April 2018 – barbwoolard

The night was November 8, 2016. I and my Democratic Party associate cleaned our Get Out the Vote office, loaded all of the makeshift equipment into our cars, and headed over to Harborside Event Center to watch the election results. We went in expecting a victory celebration and came out in a state of shock which the intervening 18 months have done nothing to diminish; in fact, time has only deepened the disbelief. That night for me is epitomized in a facial expression. As the awful truth became evident, our group prepared to go to our homes to absorb the full impact of it. Just as I was heading toward the door, I saw a friend and former colleague across the room with his daughters. I made my way through the crowd to say hello and give him a hug, then turned to rejoin my group who was then halfway to the exit. As I looked back over my shoulder, my friend and I exchanged a parting glance which for me will always be the poster picture of that evening. I’ve rarely seen anyone look as dazed, confused, and utterly lost as he did at that moment.

In the 18 months since that evening, those of us in the majority of voters who did not vote to elect our current “president” have wrestled with many questions about what the minority group (who are so distributed as to constitute a majority in the Electoral College) could possibly have been thinking when they cast their precious vote for a con man? Couldn’t they see? Did they not hear the same whiny, childish, churlish voice we did? Are they not troubled by the behavior so lacking in dignity and decorum compared to every former president? Did that vocal group among them who claim the highest standards of religious and moral rectitude not see the Access Hollywood tape? Do they not know that he’s credibly accused by more than a dozen women of sexual harassment and assault? Did they not hear the part of the tape where he confesses to doing those very things? Are they really okay with the language he uses at public events? Have they forgotten that presidents don’t govern by tweet? Can they say they live by the ten commandments and still justify his daily lies?

We told ourselves they had just been swept up with the current of a populist movement and had been taken in by the bellicose rhetoric but that once the reality of day-to-day life in this twilight zone settled in, so would their buyers’ remorse. Then they’d hasten to demand their party impeach him. Yet here we are 18 months later and their support hasn’t begun to wane; the same people, the “base,” are now signing on for his 2020 campaign.

In 1949, playwright Arthur Miller introduced America to his fictional creation Willy Loman, a hard-working guy who chased the American Dream right into his grave: a grave he chose for himself. Miller called Death of a Salesman a tragedy, the tragedy of the common man. In classical tragedy, Greek and Shakespearean, the tragic protagonist is always a man of high standing–a king or a hero–who because of an internal weakness, or tragic flaw, is unable to withstand the onslaught of life and of antagonistic forces and in the end succumbs to them. The key to a play’s being a tragedy is that the hero’s downfall must be the direct result of his own internal flaw. Willy Loman is no hero. He’s a weak, self-deluded man who refuses to accept his status in life, believing he deserves more than he has achieved and blaming people and circumstances for his failure. Yet his downfall is every bit as heartrending as that of Oedipus.

The play depicts the final 24 hours of Willy’s life, when the walls are closing in on him and he can think only of the fact that he has “nothing in the ground.” Just before his suicide, having been fired by his boss Howard, Willy buys seeds to plant in the back yard in a desperate attempt to feel that his life has amounted to something. Earlier, when Howard fires him, Willy angrily shouts, “I put thirty-four years into this firm, Howard, and now I can’t pay my insurance! You can’t eat the orange and throw the peel away—a man is not a piece of fruit!”

Arthur Miller, in a 1949 New York Times essay called “Tragedy and the Common Man,” wrote, “I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were.” He explains:

“As a general rule . . . I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing-his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to Macbeth, the underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his ‘rightful’ position in his society.

“. . . Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly.

“. . . The flaw, or crack in the characters, is really nothing-and need be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status.”

Further on in the essay, Miller says,

“The quality in such plays that does shake us . . . derives from the underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in this world. Among us today this fear is strong, and perhaps stronger, than it ever was. In fact, it is the common man who knows this fear best.”

Arthur Miller may have unknowingly written the most apt description of the group known as Donald Trump’s base and the most coherent explanation of what motivates them. Like Willy Loman, many of them have chased dreams; above all, they’ve believed in the American Dream. But the American Dream which motivated most of us through our youth has failed a large percentage of American people. We were told that America is the land of opportunity, that those who work hard and dedicate themselves to success will succeed and prosper, that we are a classless society where everyone is created equal, that this is the country where there is no monarchy and therefore any little boy (now any little child) can grow up to be president. Most of these beliefs were never true, but we clung to the promises anyway because our sense of personal dignity and our desire for our rightful status in the world demands it.

