The question came up in a recent discussion, “Why are you so sure if more people had voted they would have voted for Hillary?” Well, I’m not. I am fairly certain most of them would not have voted for Trump. I base that on a very simple number: Trump pulled the base that always votes that way and in fact received fewer votes than Mitt Romney. You can try to spin that any way you like, but to my mind that says something very significant. Namely that the GOP in its current manifestation is utterly dependent on two things to stay in office—that base and keeping the rest of the country disaffected from the political process. They do this by a number of strategies, the two most important being propaganda about their opponents and redistricting in key states. A host of lesser strategies added to these have effectively suppressed votes in some areas while largely throwing the opposing electorate into a bog of ambivalence about their political choices.
For their part, the opposition—Democrats, liberals, so-called socialists, and a variety of smaller categories with perhaps less clearly defined boundaries—have played into this by a combination of solicitude and poor explication of their positions. As well, it seems that they have failed to connect with the ground level concerns of those who normally would be their natural constituents, namely working class people being displaced by the changing economic and social ecology.
To be clear, when I say solicitude, what I mean is the perfectly reasonable and basically preferable practice of bipartisan cooperation in order to move the business of the people forward. We have a rich history to show that this always works best and it is natural to assume it is the way to govern most effectively. However, it presumes a two-way street, give and take. When one side or the other decides that no matter what, cooperation is not on the table, then it behooves the other side to understand the new paradigm and respond accordingly. When you see the kind of obdurate obstruction on the part of your opponent that we have seen for the last eight years, it becomes frustrating to see your preferred representatives continually yielding in an attempt to “work with” the other side. That willingness is being used quite opportunistically to undermine programs and run a cynical power grab to their own benefit. The Democrats for their part seem not to be willing to risk losing what seats and positions they have to form a line and push back against this, possibly because what information they get from whatever sources they use tells them people wouldn’t like it. They might even feel retributions for such resistance could cost ordinary people. Whatever the reason, they have been unwilling to play as dirty as their Republican counterparts, at least in the public’s view, and this has resulted in continual loss of confidence.
To be clear, “playing dirty” is not something either side should be doing on our behalf, at least not with each other, but it is a reality. The Right has a plan, or at least a goal, and they have adhered to it with religious fervor. One thing we should note is that criticisms of that goal based on the undesirability of it play poorly. Telling someone that what they just voted for will result in a loss of civil liberties for a particular group has no moral traction because that is exactly what the desired outcome is. When you say to someone who seems to be on this bandwagon “But you’re taking away their rights!” it is as if an imp of the perverse in the depths of their psyché claps its hands in glee and shouts “They shouldn’t have those rights in the first place!”
We must be clear about this. Legislation based on the notion that certain groups, however they’re defined, should not have certain rights—which in the parlance of the Right comes out as “privileges” instead of rights—we cannot confront this by trying to explain to them how they misunderstand the nature of such things. As far as they’re concerned, they misunderstand nothing. Their desired outcome is to suppress. What needs to be done—and is being done by many—is to confront and declare that they are flat wrong. And their success will bite them in the end when they lose their rights. Or are they privileges?
It is unpopular and unpleasant to recognize a basic misapprehension about rights. We have floated for centuries now on the belief that rights are somehow Natural. The Natural Law argument which informed most Enlightenment thinking, which is the thinking that defined the context in which the Founders constructed our national image, may have considerable to recommend it, and we could have a very healthy discussion about it, but we aren’t talking here about nature but politics. The reality is, and has always been, that a right is an artificial construct, and is only as true as our ability to assert it in the face of antagonistic forces seeking counter-advantages. This is why we put such stock in so-called Rule of Law. If a right were so self-evident, as we like to say, why would we need law to establish it, define it, and defend it? We may wax philosophical about “natural rights” all we want, but rights do not exist in nature, they are the product of intellect and political will.
This is unpopular for many reasons, but one of the chief in our present era is that it demands responsible participation, and for people who do not wish to be bothered this is burdensome.
Seldom in our history have the consequences of not wanting to be bothered come so viscerally home.
Why do I say that? Because, depending on which breakdown you look at, the entire edifice of the current Right is in power based on less than a quarter of the electorate. Somewhere between 35% and 50% nonparticipation in regular elections—all of them, not just national, but it is in national elections where the consequences are so dramatically evident—means that a minority always determines the political complexion of the country. It may well be that the true majority of Americans prefer what we have now, but we don’t know because people do not vote.
Voter suppression is real, however. Let’s not forget that. In fact, that alone is illustrative of my point above about rights. The right to vote ought to be a given, so how could it be possible to deny it to so many people? One example that rarely rises to the surface in such estimates is the approximately six million people denied the vote outright due to felony convictions. If voting is a “right” then why should that be allowed? Redistricting—gerrymandering—has resulted in distortions of state elections and subsequently a distortion of the electoral college outcomes. The Supreme Court overturn of the Voting Rights Act resulted in the closing down of several hundred polling sites, overwhelmingly in the south and overwhelmingly in African American and Hispanic districts.
But this kind of thing has been the case for a long time now and we have seen higher voter turnout even when it has been difficult for many people. Ninety million people did not participate this past November, which suggests that all the effort to dissuade as well as suppress paid off. Because Americans have traditionally disdained politics, advantage was taken.
All the major news sources failed to behave ethically, some morally. Trump received an inordinate amount of free air time and in a culture that values celebrity the way we do, negative coverage can be just as useful as good coverage. Any careful analysis of what he said on the campaign trail shows he had very little of any substance. Hillary Clinton demonstrated clear superiority in all three of her debates with him—command of facts, comprehension of the global situation, a set of policy positions—while his entire rebuttal amounted to “She’s a nasty woman.”
Uncharitably but realistically, one can only conclude that people did not vote for her because they didn’t like the way she dressed.
The argument that she carried a “lot of baggage” is simply another way to avoid the responsibilities of reason and the requirements of citizenship. During the course of the campaign, as details emerged, and material was made available, it became increasingly clear that most of the negativity about her was baseless, that in fact she proved to be even more honest than her chief rival, Bernie Sanders (a fact which surprised even me), but overcoming well-nurtured antipathies and working through the tsunami of rightwing invective about her apparently proved to be too much effort.
During the campaign one could make the argument that Trump’s opposition was based on the same kinds of detractions—smear—and that once he was in office it would be different.
I doubt any reasonable person, even one who voted for him, in the secret chambers of their own heart, thinks he is doing the job they may have imagined him doing.
On the other hand, maybe he is. Maybe what was desired was no more than validation in the office of the president of their basic belief that government does not work. Maybe they put him there purely to prove their opinion—uninformed, ill-considered, often bitter and sometimes malevolent—was right.
Whatever their reasons, what should concern us all is that so many who most likely feel otherwise felt it acceptable to stay home.
But to return for a moment to the current situation. Trump’s selections for his cabinet demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of the office. He is surrounding himself with mediocrities. Nixon did the same thing, but he also had a few people who actually knew what they were doing. The conflicts of interest alone ought to disqualify most of these people, but the Republican majority is proceeding to try to rubberstamp them. To be clear, Rex Tillerson is not a mediocrity—but clearly he has no business being there. I’m sure some would disagree, but his financial ties to Russia alone argue against him, and right now a bill is being introduced in the Senate to repeal a disclosure law that sheds light on foreign bribes which has been a thorn in the side of Exxon.
