, the D.O.J. might ban queer people from S.F. conventions.
• She clarified that she did not believe the woman wearing the hat did not belong at the con. She just wondered why someone who would wear a MAGA hat would want to attend an event where drag queens perform and the queer community make up a large part of the population.
• If we tolerate Nazis, then no one else will be tolerated.
• Despite my Friday statement, it did matter to her who someone voted for, because she believed Trump voters voted for white supremacy.
• The hat identified the other woman as having voted for Trump. The complainant felt that she should not have advertised the fact if she wanted to be accepted.

Please believe that I am not belittling either party in this incident. I sympathize with the complainant. She is afraid. The fact that I don’t share her fears does not mean that I dismiss them. I the outcomes she fears unlikely, but her fear itself is real, just like my fear of heights is real. I may not be about to fall when I climb a tall ladder, but my vertigo exists as a physical sensation. I am dizzy, I shake, my muscles stiffen.

I also respect the right of the woman in the MAGA hat to display the symbol of her political affiliation. I cannot dismiss the 77.3 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump as white supremacists or fascists. By the way, this lady did not have the opportunity to address the issue. I never saw her wearing the hat and did not know who she was. I felt it would be creepy and inappropriate to say, “Get me the name and contact information for the woman in the MAGA hat!” If she reads this and wants to be heard, I stand ready to listen.

I was very troubled by the whole experience. I felt I was being asked for help by a legitimately frightened person, but that help took the form of me compromising a moral principle.

This week I summarized the incident for a Facebook group I belong to, “Heinlein Fans Discuss Politics,” run by Nancy Lebovitz. I’ve mentioned them here before. I want to thank all the members for their support. Their thoughts and questions were invaluable. A lot of what I’m saying here was workshopped in my comments on the group.

First, I want to clarify a fine point of the words I used last week. When I said that the one exception to my welcome was, “You are not welcome to make anyone else un-welcome,” I did not mean to include cases where the clothes you wear make other people uncomfortable. I meant that I was asking attendees not to actively antagonize others.

There’s a difference between a passive statement (wearing a hat with slogan) and actively accosting someone because of appearance, politics, gender, etc. I think of an incident in Rehoboth Beach a few years ago, where a man walked up to a priest who was in clerical collar and said, “Thanks for molesting all those little kids!” That is my idea of unwelcoming (and unwelcome!) behavior. Similar sentiments have been directed toward drag queens of late, and they’re just as out of line. (Except, obviously, that the Catholic Church demonstrably did shelter child molesters and the Drag community has not. Still not fair to scream at a priest who was minding his own business.)

Saying, “I believe that health care should be privately funded,” is civil. Saying, “I believe Joan Smith is a drooling wombat-eating moron for supporting Obamacare,” is not. One is an opinion on policy, the other is an ad hominem attack.

A few asked me, “Wasn’t the lady in the hat just poking the bear? Wasn’t she just trying to ‘make woke heads explode?'” Maybe. Certainly, if she had not worn the hat, her support for Donald Trump would be less well-known. But… I have literally heard people say that they were fine with gay people being gay, as long as it wasn’t, “In my face.” In other words, “Why couldn’t gay people just stay in the closet?”

I’m not saying that MAGA supporters have suffered the kind of persecution that queer folks historically have–far from it. I am saying both statements sniff to me of the same kind of thinking, and I’m not comfortable with either. I also wouldn’t suggest that my liberal friends not wear “Resist” pins because doing so is poking the bear.

“But,” some have said to me, once again invoking Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance, “the MAGA movement is as dangerous as the Nazi movement was in Germany in the 1930s, and we need to fight it. We can’t be tolerant.”

I suppose I err on the side of not assuming people are threats. The assumption that someone in a MAGA hat might be instrumental in banning the queer community from my con reminded me of an incident from 1991…

During the first Gulf War, I had a co-worker who was born in Egypt and followed Islam. He was a generous, loving man who gifted me with a copy of the Quran in hopes that I would understand his religion. Another of our co-workers suggested, once hostilities broke out, that my friend should not be allowed in our workplace because he “might be a terrorist.” That upset me. A lot.

I am the son of a Democrat and a Republican. My family has a tradition of staunch loyalty… to two different parties. I have dear friends on both sides of the current unpleasantness. I simply cannot dismiss my Republican friends and family as monsters who want to end American Democracy, any more than I could dismiss my Democrat friends and family. Any or all of them might support a bad policy, and, yeah, bad policies can hurt people.

But I can’t call someone a threat if they’ve done nothing actively threatening.

But I do think there is a clear and present danger to our nation: the climate of fear in which we’re currently living. It’s hurting people. The beliefs–concentration camps, coups, Constitutional crises, Meta getting all our data from Federal databases–may seem unlikely to me, but the fears are real. They’re driven by the (in my mind irresponsible) use of hyperbole: “The end of democracy as we know it,” “Our kids are being groomed by drag queens,” “We have twelve years to save the world,” “Vaccines kill,” “Voter fraud (or suppression) is rampant. Elections are being stolen!” There’s also name-calling: “Nazi,” is the favorite, but there’s also, “RINO,” “Russian asset,” “Commie.”

We heard these phrases a lot during the last election. And we, the voters took them seriously. Whichever candidate we supported, he or she or they was right when they said the other candidate was a [one of the above].

But here’s the deal: they didn’t mean it. They just wanted to win.

Right after the last election, I read an analysis (which I now cannot find again!) that talked about how the candidates use this apocalyptic hyperbole to describe each other, knowing it’s bullshit, but knowing that driving up emotions like anger and fear could deliver them victory at the polls. And then they pretty much forget they said most of it. But the public doesn’t forget and isn’t in on the game. So a lot of us are terrified, and, to them, it’s just business as usual.

But it’s not our business. That’s key. Our business is to calm the fear.

I’ve learned in the course of a pretty long life that, when someone else is upset, it’s my job to be calm. That way, one of us has a clear head and can talk the other one down off the ledge. If someone else’s words or clothing or works of art express anger, try to be calm. In your expression likewise makes someone else angry, try to be calm. Try not to act out of fear. Fear is meant to get you out of immediate danger. Try to live with it constantly controlling you and you will literally die. Your body can’t take it.

If you find yourself nagged, even controlled, by fear, find a calm person you trust. Ask for help.

I guess that’s what my complainant did. She didn’t know that the situation also made me uncomfortable, scared and angry. (It did.) Outwardly, in the moment, I stayed calm. I hope that helped. I hope, together, we took one small step away from division, from hostility, from fear.

One small step for people, one giant leap for peace? I hope so, I truly do.