An Open Letter to Matt Walsh
Matt Walsh,
Some weeks ago I had no idea of your existence. Your ideas, thoughts and perspectives were unheard of in my life as you and I shared earth living our lives peacefully and not knowing of one another. This changed when my academic institution announced that you would be giving a lecture on ideologies many would deem controversial on the premises of my campus. Suddenly, your beliefs had a name and had a face.
I am starting this letter by highlighting that I am not one to judge others for having beliefs that do not align with my own. Hence why before engaging in the angry petitions, conversations and doing my effort in preventing you from coming to Saint Louis University, I decided to give you a chance. Upon looking through your social media, YouTube videos and other commentaries you engaged in throughout your career, I came to a clear answer. The following points I am going to discuss are my perceptions regarding who you are and what you stand for. Whether any of this is true or not is up for debate. I leave such judgements to you and the readers of this letter.
The basis for your embracement of controversial and unorthodox perspectives is not for me to interpret; the bottom line is that people’s reactions–both good and bad– are what make you famous and grant you a platform. However, I am here to discuss why your views are dangerous. It is not because you are conservative. It is the way you voice your conservatism. There is a fine line between articulating your thoughts, beliefs, and opinions in a way that is educational and constructive, rather in a way that is emotionally provoking. A common theme in your rhetoric is putting emphasis on things you believe your viewers should be afraid of, which circle around topics of social justice and the current state of the pandemic. With that in mind, please allow me to ask you several questions. What are the intentions behind your beliefs? Are you preaching your rhetoric on the grounds of love for others, or based on the fear of change? And lastly, do you think your ideas will be the basis of the constructive change needed to make our world a better place?
A common pattern I noticed in core conservative principles is that they emphasize the necessity of preservation. Some may see this as an act of maintaining old values and virtues, but I and many others read this as a fear of change. The fear of unfamiliarity is something that lingers in a lot of us, but this exact fear can become dangerous as within it lies the potential for dehumanizing others. Deeds, concepts, ideas, and eventually people are blamed for the shift of society from old principles to new, unfamiliar ones. The second a person is placed into a category, labeled and blamed for things they may or may not have caused, they are no longer a person, they are a problem. When used in the context of condemning someone, the words “leftist”,“gay”, “African American”, or “transgender” strip the person of their integrity and turn the someone into something; the act of dehumanization becomes obsolete when the person becomes an “it.”
Out of your own ignorance or maybe outside your sole intention, you are dehumanizing entire communities. In the language of addressing your opponents, you tend to use incriminating terms such as “demonic”, “crazy” and “pathetic” to describe them. Additionally, when discussing certain situations, I have caught that you also never use the person’s name or background, but will almost always point our their social, political, racial, or sexual demographic; things that will undoubtedly generate angry responses out of viewers who already feel a sense of dislike towards these groups. As I highlighted earlier, dehumanization is the basis of all evil and is the reason humanity has gotten away with doing unspeakable horrors to marginalized groups throughout the course of history. The second you strip a person of their humanity and begin portraying them as a parasite who is getting in the way of society’s flourishing, you begin to create a slippery slope of hatred and hostility. Once these ideas get voiced loudly enough to those who thrive on violence and chaos, things can turn lethal for those who are oppressed.
I want to end this letter on the note that if you fear others, they will fear you. The energy we put forth is absorbed and reciprocated by everything surrounding us. The same account goes for respect; if you do not respect others, they will not respect you. If people felt any degree of respect from the rhetoric you have been preaching, a sizable portion of students attending my institution would not be furious with your arrival. Lastly, productive dialogue requires four major concepts: empathy, precision, relationships, and humility. You lack these proponents in your arguments remarkably. When talking to others, we need empathy because it allows us to understand one another and embrace different perspectives. We need precision because it grants us the ability to show others where we are coming from. We need relationships with those we communicate with because it gives us the willingness to maintain contact and conversation. And lastly, dialogue demands humility because objectivity is not real. Believing one’s ideas are the ultimate truth and morally superior creates oppression, intolerance and exclusivity. Spewing hateful rhetoric as an attempt to convince your audience that an entire group of people is responsible for stripping you of your utopia will create nothing but hatred and hostility. But through accepting the beauty of heterogeneity and understanding that it is not our job to convince human beings with different moral, religious and personal backgrounds that certain viewpoints are right or wrong, we can create peace, tolerance and harmony within one another. Coexisting won’t solve our disagreements on the fundamentals of our beliefs. But it will make us more loving, empathetic and understanding of one another.
So as you wrap this letter, you are presented with two choices. Are you going to spend the rest of your career provoking fear, intolerance and hatred between people? Or will you put aside your personal beliefs and feelings to internalize that as human beings–gay, straight, transgender, non-binary, rich, poor, Black, White–it is our moral obligation to coexist and do our part in making the world a better place. I leave such decisions to you.