Trump did not seem to be aware that Steve Bannon would have to be approved by the Senate before taking a seat on the national security council. This is basic knowledge.
We can continue, but his supporters will not care. What is important is that those rights of which I spoke must be recognized as at risk and that relying on the privilege of never having been a target to remain uninvolved is inexcusable.
Lastly, regarding Trump, is the question of moral suitability. “Giving him a chance” is an empty plea. When he mocked Serge Kovaleski, he demonstrated a clear absence of moral capacity. How can I say that? He was just goofing? No. This is basic. This was at the level of courtesy, it is so basic. We don’t even consider it in the context of moral failing because we view it in terms of good manners. But this was a powerful man making fun of a less powerful man in public (South Carolina) in order to discredit him. Rather than attack the news article that prompted the attack, he attacked Kovaleski’s handicap. That is the tactic of a bully.
No. Special pleading, “Oh, he didn’t mean it”, attempts at recontextualizing it after the fact, none of that alters the fact that he behaved boorishly, without regard for another human being, attacking—mocking—the thing that had nothing to do with any issue at hand, and then lying about it afterward. That was a test and he failed. And if you voted for him, you failed, too.
So, reality check: Supposedly, you voted to “Make America Great Again.” How is that working out? We have a bully in the White House who instead of “draining the swamp” is importing more alligators. None of them have a thing in common with you unless you’re a member of the seven figures annually club (and most of them probably did not vote for him). He is threatening to end longtstanding agreements around the world, given verbal approval to Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear programs, annoyed China to the point where a war is at least imaginable, appointed people to his cabinet with zero expertise in the fields chosen for them, thrown hissyfits on Twitter over the size of the crowd at his inauguration, placed gag orders on various agencies, made promises he is either backing out of or revising to fit the feedback he gets from FOX News, has anointed a xenophobe as his chief strategist, threatened long-settled law with Executive Orders, allowed that a man dead since 1882 is an African American who has done great work that is being recognized more and more, asked for prayer at the first national prayer breakfast for the new host of one of his reality shows, and has yet to release his tax returns while threatening American businesses and playing with their futures by indiscriminately tweeting about them. He has given tacit approval to the president of the Philippines for his “program” of murdering alleged drug dealers in the streets without due process and he has gotten into a flame war with the president of Mexico over a wall that would do nothing to alleviate a problem he has no real concept about in the first place. He has signed an order barring immigration based on religion—no, it is, because we have it on record that he asked several people, especially Giuliani, how he could legally keep Muslims out of the country, so his backpedaling on that is for naught—while not barring immigration from countries we already know have originated terrorists that did us harm. He is restarting the antipathies with Iran that over two decades of diplomacy was beginning to alleviate and get us to a point of normalizing relations with, in spite of their presumed leadership, what is really is a moderate country and could be an ally given the right moves on our part. He has placed people’s lives in jeopardy over this for no reason other than apparently a lot of his supporters are scared to death of people who dress funny and speak with an accent. The only reason he has apparently, for now, backed off of attacking LGBTQ rights is that a “friend” of his called and asked him not to.
There is no thoughtful consideration evident in any of this.
While all this is going on, at the state level we have a sea of Republican controlled legislatures and governors who are passing Right To Work bills designed to strip unions of any serious power and although we have seen the consequences of such laws in state after state wherein standard of living and even environmental conservation erode in their wake, somehow the people voting for these representatives believe it won’t happen to them.
My conclusion is that such votes are driven by spite. The almost volcanic eruption of people who suddenly realized that they might loser their healthcare under the man they voted for is telling. It’s just probable that they thought it would only affect Those People Over There, the ones they’ve been told to fear and hate, who have been “getting away with things” and “cut in line” and “get things they don’t deserve.” Along with that, the number of people who apparently did not understand that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were one in the same thing, while marginally amusing on one level, is stunning example of the corrupting power of corporate media.
Next up is the privatization of Social Security and MediCare. I’m sure some people think doing so won’t change a thing and then maybe congress can balance the budget and pay off the national debt. I’m sure some feel that way.
It has been clear for all of the campaign season and is now becoming clearer that Donald Trump should not be president. He is temperamentally unsuited to the position, he does not have the working knowledge of how things work in a government, and he is wildly unpredictable. He is also as thin-skinned as they come.
But so what? He has been elected. For better or worse, unless something remarkable happens, he will be president for the next four years.
By remarkable I mean any of several possible legal scenarios.
There is a petition circulating to request the Electors of the Electoral College change their vote. This is possible and, as previously noted, not only perfectly legal but one of the reasons the College was established to begin with. It is also possible Trump will decide this is a bad move for him and resign. It is questionable whether this would leave Pence in place. After the inauguration, it is possible congress could impeach him. There is ample in his background that would seem sufficient.
Addressing just one of these, I could suggest that the Electors do something even more remarkable, and that is to nullify their vote entirely. Give it to no one. This would likely force a new election. We would have to do the whole thing over.
I do not believe we have ever had a nominee winning the Electoral vote with such a gap in the popular vote before, As the ballots continue to be counted, it is clear that among those who actually went to the polls, Hillary Clinton is the winner. It would be ethical and legal for the College, on December 19th, to change their votes to reflect this reality. Will that happen? I rather doubt it. I do not believe there is sufficient moral fiber extant to take that kind of a position and it may well be that most of them, aligned with Party the way they seem to be, want this.
Which means the elephant is loose in the china shop. This is going to hurt and hurt a lot.
So what are our options?
It has been suggested we abolish the Electoral College. It is, however, in the Constitution, so getting rid of it requires a constitutional convention, which means opening the whole thing up to revision. I personally don’t trust that we have on hand the wisdom to do that. We see all the time other countries that continually rewrite their constitutions and it rarely ever comes out well. We might pass a new amendment to nullify it, the way we did with Prohibition, and that would avoid putting the whole thing on the surgeon’s table, but that would also require an enormous consensus across the country, something we’ve been lacking of late. I don’t think that would work, either.
So here’s a thought. There is no reason to have the Electoral vote announced at the same time as we’re doing the popular vote tally. As we are now painfully aware, on that day, the votes just aren’t all in. Expecting this big complicated mechanism to do all this fairly and honestly in one day may be too much. Had we not locked in those ballots on the day and waited for the balance of the vote count, we would not have a fait accompli the undoing of which could cause a violent ruction. Since it is the case that they meet for the final vote on December 19th, we should simply wait till then for any kind of announcement.
There was a time I hated the idea of term limits, but I’m coming around to the notion. The real damage of this election is in the fact that through negligence and apathy we returned a vast number of incumbents who are set on undoing so much that mitigates the reality that we have been on a course of public pillage which has cost us jobs, savings, security for millions of people who simply do not have the resources to hire the kind of legal help to protect themselves. Supposedly, that has been the task of our government. But how can the government do that without some sense of what its constituents want? We do not vote in sufficient numbers, regularly enough, to place representation in Washington that reflects the reality of our lives. For whatever reason, Americans have traditionally disliked politics and whenever an excuse presents refuse to participate, even at the most basic level of exercising the franchise.
With that in mind, two things we could change that might make it easier. First, make election day a national holiday. That would be simple enough. Secondly, do what Bernie Sanders suggests, make registration automatic, a birthright. When you turn 18, you’re registered to vote.
