As an Enneagram 9, one of the things I despise most is confrontation. Now, I’ll do it, but I really don’t like it. It’s one of the things I’ve learned about myself through the years and it’s one of the things that I constantly have to work at to do in a healthy way. Confrontation is hard, but necessary. So when I observed some of these out-of-the-ordinary confrontations in the last two weeks, it was a little uncomfortable, but certainly intriguing. Here are just a few reflections from the past few weeks.
Confrontation #1: Two Presidents and a Vice
The world watched a little over a week ago as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confronted President Trump during his visit to the White House. The confrontation didn’t start until about forty minutes into the forty-nine minute meeting when Vice President JD Vance praised President Trump for his diplomacy in contrast to former President Biden who essentially “talked tough” and “thumped his chest” when it came to dealing with Russia’s President Putin. Zelensky responded to Vance, saying that it didn’t really matter in the past how the President, or any President for that matter, interacted with Putin, he still invaded Ukraine, broke promises, people died, and nobody stopped him. He’s right. Russia violated several cease-fires from 2016-2022, so tough talk, diplomacy, picnics, or a punch in the face weren’t going to stop Russia, and that was Zelensky’s point: there need to be security guarantees with any cease-fire signed. So, in the words of President Zelensky,
“What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?”
In short, JD didn’t really have an answer and chose instead to chide Zelensky about coming to the Oval office and “litigating this in front of the American media”. Vance went on to condescend to Zelensky about the errors in his war strategy, and how he needed to be grateful to the president for bringing an end to the conflict. To which Zelensky replied “Have you ever been to Ukraine?” Oop.
Things kept unwinding to the point where Zelensky told Trump and Vance that they might not feel the effects of the war now because of the barrier of the Atlantic Ocean, but they will feel it in the future. Trump didn’t like that too much and responded with “Don’t tell us what we’re gonna feel.” And the conflict only escalated from there. You can watch the rest here.
From my observation, most people thought Zelensky was in the right and was being attacked or even ambushed by the President. Others thought Zelensky was wrong and planned the whole thing. I think it was an in-the-moment conflict that took place between a foreign leader with his back against the wall (who wanted no conflict at all, but wasn’t gonna be played) and two American authoritarians who believed themselves to be the great savior and facilitator of diplomacy. I thought Zelensky got ganged up on in the Oval office as he got criticized for his attire, told repeatedly he should be grateful, and had to sit there while the President carried on with his both sides-ism. Who wouldn’t have been irritated, and more than that, spoke back to misinformation and ignorance?
Here are three things I took away from it:
Zelensky ran into that good ol’ American air of superiority. Some call it authoritarianism; others, including myself, call it white supremacy. (Yes, white, non-western Central Europeans can experience it too. White people can white supremacy other white people, especially non-western white people, because racism has a lot to do with capitalism, which is a conversation for another post). I think Zelensky was met with white supremacy, or if you’d rather call it American superiority, that’s fine as well, and this is the same sense of superiority that many minorities, especially Black folks in this country have encountered throughout history and in the present and it’s hella resistant and hella provocative. It’s the attitude that “you need us: you need our schools, our money, our resources, our opportunities, our blessing, and if you ask politely enough, and if our interests align in some way that will benefit us primarily, we’ll oblige. But don’t disagree with us or remind us of our failures, and never ask us to apologize.” Zelensky’s words about the US eventually feeling the effects of the war violated that first commandment and flew in the face of Trump and Vance who believe themselves and this nation to be superior and exceptional, and they wouldn’t stand for that. And you can guess what came next? Backlash (read: whitelash)
Both-sidesism: it’s an attempt to bring nuance or objectivity to an issue by highlighting the rights and wrongs of both sides of that issue. Doesn’t sound too bad, right? In his meeting with President Zelensky, Trump mentioned the urgency to end the war because during the previous week 2000 soldiers died “on both sides”. Trump went on to talk about “tremendous death taking place, whether in Russia or Ukraine…think of the parents of all these people being killed, needlessly…”, to which Zelensky, looking frustrated, immediately replied, “They came to our territory.” He’s right. Russia invaded Ukraine and this wasn’t about some tensions between two rival, or equal nations, this was an invasion. This is the same kind of posturing that happens all the time when it comes to racism in our context, and this posturing is by no means new to our President who employed the method back in 2017 when white nationalists protested in Charlottesville, VA and in 2021 when insurrectionists attacked the Capitol. Trump defended the protestors in Charlottesville, saying that they included some “very fine people on both sides” and he defended the insurrectionists saying, “these were peaceful people, these were great people”. Diplomacy, by definition involves dealing with two parties at odds in a sensitive way so as to pursue a peaceful relationship, but this doesn’t mean changing the narrative of the situation (as two Trump officials did about the war in Ukraine) or flattening the fallout of the war by saying that “both sides lost people”. This doesn’t facilitate true peace. It never has. Instead, it creates a false peace, one that as Martin Luther King said, is “purchased at the price of capitulating to the forces of darkness. This is the type of peace that all men of goodwill hate. It is the type of peace that is obnoxious. It is the type of peace that stinks in the nostrils of the almighty God.”