Cordially,
Anastasia Hanonick.
Junior at Saint Louis University
Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.
Anita • Dec 20, 2021 at 10:51 am
A broad vocabulary and well-put together sentences seem to be a tool used by people like this author to gain some form of false credibility, much more than what the content of their arguments actually deserves. What stood out most for me while reading this is the notion or idea that Walsh along with many conservatives, have this “fear”of change almost like if it were up to them, society would be intentionally held back from ever changing/adopting new principles. Another previous comment already highlighted this point well, that realistically, some systems work well and changing them comes with loads of risks and the potential collapse and inevitable ripple effect on society as a whole. One bad decision can have devastating effects on the economy, making changes to current laws can backfire in ways that weren’t initially perceived as a possible result. Conservatives rather “conserve” the ideas that have maintained stability over time through many generations. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it and the majority’s well-being always outweighs that of the minority. Unfortunately, some groups will always benefit more than others, which is another concept you pretend to ignore. That life operates with no compassion or consideration for anybody, that people will always look out for their own gains, people who share cultural and ethnic similarities tend to band together for sake of familiarity and less conflict, that life is generally hard and unfair for everybody and no one is exempt. This happy land you refer to where everybody around the world is holding hands while singing kum-baya, being all super tolerant with one another, it’s so naive and unrealistic to think that people all around the globe are willing to go along with that. It’s just not in our primitive behaviour or any other mammals for that matter. If forced diversity actually worked, would we even have separate countries and the lines that define them? It’s basically the very reason any man-made border exists.
Enrique • Dec 17, 2022 at 4:15 am
She wrote ” I’d like to close this letter by saying…”, then 25 paragraphs later she wraps it up. The problem is universities and liberals were once champions of free speech and were very anti establishment. What the heck happenned. Now they’re whiny crybaby looking for safe spaces who try to shut down any opposing viewpoints precisely because they cannot debate their viewpoints because most are based on failed ideas as.proven by history. Socialism and Communism are 2 great examples. These ecollege educated or soon to be college educated young people have become the actual fascist and national socialists we all fear and abhor.
I’m a college educated Mexican myself and cannot believe what the liberals and democratic.party has become. Even Bill Maher is about to become a conservative because the party has gone so far left, looneyville.
Daryl Just Daryl • Dec 16, 2021 at 3:42 pm
Well the good news is, if someone asks me why I don’t send checks to alma mater (Class of ’96), I now I have a link I can point to.
Richard A Keys • Dec 15, 2021 at 11:28 am
Do you realize that you just “dehumanized” everyone in your last paragraph? labeling people as ” gay, straight, transgender, non -binary, rich ,poor, Black, White”
Just because an idea is new doesn’t make it TRUTH. Many old views are still valid, for instance ALL the teachings of Jesus Christ, including his teachings on sexuality.
“Have you not read that from the beginning the creator ‘made them male and female’ and said ,’For this reason a man shall leaves his father and mother and be joined unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh’. ” Mt 19:4-5
A Catholic University should first look to the teachings of Jesus before it talks about morality.
The American experience is that a person has the right of Free Speech, and that a university was founded to bring people together to discuss any topic in order to get to the Truth.
When we silence voices we silence all of us.
Why don’t we set up a round table to discuss his views and yours? Should be interesting
John • Dec 14, 2021 at 1:45 pm
“…it is not our job to convince human beings with different moral, religious and personal backgrounds that certain viewpoints are right or wrong…”
Oh, the irony.
tibor horvath • Dec 14, 2021 at 1:01 pm
Eh shut up! This guy is a comedian looking to provoke outrage but well within the bounds of free speech from the little I have seen. If he really were pure evil I assume I would have heard how.
Kimi Ramos • Dec 2, 2021 at 8:30 am
Wow! What a great letter! Stay strong! You and other young people like you are our hope for our country.
C.W. • Dec 2, 2021 at 5:13 am
If Matt Walsh fears the “unknown” …. How can he express views that are “extreme.”
Conservation is not about resistance to “change” …. It is a recognition that not all changes are good.
In the same way we might not want to strip mine every ounce of fossil fuel from the planet…. We might not want to strip mine moral and philosophical principles that have created great freedom and prosperity.
In the same way we might want to preserve a pristine National Park for future generations… We might want to preserve the constitutional principles and the governmental norms which have prospered our own generation for our children.
Seth • Dec 2, 2021 at 1:12 am
I listen to Matt almost daily; after reading this open letter to him, it’s clear the author hasn’t listened to anything besides maybe some cherry-picked media matters montages.
James Rolfe • May 31, 2023 at 5:31 pm
You listen to Matt? That’s very sad mate.
Mustafa Mustafa • Dec 1, 2021 at 1:28 pm
With all due respect, it seems like any speech you don’t agree is hate speech.