Of course I can see obstacles. Certain parties have always tried to tie the right to vote to property. The resistance to things like Motor Voter registration demonstrates that. But dammit, that would settle it. At the time of your majority, you would also receive a federal ID, good for all manner of thing. If you can’t get to the place to do so, then we should have mobile registration units that will come to you to secure that ID. I think voter ID laws as they stand are there simply to bar people from voting. We saw this in Wisconsin in a pronounced way. So simply make it law that at 18 you are automatically registered to vote and at the same time you receive your federal ID. In fact, it could be done as part of the whole senior high school process, folded in with yearbook photographs. Done. Turning someone with such an ID away from a polling place would then be a violation of federal law.
Another issue is this whole nonsense about third parties. Here’s a reality. Third parties have never gained traction in this country. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, because it was never intended that there be parties as such, but secondly because we do not create coalition governments as are done in many places where having three, four, even five parties is normal and the winning party must create a government from proportional parts of all parties. Here, with the winner-takes-call method we have, third parties do little more than muddy already murky waters.
But a more trenchant reason is that the two parties we do have take in and absorb viable third party concepts and people. One or the other morphs into what becomes effectively a new party. Which is one reason talking about what either party was like half a century ago is absurd. There may be some continuity but rarely consistency.
Given that, what I would suggest right now is for Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Barack Obama to form a coalition to essentially invade one or the other party and begin to transform it in accordance with whatever program they devise between themselves. We cannot ignore Stein or Johnson or at least not what they represent, they made substantial showings in this election. But they will never, at this rate, achieve the kind of authority to challenge either major party, certainly not soon enough to do much good. But by forming a nexus of change within one or the other, they could remake one of the two major parties. Rather than let it happen as it does by accident, it should be done consciously and directly. These four represent the chief aspects of what might make a responsive party. Together, they could be amazing.
Finally, given that we are likely stuck with the situation at hand for the next four years, two more ground level suggestions. The first, the people in congress are supposed to represent all of us. Whether you voted for them or not, by law they are still our representatives—our employees, basically. Treat them that way. Don’t leave the conversation because they’re not your guy. Flood their offices with your input. Tell them what you want. All the time. Burn their ears. They must represent you, that’s how it is supposed to work. Act toward them as if you had put them there. You can still work to unseat them and put someone more to your liking in their place, but while they are there make them do their job.
Secondly, since it would seem civics is rarely taught in school anymore, maybe we should start local classes in it to acquaint people with how all this is supposed to work. Bring the kids. It has become obvious that too many Americans don’t understand the first thing about the way the government works—or could work if people did their part, which they can’t do if they don’t know how.
We are possibly about to lose a great deal. We have a government in place that won by a minority of voters. That is not majority rule it is minority veto. It may be that such things must happen before we act. Secession, a Great Depression, the Cold War. If true, it does not reflect well of us. The tools are there but we have to turn the dials.
Lastly, there are many people in this last election who were turned away from the polls. Voter suppression is very real. But many more just opted out. They were discouraged, perhaps, by their choices, but that’s simply not good enough. You play the hand you’re dealt or you end up barred from the game. Stop waiting to be inspired. Inspiration is not reason, it is not logic, it is not a substitute for dealing with reality. It’s not sexy, but when you vote, the fact is you’re hiring an employee to do a job. The only factors that matter are “Is he/she qualified” and “Do they support the things I support?” Everything else is a bonus and that merits reelection. If they fail in their job, your fire them at the next election. But being swept off your feet by bold rhetoric and substanceless campaign slogans and baseless judgments of “personality” is a sure way to be disappointed—even badly betrayed. But significantly, keep that in mind—at the end of the day, the president is an employee. He—or she—works for you. Handing over your conscience because they dazzle you with promises of brilliance not based on ability or sympathy is irresponsible.
The number will make sense presently.
It’s Friday. I’ve spent the last few days trying to process what happened Tuesday. It is not going well. I’m angry, frightened, and more than a little disgusted by the fact that we allowed Donald Trump to be elected president. I’m a cynic most days, an optimist forced by reality to concede that the world is perhaps more malign than not. But I’m also, marginally, an intellectual. By that I mean someone who deals with that reality by trying to understand it and make it cogent. By looking at things through the lens of causality, knowing that events are products, usually of combinations of factors no one person can see. So when the inexplicable happens, I do my best to analyze it and find the underlying drivers. This is how I am able to walk out my door every morning and conduct my life.
It is clear from everyone’s reactions that no one expected this, least of all Trump. I think he was planning his next reality show, Real Losers of Presidential Races. For that reason among many others, I do not believe he is even remotely prepared for the unsortable mess he is about to be required to deal with. As for the country, well, we’ve been playing with this idea that a “businessman” might be a good president. We’re about to find out.
What concerns me even more is the vast ocean of Red that now controls the country. If Trump’s election was some kind of protest against establishment Washington, it failed, because most of the incumbents kept their seats. So clearly there was only one office this vote was aimed at. I’ve been saying to anyone interested in my opinion that possibly the more important part of this election was Congress. Well, clearly no one listens to me.
Why am I so pessimistic about this election? Because the ideology in control of this majority is contrary to everything I thought we were trying to build. I can’t think of one thing these people want to do that will be good for anyone but the rich. And actually I don’t think it will be very good for them in the long run, either.
Trump has sided with congressional Republicans in a desire to repeal what they persistently misname Obamacare. There are people who have been hurt by this law, yes. But there are many, many others who for the first time in their lives had access to meaningful healthcare. Those millions will lose that unless what the Republican Party intends to do is simply expand MediCare to cover them. That is not in their playbook. They are committed to a policy that you should pay for your life yourself, that it is not the government’s job to make your life easier or better, even if the condition of your life is a consequence of government policy in the first place. So the ACA gets repealed, insurance companies start voiding existing policies which are not profitable, healthcare costs resume their precipitous rise, and in a few years people start dying from treatable and often preventable illnesses that they might have avoided had they had the resources. The pharmaceutical industry will once again gouge people, their profits will once more soar to ridiculous heights, and the poor will go begging.
Trump wants to “do something” about immigration. What he and apparently the majority of GOP congressional members mean by that involves mass deportations, stricter rules for visas, green cards, guest worker permits, etc, and punitive restraints against countries which have a problem with drug cartels running roughshod over them and making life hell for people trying to make a living, which is why they’re coming here in the first place. We do not recognize “life under threat from a drug dealer” to be a legitimate form of persecution, so the drug war, which we fund, puts all these countries and their citizens in a bind which we refuse to take responsibility for. Medium-sized businesses here that presently rely on guest workers (which is a good portion of the agricultural industry not owned by Archer Daniels Midland and the like) will find themselves stripped of a labor force they to date have had a difficult if not impossible time replacing with Americans who can’t afford to live on seasonal work at low wages. Other examples abound. This will also mean deporting children and young people born here but never naturalized who have never known any other country. In essence if not status they are Americans, but no matter. Their “documents” are not in order.