Those who so fervently cling to Donald Trump’s promises are the ones most likely to be screwed by his actions. He’s a liar. He’s a cheat. He’s a con. But have they laid down their lives for this chance to secure that “sense of personal dignity”? Are they sustained by a “total compulsion to evaluate [themselves] justly”? Are they so desperate to avoid “being torn away from [their] chosen image of what and who [they] are in this world” that they’ll elect a liar, a cheat, a con man who promises to elevate them to what they believe is their rightful status? Miller claims that the fear of being displaced was stronger than ever in 1949, but he never saw 2016 or 2018.

Have you ever been in a setting in which you felt inferior? You felt like the least wealthy person in the group? The least intellectual? The least expensively or fashionably dressed? The least hip or savvy? What would you have done to alleviate those painful feelings of inferiority? What would you have given to see those people who, knowingly or unknowingly, made you feel worthless and insignificant get their comeuppance? How good would it have felt to see the tables turned and to be the “insider” while they looked on in powerlessness and frustration?

Whom would you have followed or accepted as your advocate to have your sense of self-worth restored, or to achieve that self-worth for the first time? Is it possible that millions of people would vote for a snake oil salesman “if need be, to secure one thing–[their] sense of personal dignity?” I think they would and they did. For the first time in their lives, their “president” talks only to them. He’s their champion. He chooses venting to them for a couple of hours at a “rally” over attending stuffy events like the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. They’re the inner circle now, and the snobby elitists are banging their heads on walls trying to figure out how to reassert their power. The Trumpsters have succeeded in, as we said in the ‘60s, “sticking it to the man.”

More recently, Julian Zelizer, CNN political analyst, wrote on April 29, 2018:
“The big myth about the 2016 presidential election was that economic suffering drove most of Donald Trump’s ‘base’ directly into his hands in states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.” In his article “Democrats need to stop believing this myth about Trump’s base,” Zelizer rejects the notions, or “myths,” that the problems in 2016 came from the Democrats’ obsession with identity politics and the Republican base’s desperation for greater economic stability. He says instead, “It’s the culture, Stupid.” He goes on to say, “The nation is in the middle of a battle over what this country is about. Trump’s attacks on immigrants and other groups seem to sit well with white male voters who fear that other segments of society are gradually displacing them.”

In other words, white males fear they are losing what Arthur Miller calls their “rightful status”; and they will destroy their democracy, if need be, to secure that one thing, “their sense of personal dignity.”

In an April 23, 2018 article in The Atlantic–“People Voted for Trump because They Were Anxious, not Poor”–Olga Khazan concludes, “In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level.”

To counter the idea that the 2016 election was about economic hardship, Khazan quotes political scientist Diana C. Mutz, who based on her extensive analysis says, “It was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.” Mutz explains, “For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country, white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.”

Khazan sums up Mutz’s conclusions:

“When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (‘all lives matter’), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.”

According to Khazan, voters’ highest priorities are their “desire for their group to be dominant”; the feeling that “the American way of life is threatened”; and the belief that “high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.” As for evangelicals, Khazan says, “White evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States.”

So that brings us to one conclusion. It’s the culture, Stupid. Now where do we go from here?

I reel in disbelief every time I hear a news commentator, nightly panelist, newspaper writer, or social media pundit pose the question “Is Donald Trump unfit to serve as President?” Trump answers that question every long, scandal-filled day. YES, he’s unfit. Next question?

Trump proved his unfitness when he publicly mocked a disabled reporter. He proved it when he encouraged physical assault at his campaign rallies. He proved it in the Access Hollywood tape. He proves it every morning with his pre-adolescent tweets. He proves it every time he speaks, with his third-grade vocabulary and schoolyard bully tone of voice. He proves it every time he attacks another government official or private citizen. He proves his unfitness each time he is declined representation by a reputable law firm. He proves it again and again in his rambling rants and his inability to focus on governance. He proves it most stunningly in his gross and utter ignorance of governance and of our constitution. He proves it by his obsession with Fox News and his preference for receiving his information from Sean Hannity et al. instead of from classified intelligence briefings. He proves it by his multiple violations of the Emoluments Clause. He’s a pathological liar, a crooked businessman who’s not nearly as successful as he has always portrayed himself to be, and a person with no conscience. When someone shows you who he is, the intelligent thing to do is believe him.

And there’s the problem. Millions of American voters see and hear the same things, yet a large contingent of that body continue to defend Trump’s fitness for the highest office in our government. And the question that haunts the rest of us is “Why?”