“You should be grateful”. I won’t say much about this one, mostly because it’s a statement that comes from that same air of white supremacy and superiority that I previously mentioned and it’s something that Black folks and a lotta others in this nation still hear. “You should be grateful” - for your freedom, for equality, for a little bit of your land and some government assistance; for your rights finally acknowledged(?) What happens is the nation’s leadership does something beneficial for someone or a group of people, proudly takes credit, but when that group or an individual expresses disagreement or an expectation of further action or a demand for justice, this statement gets childishly wielded against them, reminding them that the leadership should be exempt from any criticism or further demands because it previously did something beneficial at one time. In short, it’s deflection, blame shifting, or an attempt to manipulate or control the situation so as to keep that person or group submissive to their desires. What Vance and Trump were telling Zelensky was, “We’re facilitating this deal between you and Russia, so stay in line and do what we tell you to do, don’t question us, and just be glad you’re getting anything at all.”
Zelensky’s confrontation was necessary.
Diplomacy, by definition involves dealing with two parties at odds in a sensitive way so as to pursue a peaceful relationship, but this doesn’t mean changing the narrative of the situation (as two Trump officials did about the war in Ukraine) or flattening the fallout of the war by saying that “both sides lost people”. This doesn’t facilitate true peace. It never has.
I’ll highlight the next two confrontations briefly
Confrontation #2: Stephen A Smith and LeBron James
Last Thursday, in the middle of a game against the Knicks, just feet away from the middle of the court in Crypto.com arena, [numbertwo] Greatest NBA player of all time, LeBron James confronted freshly-signed hunnit-million-dolla man, ESPN analyst, Stephen A Smith, about his son. The 6 '9 James towered over Smith in what looked like a “I told you when I see you I’ma slap the….” type of moment. You can see what took place here and then watch LeBron tell Richard Jefferson his reason for the confrontation days later, and SAS explain what happened on Gilbert Arenas’ podcast.
There’s a whole web of rights and wrongs in this situation, and I’m certainly not about to both-sides it. Full transparency, I think Stephen A has the high ground, even though I don’t always agree with his methods or his conclusions, or even how he’s handled this situation. LeBron is a parent, a father; a great one from what we’ve observed. But he is also the King of passive-aggressiveness, and even though he confronted Smith to his face - something we’ve never seen from him - he had to know that doing so in that place, at that moment, wasn't going to draw out much of a reaction from Stephen A, the newly inked hunnit-million-dolla Disney man. Now, Stephen A has said repeatedly on record that he’s more than willing to talk to players face to face at games. I’m sure what LeBron did wasn’t Stephen A’s idea of talking, but in the past, he’s more than welcomed the smoke. Even if Stephen A wasn’t shook in that moment, what was he supposed to do?
It turns out that Lebron was more irked than anything by Stephen A’s comments about him as a father, understandably. Who wants to see their kid singled out and criticized (all with their bad highlights playing in the background) as SAS did a few weeks back? Who wants to be made to feel that they’re doing a bad job as a parent in the biggest moment of their kid’s life? But in Stephen A’s interview on Gil’s Arena, he made this point: this is about LeBron. LeBron brought unfair pressure on Bronny in several ways. LeBron didn’t handle the situation the same way other former pro fathers have with their sons. LeBron wants to distinguish Bronny’s career from his, and knows Bronny needs to stand on his own in this league, but LeBron has interfered, passively and actively and now this incident is just another interference. Can journalists even talk about Bronny without the threat of getting pulled up on?
This is a touchy topic and two things can be true at the same time. LeBron can be a supportive and protective father, and Stephen A and other journalists and analysts can be true to their profession by calling it how they see it. What also stands true is this, LeBron is one of the biggest athletes in the world and the biggest player in the NBA. He’s the face of the league, and whether he acknowledges it or not; whether he wants that title or not, that comes with a lot of praise and a lot of scrutiny. Bronny will share some of that attention, but he doesn’t have to bear it all. He can and should be his own man, and I think the best thing LeBron can do is have his son’s back (off the court) like any other supportive parent and get out of the way when it comes to anything on the court.
LeBron can be a supportive and protective father, and Stephen A and other journalists and analysts can be true to their profession by calling it how they see it.
Confrontation #3: Mr. President, I Can’t Get Next To You
For the first time in the history of this nation, a Congressman was thrown out of a State of the Union Address. Rep Al Green, a Democratic representative from Texas interrupted the president’s speech last week when he stood up, waved his cane, and shouted at the President, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid”. Green was escorted out of the House Chamber and was censured on Thursday. Although it’s the first time a lawmaker has been censured, it’s not the first time an address to the House has been interrupted. Outbursts happen all the time, but there’s rarely been any punishment or removal. The 78 year old stood on business when asked about his action, saying “I would do it again,” if given the chance.
Reactions to Green’s censure and the resolution against it were pretty predictable on both sides of the political aisle with Republicans favoring it and Democrats opposing, except for the fact that 10 Democrats voted in favor of censure. One wonders why, but one article explains that as these minor incidents like censures increase among politicians (5 since 2021, and only 5 during the entire 20th century), they become more partisan, and as representatives become more focused on reelection in such polarized times, voting for censure against a colleague can be “a political tool in the future”. Sometimes it be ya own people.
It seems like for some or even many of our representatives in these polarizing times, every political decision is approached from an every-man-for-himself mindset that’s more focused on job security than justice, equity, and governing fairly. Everything becomes a partisan-signaling political tool and I can imagine more lawmakers probably avoid confrontation because of this. I’m all for decorum and civility in these House meetings, and I also appreciate Rep. Green for standing up for the truth and bearing the consequences no matter how slight or severe. Granted, his protest could’ve very well been from the same signaling, reelection-driven mindset that many other lawmakers share. I doubt it though.I imagine his standing up didn’t come from fear of offending his constituents, but fear of what would happen to them if he didn’t stand up and if he doesn’t keep standing up, figuratively speaking.
“There are times when it is better to stand alone than not stand at all” - Rep. Al Green