Trump wants to produce jobs, “big league.” Obama will be leaving office after presiding over seven years of the largest private sector jobs growth since the end of the Vietnam War (which is very relevant, that date), but Trump and the GOP act as if nothing has changed since 2008. If you are one of those still underemployed or out of work, maybe Obama’s record makes no difference to you. But it should. The usual method of pumping up jobs numbers, employed by both parties but much indulged in recent times by the very Republican administrations who vowed to shrink the size of the government, has been to increase federal jobs and supply grants to states for state jobs. These are not stable jobs because they depend on funding tools that are also unreliable given the recent push to cut spending and cut taxes. Obama has reduced the deficit, which will rise if President Trump opts to pump money into infrastructure programs in order to produce those jobs. If he intends to stick to the GOP pledge to cut taxes even further, that means he will have to borrow the money, which will increase the debt again. We don’t have much wiggle room there after the catastrophic policies of the Bush years. We’re going to be bouncing up against 100% of GDP and then, Katy-bar-the-door if we have another recession because there will simply be no relief. Trump has a track record of borrowing and defaulting. He cannot default on this kind of debt, so the question will be,. what then?
But I can get behind a push to invest in infrastructure. We need it badly. What I cannot get behind is the continued refusal to address the extraction of capital out of our economy by way of a tax cut program that sees even more money sucked into the coffers of Big Business and out of the country. You can’t increase spending AND cut taxes forever. Eventually you reach the point where the mule dies. (Old joke, the farmer who tries to train his mule to work on less and less food over time, until one day the mule keels over dead and he doesn’t understand why.)
I will say this again. I know people don’t like taxes, but it’s largely reflexive. They fail repeatedly to understand whose taxes are supposed to go up. Coupled with the fact that to make up for what states are not getting from the federal government anymore, local taxes have to rise, the blame is universal. People want services, but they don’t want to pay for them. As services deteriorate due to lack of funds, they complain when a tax increase is sought which is intended to bring those services back up to par. It’s a vicious circle of misapprehension.
Taxes are one of the surest tools to fix capital in a community.
Be that as it may, let us go on.
Why did people vote for Trump? We don’t have to dig far to understand that by his own words he is a misogynist, a racist, someone who sees no problem contradicting himself, a liar, what we used to call a demagogue. The projections for the election gave him a very low chance of winning. What happened?
A combination of things. People wanted someone not a Washington “insider.” Whatever that means. No, I know what it’s intended to mean, but then why did they send all their incumbents back? But Trump is not an insider, so there is that.
A certain segment of the population has been chafing under what they derisively term Political Correctness for decades. It’s like having your table manners constantly corrected. Why can’t I haver as baseball team named after Native Americans? Why does that make me “culturally insensitive?” It’s just baseball. And why do I have to adjust a lifetime of rote understanding to accommodate a biological male using the girls’ bathroom at my daughter’s high school? And why are you still making me feel bad about slavery 150 years after it ended? And why can’t I whistle at a pretty woman on the street?
Why do I have to change everything I’ve always taken for granted because someone I don’t know has gotten their feelings hurt?
Of course it’s more complicated than that, but for many it amounts to that level of anger. They want to be who they are and not be criticized for it.
Unfortunately, this includes a host of less trivial-sounding factors, like reflexive distrust of anyone who doesn’t look like them, talk like them, think like them, or go to church like them. These are not harmless traits, as we have seen. Racism, nativism, intolerance, protectionism, all aided and abetted by a thick strain of anti-intellectualism which manages to include antagonism toward expertise, toward science, toward any kind of reasoning that calls into question who they are.
Added to that, we have people who have adopted a political view akin to religious dogma. Hillary is a criminal. No matter that she has been investigated, questioned, and cleared on every charge for decades. FOX news or Rush Limbaugh told them. This is holy. They will not be dissuaded because if they have this wrong then everything they believe, everything they are, is wrong, and then what? It took them years to acquire the veneer of informed opinion, they have neither the time or the capacity to undo all that armchair work.
Then there are people who truly believe the federal government is nothing but evil, just by virtue of existing, and they may feel that this is a good chance to see it crippled. The instances of militia groups declaring armed uprisings should Hillary win are examples.
Some people are so enamored of money that anyone with more than seven figures to their name is automatically worthy of respect if not outright admiration.
Finally, there are those who simply cannot get past the idea of a woman in charge. For them, it wouldn’t have mattered who it was. I doubt Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin would have gotten their vote.
It may also be that, Americans being traditionally contrarian, a sizeable number of voters resented being told that Hillary was a shoe-in. We still retain a perverse affection for the underdog—I say perverse because we don’t seem very consistent on who that may be. When some CEO raking in hundreds of millions of dollars on bonuses complains about the cruel regulations placed on his company can successfully pose as a persecuted underdog, we may have a problem with understanding what that word actually is intended to describe. Be that as it may, I wouldn’t doubt that a significant fraction of those who voted for Trump did so out of a misplaced sense of fairness.
Which brings me to the number. 47. That would be 47%. According to some polls, that is the percentage of people who did not vote. Ninety million, more or less. I suspect the odds are good that the overwhelming majority of them would probably have voted against Trump. Since this has been the case in the past, I’m going to assume it to be true. Hillary did win the popular vote.
Oh, certainly a lot of them stayed home because they didn’t get to vote for Bernie Sanders. “I didn’t get my candidate so I’m not going to vote at all!” I have zero respect for this. For many reasons, but just look at what you have done to the rest of us if that’s your reasoning. Because if so, you not only left us with Trump, you were also instrumental in all those GOP incumbents going back to Congress. You have damaged us with your petty snit. “If I can’t have chocolate ice cream, I don’t want any!”
But there are many others who saw the projections and decided they didn’t need to go vote because Hillary was a shoe-in. Despite the fact that she told you not to rely on those polls. But even if that were the case and she was a shoe-in and she had won, the fact that you also didn’t vote to oust the Republican majority would have meant four years of the kind of grinding gridlock Obama has been through. This was irresponsible.
47% of you decided to have no say in the future of your country and by your absence you have left us with what may turn out to be the most devastating administration since—
I won’t say. You have no sense of history. You don’t understand the concept of voting strategically. I can only conclude that you are either selfish or lazy. Either way, you will learn the price of abstaining. As will we all.
I’m not criticizing people who voted third party. They voted. They acted responsibly.
So thank you for your nonparticipation. The subsequent state of the country can be laid in large part at your feet. You have, by your absence, shot us all in the face.
This is, in my experience, a liberal problem. I remember back in the Sixties, when the country was in comparable disarray, how the Left began to hate liberals. It seemed to many that the Left was a monolith, and subsequently all of them were painted with the same brush and labeled Liberal. Liberal bashing has been a hallmark of the Republican Right since Reagan took office, but really the GOP should be grateful to liberals, because they are so uninvolved. There are likely many reasons for this, but the big one I have noticed is that liberals don’t seem to have any staying power. They attack a cause, work to solve the problems, often overcome obstacles and put reforms in place. Things change. And then a curious thing happens. They go home. They leave the field.
In a way, this is understandable and very American. For them, politics is a grimy, necessary chore that must be attended to in order to have the time, the space, and the freedom to do all the other things in life worth doing. We should be able to solve the damn problem and be done with it. Finished. Now there are Other Things. They assume the fix is done and we can go about our lives.
The Right has been like that as long as there was a status quo few people complained about. But that hasn’t been the case since the Korean War. So the Right does what it does. For many of them, this is religion. They fight, they stay, they don’t go home. So when the liberal left decides it has won and does go home, the conservatives are still there, working to undo everything they don’t like. That has been happening since 1980, consistently, and it is time liberals learned this lesson. You can’t assume problems stays fixed.