I loathe Donald Trump and everything he represents. My soul longs for the days of intelligent leadership. I broke down in tears while watching David Letterman’s recent interview with Barack Obama. Hell, I even find myself getting nostalgic over photos of George W. Bush. But Donald Trump is not the problem. I didn’t always loathe him. Before the infamous escalator ride, he was the same con man he is today, but I vacillated between feeling disgusted with him and being mildly amused by his tabloid antics. Mostly, when his life had no effect on mine, I paid no attention to what he did or said or how many women he slept with. Donald Trump was simply irrelevant.

Trump declared his intention to run for president because he believes he is uniquely qualified for the position, but that doesn’t offend me. He’s a narcissist; of course he thinks he’s qualified. Delusional people throughout history have claimed to be Jesus; dictators have believed they were heaven-ordained to wield life-and-death power over millions. And narcissist or not, we’re all entitled to dream. Dreaming alone doesn’t win elections. What decides elections is supporters and voters who buy into someone else’s dream. To borrow a line from Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Bear with me here, but I’d like to say, “The fault, dear Americans, is not in Donald Trump but in ourselves, that we are in a state of chaos and in danger of destroying our democracy.”

So the real question is not “Is Donald Trump fit for the presidency?” (he’s not) but “Are we fit to choose a president?” Right now, the answer to the second question is pretty disturbing.

The obscenity of a Donald Trump presidency lies not in the person who occupies the Oval Office but in the electorate who put him there. The dark underbelly of American history and culture is on full display, and it’s ugly. There’s much to discuss about what’s wrong with Donald Trump, but protracting that discussion is futile and will do nothing to heal what’s really wrong with our country. The conversation that needs to happen now is what’s wrong with us and what we can do to heal ourselves. If we can answer those questions, we won’t have to worry about another Trumpian dictator being elected president.

The swamp that needs draining is not the White House; it’s not even Washington, DC. It’s every nook and cranny of this country where a snake oil salesman can win the electoral college vote. Where opposition to political correctness carries more weight in choosing a president than respect for knowledge and experience. Where guns are glorified and protected over children’s lives. Where being “pro-life” means opposing abortion but not giving a damn about people who are already born. Where the people who claim the inside track to God (Evangelicals) elevate to the level of spiritual prophet a thrice-married adulterer who brags about his exploiting of numerous women and who pays those women to stay quiet, does business with thugs, doesn’t pay his bills, lies as easily as he breathes, and displays no respect or compassion for other humans. It just doesn’t get any swampier than that.

And let’s go ahead throw in Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and all of the other corrupt leaders currently running our congress and serving in it. They’re reprehensible, but they are there because people keep electing them. If they were back home being private-citizen wackos, I might feel a tiny twinge of sympathy for them; but as long as they are leaders in our government, I can find only disgust for them and animosity for the people who elect them.

Donald Trump, and others in “the swamp,” have shown us who they are. Believe them. Then stop the endless conversation of analyzing and agonizing over why Trump does each little thing you hear about on the news. He does what he does because he is who he is. But who are we? That’s a conversation worth having.

Let’s take a moment to recap. So far, we have that Washington, D.C. is a swamp because the rest of the country–where the voters live–is a swamp. It’s us, not them. We need to talk about that. Spoiler alert: I have no magic formula to offer that will drain the Everytown USA Swamp. I do, however, have some ideas for conversation starters. First, a forgotten word in our culture is “compromise”; we should look into that. Second, the ground rules for our conversation should include forbidding the use of any of these words: “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “left,” “right,” and any others that denote entrenched attitudes and opinions that are off the table. The conversation has to center on common ground, what we all want, not what one group wants; and nothing can be off the table.

Restoring a spirit of compromise requires letting go of the idea that we all have to hold the same opinions or live by the same rules. We need to find a lot more Barbara Bushes, who disagreed with her party’s stance on abortion but continued to support the overall party platform and its candidates–until they completely lost their minds and nominated the snake-oil salesman for president. Mrs. Bush’s pro-choice stance placed her at odds with both her husband and her son’s public positions; yet she passionately loved and supported them both. The singer and activist Bono once told George W. Bush that Bush’s mother helped diminish the stigma of AIDS and other diseases. Many who share Mrs. Bush’s stated religious beliefs are the ones who created that stigma, yet this noble woman was able to maintain her personal faith and ties to those who shared her faith while also extending grace, compassion, and respect to suffering people. Mutual respect is the missing element in most of today’s conversations about divisive issues.