Whatever the base cause, the fact remains that, at least for me, everything I like about this country is under attack by people who, for a variety of reasons, don’t like what progress has brought them. In my opinion, they have bought the argument that it is not rich people taking everything not nailed down that is hurting them but all the people who have benefited from the totality of a civil rights movement that has not yet finished its work.
I still believe we can make a pretty good world. But we have to collectively get over the idea that unrestrained acquisition is the only valid metric of success.
But you people who stayed home and left us with this mess? Read between the lines.
Maybe I should have waited till January, but then again maybe I’ll change the theme again then. But I was starting to get bored with the old one and decided that–because I’m older now, but why that should matter I don’t know–it was time for a new look. This one has sliding images on the header. I grabbed a couple at random but I’ll likely change those at some point.
This has been a fascinating year. My boss asked me–because I’m older–if I’d ever witnessed an election cycle this bizarre.
Contentious, yes. Clownish, surreal, weird–no. It’s been suggested that you’d have to go back to Lincoln’s election to find one even close to this in unpredictably oddball strangeness, and that’s a good contender, what with the near-demise of the Democratic Party as it split into three smaller parties, the Know Nothings, variations of fence-sitters, nativist groups, and the odd prediction of the apocalypse. Note that the Democratic Party of that time would have been the functional equivalent–even the philosophical equivalent–of the current Republican Party.
1968 was the first presidential year in which I had any kind of political awareness, and that was a bad one. We had Wallace running a third party ticket based on the assertion that there was no real difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties (it would end up being a race between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon, after an assassination and a steamroll over McGovern), but he himself was a nativist bigot who would most closely resemble the governor of Maine these days.
Nixon won on the promise of ending the Vietnam War (he didn’t, at least not fast enough for most of the country) and to “bring us together again”–which he also didn’t because he turned out to be a paranoid misanthrope. I wonder how many people who had voted for him wished they’d gone with Humphrey, even though he had some baggage as well. In 1972, Nixon was challenged by Edmund Muskie, who was a decent man who might have turned the country around, but the RNC ran a smear campaign highlighting his wife’s problems with depression. As I say, Muskie was a decent man and withdrew rather than put his family through what he correctly perceived as a new level of nastiness. You can probably trace it from there how our campaigns have become obsessed with the personal and have lost all sense of decency and decorum. Carter may well have been our last decent president from the old school of national politics.
It is possible, though I do not expect it, that we may be able to alter the way we conduct politics. It has reached a new low this time with a candidate who embodies all the worst aspects of the vulgar side of the American character. People support him because they are getting off on being able to be rude, sexist, racist, and basically what they mistakenly see as open and honest. Trump has elevated the idea that trash sitcoms are the highest form of national philosophy. He’s a one-man roadshow based on Three and a Half Men and Sh*t My Dad Says.
And we have come to see what happens when people decide they have “won” the field and go home. I’ll leave everyone to sort out who I’m talking about. I’ll add that clearly the mean-spirited, compulsively frightened element of the Far Right were the ones who did NOT go home and today we see the results of their taking the field. The Koch Brothers, the Tea Party, Alex Jones, Breitbart, Limbaugh…
I’ve unfriended a few people on Facebook over this. First time since I’ve been on it I have preemptively done so, because I just get so weary of the mindless toxicity that shows up on my feed from them. One in particular galled me by completely failing to make a distinction between fiction and personal opinion. Maybe all of them, but one in particular decided that since J. K. Rowling had written about ugly things she had no standing to condemn the ugliness in real life.
I suppose one of the things that has bothered me more than maybe it should is the upsurge of people who don’t seem to understand the meaning of personal choice when it comes to sex. I didn’t expect Rush Limbaugh to understand it and it didn’t surprise me when he came out condemning Consent. But so many other people who ought to know better…
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve known people who seemed to think that if a woman decided to have a sex life on her own terms it meant she should be willing to fuck anyone who comes along, indiscriminately. I thought there were fewer of them and I’ve been dismayed at how many women seem to think that way. But it makes one thing abundantly clear, that no matter what else you might think about Hillary’s relationship with Bill, there was no way she could have divorced him and have the remotest chance of becoming president. Because people are that petty.
Now, it may well be a divorced man might have just as much trouble, but I doubt it.
Anyway, we have a bit over three weeks till the election. I’ll make one prediction: the fallout from all this weirdness is going to cling to our political landscape for months if not years.
And since Dylan has been awarded the Nobel Prize, it seems appropriate to end this post with…
The changes they are a-coimin’.
Watching Elizabeth Warren disassemble Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf is a gotcha moment, one wherein we assume the bad guy has been handed his still steaming intestines by the champion and justice will soon be served. Much as I hate to admit this, I doubt it.
I doubt it because…look at him. He’s looking at her with an almost-blank expression, but there is enough there to tell. To tell that he just doesn’t Get It. He’s listening to her, he’s answering her questions with well-advised Policy Speak, doing his best to evade a direct answer until she pins him to the wall, and even then there seems to be a kind of “okay, sure, but so what?” attitude practically shining from him.
The problem which Warren, which the Justice Department, which the SEC, which we cannot address and which underlies all of this is that Not Getting It.
There is a hole in the psyché where some form of non-tribal empathy should be. It’s not there. People like Stumpf follow guidelines and if the guidelines say what they do serves their tribe, it’s by definition ethical. Whatever that is.
In his case, ethical is whatever benefits his selected tribe and keeps him from being ill-treated at their hands.
He’s looking at Warren as if she’s speaking some archaic form of English no one has spoken in a century or two. He understands the words but the cultural content is foreign, alien. Not there for him. Why, he must be thinking, should I give a damn about a bunch of people who own no stock in Wells Fargo who got badly treated by the people I put in place to treat them badly? And what’s that mean, anyway? It’s not like it’s their money! And besides (so he might tell himself, late at night, when everyone else is asleep) if everything works out they won’t know the difference and my tribe will be richer. I will have Done Good.
But it didn’t work out, so, hell, now I have to sit here and listen to this tight-ass social justice warrior lecture me about something called ethics.
What is this nonsense about jail time? How dare she compare what I do with a teller who might pilfer from the till! Of course that person should go to jail, that’s theft! I’m not a thief!
Why isn’t he a thief?
Because he’s following the guidelines. And, just as an added bit of justification, if that teller steals twenties from the till, who else is that benefiting? No one! But what he has done has increased profits for the company and therefore put more money in the pockets of the shareholders. What he has done has benefited people! His people. According to the guidelines they have given him.
Make us more money. We don’t care how. How is your job, that’s why we hired you. If we didn’t like the job you were doing, we would fire you.
He kept trying to talk about the Board, you note. Warren wouldn’t let him. If, in his view, what he had done was wrong, the Board would have fired him. Therefore, he did nothing wrong.
So what’s this senator all up in a huff about? Doesn’t she understand that the number one rule in this country is to make money? And that when you make money for other people that’s the only justification you need? It’s not like we’re robbing banks. No, we’re putting money in the bank. It’s the opposite of robbery.
I agree with Senator Warren, this will not stop until people at his level face serious jail time. There are people outside his tribe that he took advantage of who cannot afford to lose ten dollars let alone the fiscal date rape they experienced. He hurt people he not only doesn’t know but doesn’t regard as important. Only their money, in aggregate, matters.
There are, no doubt, if by virtue of probability alone, CEOs who regularly say no to plans like this because it will do harm. We almost never hear about them. Scandal drives media ratings much more effectively than what we used to call “soft news” or, worse, “puff pieces.” Feel good news is pleasant but doesn’t attract the same kind of attention. We need to find these people, these moral CEOs, and have them teach classes on saying no for moral reasons. It would maybe be worthwhile having them at such hearings to offer a counterexample on camera.
But the truth is, for Stumpf and others of his ilk, the problem goes much, much deeper. This is for him the driving heuristic of his life. Do for his tribe. And his tribe is comprised of people just like him. Moneyed, “educated,” connected. They doubtless give to charities. They do this as substitute for actually giving a damn about people they don’t know.
It is not a problem isolated to them.
Over this past weekend we had another police incident, this time in Tulsa. A man is dead whose only “crime” was being where he was. The dashcam videos, even the video from other sources, all confirms that this man was shot to death for no reason.
Oh. Wait. He was black.
Interestingly, of all the officers on the scene, all of them went for their tasers—except one, and she was the one who fired the fatal shot.
Why am I linking this to the CEO of Wells Fargo? Because in my opinion, they share the same problem. They don’t recognize anybody not part of their tribe.
Because what the officer later said about the situation is contradicted by the videos. And I believe she actually doesn’t know how what she did was wrong.
Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, explains how we “think” most of the time by heuristics. There is a folder in our brain containing files of behaviors based on experience, on received wisdom, on made-up shit that got us through something before. It is easier to pull a file from that folder and paste it over a new situation than to think through something from first principles every time.
So what was the file the officer pulled out of that folder? Maybe something like: Large black male, threat, must put him down.
Yes, I’m guessing. Just as I’m guessing about Mr., Stumpf’s thinking in regard to pillaging the personal funds through fraudulent deals of people he has already placed in a file labeled “Customers: cattle: no further regard required.”
It’s a problem of categorization on both ends.
News flash to both ends: we aren’t categories. We’re people. Start getting it.
I’ve been working my way through Mario Vargas Llosa’s intriguing little book Notes On The Death Of Culture, which intends to be a general critique on the state of high culture and the impact its enervation has had on the world at large. Reading that and watching the election campaigns is a strange thing.
One of Llosa’s main themes here is that we have demoted “high” culture through a process of democratization of self-brutalization via social media and a mistaken acceptance of the idea that everyone’s opinion carries equal weight. That we no longer value wisdom, quality, or know how to appreciate it as distinct from middle or lowbrow culture, so-called “popular” culture.
There’s something to this, certainly, but I hesitate to call it a death. A tumultuous sorting maybe. Because side by side, cheek by jowl, as it were, with undeniable banality, dross, and effluence that passes for æsthetic content—no, that’s not quite fair, is it? Garbage has an æsthetic quality, even if it can only be apprehended as a negative—that presents itself as of equal value and merit to works of genuine worth, we do see works of superior quality, intent, and impact. In fact, work being done now in all the arts offers examples equal to if not better than any masterpiece of the past. Even television, that vast wasteland, offers amazing work. If one looks for it one may find music, painting, photography, sculpture, literature both fictive and nonfiction, drama both on stage and recorded, that compares with the finest humanity has ever offered.
And with it, audiences. You might question their level of appreciation, but that has two aspects which negate the attempt. Firstly, how do you gauge “appreciation?” How can anyone determine the extent of comprehension, of response, of, finally, “takeaway” experienced by another human being? You can’t really, certainly not in any way that might be revealed in a poll or a survey. Certainly not as some prognostic assessment about the Culture. Secondly, those creating these works have not come from another planet. They emerge from among us. We, in some way, “produce” them. They are us, they are not alien, so if in fact what they do cannot be understood or appreciated or even recognized, how then do they appear? The fact is, they have an audience. And not, judging by the availability and public knowledge of the work, small, dying audiences.
Which means we are, irritatingly, forced to take on faith that the culture, whatever we might mean by that, is not dying. Transforming, sure, as culture always does. Isolation is harder to achieve, if in fact it is even desirable. We live in each others’ living rooms. At best, Llosa’s fears—which may be too strong a word—may have more to do with nostalgia than actual diagnosis.
But then there is this huge, gawping thing in our midst, this political circus, and it might be reasonable to wonder how much we may have lost in terms of “culture” that something like Trump can aspire as successfully as he has to the presidency. It is perhaps a handicap for many that the answers may be culture-based and insulting to a large group of people. But I think, for myself at least, that there is nothing wrong with affirming that some things are better than others and that all aspects of culture are not equal. When you see placards with gross misspellings and bad diction in service to poor logic and spiteful ignorance, it offends and perhaps causes one to hold back rather than indulge in the obvious assessments. But like the doofus who shows up at a formal-attire wedding in plaid shorts and tennis shoes with an emblazoned t-shirt and a product-placement ball cap, the initial conclusion may not be wrong.
Suggestions have been made that the GOP might intervene and force Trump to step down or even do something with the rules to make him ineligible. Hiding the blemish won’t cure it. Trump’s success, if not he himself, is an expression of a popular sentiment, an æsthetic, if you will, that has embraced the thing Llosa is, in part, talking about. He has brought them together, the subliterates, the banal, the velvet-paintings-of-Elvis crowd, those whose most trenchant popular icon should be Archie Bunker.
And they voted for him. Should the GOP try to remove Trump, understandable as the impulse may be, it will be a repudiation of the very people they have relied on and nurtured and groomed for over three decades. They have been largely unseen all this time because they have been salted throughout the larger culture, an aberration perhaps. But Trump has caused them to step forward as a group. We, the rest of us, can see them now. They’ve been there all along, but we have rarely encountered them in numbers so large we could not pretend they weren’t just fringe kooks, loonies, or family embarrassments.
Forgive my crudeness, but I’m engaging this problem the way they do. Name-calling, pigeon-holing, because it makes the unknown manageable. It is a practice we rightly abhor but is the obverse of recognizing a form of self-selection and commitment to a set of protocols. If it makes us uncomfortable to be confronted with a reality that has grown up in our midst, then perhaps we share some of the responsibility. We have as a culture been driven more by the shiny, the thalamic and hippocampic reactiveness that draws us to the bright thing at the expense, sometimes, of the good thing.
But then, what do you do with someone who has decided that truth and beauty are the same as a red dot sale at WalMart?
It’s perhaps one reason WalMart has been so successful.
Trump, finally, has caused nothing. He is playing to an audience. What he says is less important than the fact that there are people who like it. When he is long gone from the political stage, they will remain.
It’s a cultural problem.
I’m hearing from some folks about Brexit and by and large what I’m hearing says this is a calamity. The idiots “broke the U.K.”
There were plenty of people explaining what would likely happen if they did this, but hey, what do experts know?
Well, quite a lot, actually, but that fact alone makes them unpalatable to the voters who actually cast a Leave vote. We see precisely that kind of—what would we call it?—“learning fatigue” here. Who do you think supports Trump? People who know little or all the most useless things when it comes to politics and economics and quite adamantly do not want to know, because knowing would contradict the fantasy world in which they stand forth at weekend keggers loudly proclaiming positions that might hold some value in a Game of Thrones episode, but since the folks they’re holding forth to know just as little or less, no one challenges them and they feel justified in clinging to their ignorance.
This is the same crowd whose collective eyes glaze over when you start talking about the mechanisms of trade deals, the dynamics of boom-and-bust cycles, or the pathology of bigotry. People who can’t seem to think outside of very broad categories (i.e. Radical Islamists are Muslims therefore all Muslims want to kill us) and feel empowered whenever someone gets up on a podium and tells them they’re right to be terrified of boogeymen.
So a lot of people, and by the demographics a majority of older British voters, decided that leaving the EU is the same as getting rid of the immigration problem (and somehow they’ll be safer, even though they ought to know better because of past history, namely the IRA, but they at least were white) and that all their money, which will now disappear at an even greater rate because of the catch-up homegrown institutions will have to do to replace EU systems (either that or just let people die, which may happen anyway), will magically reappear in their private bank accounts, and anyway they didn’t understand a lot about what was going in Greece much less down in the Levant and they’d rather not know, as if removing themselves from a source of information somehow eliminates the problem.
Look, knowing things is hard. Not only is it a bit of work to find out in the first place, but it can be difficult to know what to do with what you’ve learned, and often enough knowledge has the consequence of making you feel responsible.
And that, I think, is where much of the problem is. People are past exhausted being told to give a damn. And the less they know, the easier it is to be confident in dismissing problems that don’t seem to have anything to do with them.
But of course, problems always have something to do with you. Maybe not directly or even tomorrow, but somewhat and eventually, and left ignored will grow.
Isolation is a guarantee of eventual extinction.
I’ll let that sit out there for a while. More later. But think about it.
Isolation is a guarantee of eventual extinction.
Here’s a the thing. If you need someone to be in some way “less” than you in order for you to feel good—or even adequate—about yourself, you have a problem. It’s not their problem, it’s yours.
This “pastor” who spewed all over Twitter that we shouldn’t feel bad about the Orlando killings because they were “perverts” is a prime example. If he’s really a pastor, a religious leader, there is no reason for him to say any of that unless he’s just trying to assert superiority. Which is entirely not the point of Christianity, as I understand it. The point is to embrace the commonalities among people, not sort them out into boxes labeled “Preferred Types” and “Types To Be Condemned.” No, he’s just indulging in bolstering a shaky self-image by dumping his own head full of crap on a group he finds personally—
What? Offensive? Incomprehensible? Or simply indifferent to his beliefs.
But, then, how would he know?
People who try to make themselves feel better by denigrating others have always been among us but they have never been so able to broadcast their inadequacies so loudly and regularly and they have found each other and formed support groups. I can’t imagine a gloomier or, frankly, duller forum.
I have found that prejudice rarely survives real knowledge. Actually knowing someone makes it very difficult to shove them into a category and hate “just because” they are a particular “type.” Oh, it’s possible. I have heard all manner of tortured rationalization to continue hating a group while embracing individuals from that group as friends. But that requires, I think, a profound myopia. (And I have to wonder how much of a “friend” they can be.) Generally, once you know someone, I believe it becomes harder and harder to categorically judge and hate them and those like them.
Which is why much of this hatred is based on ignorance.
But a particular kind of ignorance, one based on identity.
After 9/11 we saw people who suggested we learn more about Islam condemned as some species of traitor. How dare you suggest we learn something about this group that just hurt us so badly! How dare you suggest that we can’t programmatically cast all of them into the same box and deal with our pain by blaming them all and hating them! How dare you suggest that more knowledge will benefit us!
It was a spasm of national smallness. “I know who the enemy is, don’t tell me more about him or I might stop hating him.”
Reality is always more complicated.
People who feel squeezed by circumstance, unable often by virtue of their own ignorance to make the decisions necessary to get themselves out of their own cesspools of anger and frustration, seem to contract into themselves and put up a wall to keep out any ideas or facts that might tell them they are in error. They end up hating, many of them, and you see it all over, with signs that are not only wrong-headed but in too many cases suggestive of poor education, illiteracy, and parochialisms that reinforce a siege mentality that grows daily more dense and difficult to penetrate.
No, sir or madam, “they” are not the problem. There are conditions and circumstances that make for a toxic situation and someone has told you that “they” are the cause, the consequence, and the catalyst, all rolled into one, and if we can just be rid of “them” then you will stop being afraid. Whoever told you that lied to you, probably because in so doing they have made themselves feel (falsely) more in control of their situation or they have a power agenda that depends on you buying into the lie. It certainly depends on you never asking deeper questions. Easier to just target and hate. There, the shots have been fired, the bodies are on the floor, “they” have been dealt a blow.
Then why don’t you feel any safer? Why can’t you get past the hate?
Why must we now shift aim to yet another group you know nothing about except that they don’t look or sound or act like you?
Too many people in this country harbor and nurture identity hatreds—we know who we are because we hate those people over there, who are different.
While you’re feeding on that, someone has been stealing your soul to use for purposes you’re too busy hating gays or Muslims or socialists or single parents or blacks or Latinos or Asians or Liberals or Democrats or anyone who knows something you don’t know or has an education or a vocabulary or anyone who reads or supports birth control or feminists or accepts evolution or advocates tolerance or the group of the day to notice.
On some level, along the way, inside, you are one or more of these very things. Hate them, you hate yourself. And if by so doing you define who you are, then you have created for yourself a prison, with bars on the inside, through which to look and resent a world of which you have little understanding. Because you refuse to.
And that pastor? He’s one of the wardens.
Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican candidate. One may wonder how things have gotten to this, but it’s not that hard to understand, just hard to accept.
There is a good side to this. Ted Cruz will not be the next president. We may see him try again, but not this time. All the rest of the slate that began last year has fallen by the wayside and rarely have we seen a scarier bunch of potentials. It’s not even so much their policies as that they seemed so incredibly unintelligent and uninformed.
But this is America and if it’s one thing we have plenty of it is unintelligent and uniformed people. Someone has to represent them, I suppose.
Not that Trump is any better. In fact, he’s become representative of the fact that for some people the less substantive content you put out there, the more you’re liked.
His tag line has been Make America Great Again.
I hate that line. We’ve seen it before, it’s not like Trump is doing anything original here, but it doesn’t matter who uses it, I find it offensive.
Not, for anyone who might challenge me, because I wish my country not be great, but because that line is a fraud.
First, it assumes we’re not. Great, that is. In order to make that claim you have to define what you mean by Great. Right there we run into a problem. Great by what metric? According to who? In what way? Define your terms. What do you mean when you suggest that we are not great?
And you then run into the million-issue problem. What I might mean by the term is not what you mean. And what you mean might be cause for me to reject that definition.
But set that aside for the moment. Assume your terms. Next, you have to explain why we are no longer that. Why aren’t we great, even according to your values?
Then look around and see how true it is, what you believe. Don’t rely on that guy behind the podium to tell you what’s wrong, go see for yourself. If you know how to google at all, do some research. Or go to some community center meetings. Or, for the love of the future, read something other than the usual feel-good screed. Stop watching Fox news.
And get some perspective. History, oft-neglected and painfully necessary, goes a long way to bleeding off the panic of current-affair myopia.
But I suspect the people really supporting Trump will not do that. If it was in them to do so, they would not be supporting him. They would recognize the jingoism, the empty emotionalism, the patriotic deceptiveness. But it also means they have no idea what he’s actually saying that is getting them so pumped.
Replace one word in his tagline and it makes perfect sense. He’s not challenging his base to Make America Great Again, he’s challenging them to Make America White Again.
Several years ago I wrote an essay about the blowback on the part of the extreme Right against social change. I asked what it is these people are so frightened of and I suggested that what really bothers them is that they don’t like the way their country looks anymore. It’s pretty much that simple. They don’t like gay people living right out in the open, they don’t like women holding certain jobs and having their own lives, they don’t like the fashions, the food, and they certainly don’t like the banners raised protesting what they never thought were such bad things—like big banks, segregation, and constant war.
They certainly don’t like the complexion of the country these last few decades. It’s why they often can’t tell the difference between a citizen and a terrorist when their skin color or choice of attire is at odds with what they think America ought to look like.
I’m simplifying, of course, but only in the details. As individuals, everyone has their own trigger for intolerance. But when you look at Trump’s rhetoric and the things he gets cheered about and the reactions of his fans, it’s fairly clear that, however one might dress that pig up in pseudo-intellectual drag, it comes down to white people scared of colored people, be they Mexicans, Syrians, Asians, Africans, or Native Americans.
So Making America Great Again seems to be code for making things so we don’t have to pay any attention to Other People—their rights, their cultures, their privileges, their needs, or how they might have reasonable grievances against Business-As-Usual Americanism. It’s code for trying to make the country resemble what we think it was like just after World War II, with Frederick March coming home to the wife and the picket fence.
You may think I’m being facetious, but I’m not. As Tom Brokaw showed us, there is a Greatest Generation aspect to that entire period. It was one time in our whole history when we seemed to be all on the same page and everyone pulled together and things were simple and when the War was over we were “blessed” with an explosive economy and just gushing oodles of righteous purpose. WWII and the Fifties are this monumental epoch that we worship, idolize, and compare ourselves to constantly. If only we could return to those days, when everything was so simple and we knew who we were.
That is the image, I believe, intended by all the politicians who use that line and accepted by all the people who swallow it and follow along.
There was something special about that era.
But we can’t have it anymore. We aren’t those people, the world is not that place anymore, and things aren’t like they used to be.
In short, we have to find a new standard for Great. That one was used and belongs to another time. And forcing the country into some kind of mold so it kinda sorta resembles that just because the future frightens you is, well, infantile.
Besides, it wasn’t all that great then, either. It was just that certain issues were so big as to dwarf the other things that needed fixing. We were segregated, civil rights were not equally distributed or accepted, many women lacked the opportunity to be their own selves, and poverty still clung to vast areas,mainly in the South. We had problems, some of them the same ones we have now.
Things aren’t like they were in the “good ol’ days”—and they never were.
But myth has momentum (and creates inertia) and we take from the past what we need to dream a new future. That future, no matter what, will be different and many people will be afraid of it, no matter how shiny it looks.
You can’t maintain a civilization based on fear of change. Change happens whether we want it to or not. We have one choice—be part of it or try to stop it. If we’re part of it, we can help shape it. If we try to stop it, we will be run over and forgotten.
As far as I’m concerned, what’s great about this country is that we can, if we want, make a wonderful and wonder-filled future. We’re not bereft of talent and imagination or resources. We have everything we need to build a really cool tomorrow. What makes America Great is what has always made it great—the potential of its people. I get up in the morning and I can live and work with great people. I can find and enjoy great art, music, I can eat well, I can think crazy thoughts and sometimes do something amazing because that’s the heritage I choose to recognize. In that sense, we don’t need to be made Great Again—we are, have been, and will be.
But some people seem to believe that greatness is measured by military strength, social conformism, high-minded bigotry, and constant paeons to nationalistic bombast. They believe it’s us bullying the rest of the world and telling poor people to just get a job. It’s size and influence and the ability to order other countries around. It’s a willingness to reach for a gun at the first hiccup in diplomacy. And it’s inculcated in nurturing a wealthy class that has no regard for anyone else anywhere else as long as the GDP keeps going up, in spite of the consequences to the environment and working people.
That’s not greatness. That’s just size. And arrogance.
So I’m not inclined to accept Mr. Trump’s challenge, because on the one hand it’s without meaning to me. On the other, I’m not sure we could survive being that great.
President Obama has announced his supreme court nominee.
A couple of things. Merrick Garland is not, as claimed by the current spiel from Mitch McConnell and company, an ideologue. There is a track record of bi-partisan endorsements dating back to the 90s to so testify. No one who has ever worked with the man has ever called him an ideologue. This is not open for dispute. He is a jurist and from all the evidence a man of integrity.
Two, while they keep bringing up the Biden Rule, bear in mind the Biden Rule was a statement on what the Senate is constitutionally required to do and, further, an opinion, one which the Democratic Party has never adhered to even when it sounded like they might. There was no vacancy to be debated at the time when then-Senator Joseph Biden made his statements. But even if one wishes to use that as some kind of defense, it is nevertheless a fact that the Biden Rule was never adopted as A Rule. Republicans certainly opted to disregard it and history shows that it has never proven a hindrance or an error for a president to nominate for a vacancy during his last year in office. Now that it appears likely Obama will choose someone who could as easily rule against the GOP agenda as for it, they bring it up and try to make it sound like there is precedent. There is no precedent.
McConnell’s assertion that the president should allow the People a voice in such a selection is disingenuous. The People did. They re-elected Obama by a considerable margin. This is simply an opportunity for him to fulfill that confidence and do the job for which he was elected.
So they have no precedent. They have no moral ground for blocking this. They are risking committing political suicide, in fact, which suggests that they are not listening to their constituents but to their paymasters. There are several matters before the court this year which, had Scalia survived, might have gone in favor of the Right Wing agenda. With Scalia gone, that certainty is no more. They hope a Republican will be elected.
On that, though, all of them have come out against their Party frontrunner, Donald Trump. If he becomes president, according to their recent comments, it will be a disaster. So they won’t get what they want even if the GOP takes the White House. They must secretly hope Hillary or Bernie wins. But if that happens, then their nominee, certainly in the case of Sanders, will be even farther from their ideological hopes. Unless they intend, if Hillary wins, to mire her presidency in endless specious “hearings” about presumed “crimes.”
All of which tells anyone with half a brain that all they want is to block government from functioning at all.
Of course, if a Democrat wins in November and they retain control of the Senate and agree to advise and consent, then the problem must have been an unwillingness to work with a black man. Ideology we can assume will not change, at least not sufficiently to matter.
On a personal note, I suspect this will get them drummed out of office. The Robertson-Scalia court has handed down some of the most regressive decisions in the past two decades. Just to name one, Citizens United. I will not exercise here the problems—the moral problems—with that decision. It is bad jurisprudence. It is a mockery of even the thing the Right purports to defend, namely the importance of the individual. It negated that importance by allowing a functional redefinition of what constitutes an individual. They claim not to like Socialism, but that ruling allowed a form of aggregate personhood which elevated private aggregates to a virtually autonomous condition operationally akin to a kind of collectivism. That it exists as a privately-held corporate entity does not change that fact that now we actually have some “persons” more equal than everybody else.
Whatever one may feel about the past seven years, in this President Obama has history, logic, and morality on his side. It’s his job, his duty, and frankly his privilege, and it is the Senate’s job and duty to advise and consent. History and tradition and even logic are against them, because likely they will have a harder choice of nominees this time next year. What they are doing makes no sense at all. It is posturing.
Which is growing very old. They’re making the Democrats look better than perhaps they really are.