I’m a registered Democrat, and I don’t fully agree with my party’s position on abortion; but I support the Democratic Party and respect my fellow Democrats’ opinions because I believe we’re correct on more issues than not. I don’t need to agree with my tribe on every point; I can respect other liberals and hope they respect me and acknowledge my right to see certain things a little differently. It’s unrealistic to think everyone, even within a party, will see every issue exactly the same way.

I believe the government should butt out of people’s love lives. However, butting out means butting out, not just taking the opposite side. If a pastor feels deeply that he/she cannot in good conscience officiate a same-sex marriage, leave him/her alone! Plenty of pastors, justices of the peace, and friends willing to obtain an online officiant license will be delighted to perform the wedding. If I were part of the LGBTQ community and wanted to get married, I certainly would not want to have the joy of my wedding day dampened by an officiant who was there only because he/she was forbidden by law to decline. And in the case of a pastor, a pastor who declines performing the wedding is unlikely to welcome the happy couple into membership, so what’s the point? Many churches are inclusive; go find one. If a baker or florist doesn’t wish to be involved, find one that does. A wedding day should be a joyful occasion; everyone involved should share the joy and affirmation of the union. After enough bad publicity, those bakers and florists will see the results in their declining client base. So be it.

I hasten to add that pastors, bakers, and florists are private citizens, who I believe should be allowed to exercise and do business according to their private beliefs–however distorted those beliefs may seem to others. However, government officials, such as Kim Davis, the Kentucky woman who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, must be required to act in accordance with the laws, not their personal beliefs. I believe Kim Davis private citizen could refuse to officiate the wedding, bake the cake, or arrange the flowers; but Kim Davis public official had no right to use her government position to impose her personal beliefs on others.

Donald Trump ascended to the presidency by eschewing political correctness and inciting his rabid mobs to echo that line. For the most part, I believe the political correctness backlash was hogwash. What that group calls political correctness I call kindness, respect, and courtesy. Every now and then, however, I hear something that I think crosses the line between respect and absurdity; and on those occasions, I have a smidgen of appreciation for the Trump supporters’ scornful rejection of political correctness. Political correctness is disrespect for any opinion except the “correct” one. But who gets to decide whose opinion is the correct one, and what do we gain by fighting over it? Political correctness is in some cases a form of forced agreement, and why must we all agree? Can’t we find ways to respect each other without agreeing on every point?

If I were to hold the private opinion that all houses should be built of wood and painted yellow, lots of people would disagree with me and probably find me a bit wacky; but my opinion should be acknowledged and not denigrated, and I should not be made to feel like a defective person for my belief. If, however, I spray paint nasty messages on my neighbors’ brick or stucco houses, I’ve crossed the line between holding a weird opinion and abusing and assaulting my neighbors. The same is true if I take it upon myself to repaint other wood houses to my “correct” color. I shouldn’t be required to change my opinion in order to be respected, but I should be required to allow others the same right I claim for myself.

One of my favorite photos is the one in which Michelle Obama is hugging George W. Bush, and both are smiling with what appears to be genuine affection. It might be difficult to find two people with more divergent opinions on a wide range of social and political topics, but this photo captures the spirit of human beings celebrating what unites them, not focusing on what divides them. We need more such photos.

We need more friendships like the friendship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, described by Mr. O’Neill’s son Thomas in a 2012 New York Times article titled “Frenemies: A Love Story.” The younger O’Neill writes about others who have observed the irony that “the relationship between Reagan and my father, a Democrat who was speaker of the House for most of Reagan’s presidency, should serve as a model for how political leaders can differ deeply on issues, and yet work together for the good of the country.” Let that sink in: “differ deeply on issues” and “work together for the good of the country.” Thomas O’Neill also writes, “While neither man embraced the other’s worldview, each respected the other’s right to hold it. Each respected the other as a man.” And those last two sentences articulate precisely what is missing today, not only in our nation’s capital but more importantly in Everytown USA.

The article makes clear that although Reagan and O’Neill couldn’t be considered close friends, they more than once sat down together at the White House for drinks after each had spent the day fighting adamantly for his cause. Their devotion to the common good didn’t prevent either of them from expressing an honest opinion about the other. O’Neill is quoted as calling Reagan “a cheerleader for selfishness” and Reagan as comparing O’Neill to the Pac-Man character, “a round thing that gobbles up money.”

But here’s the part we so desperately need today:

“Such unyielding standoffs [this follows a long list of examples] were, in fact, rare. What both men deplored more than the other’s political philosophy was stalemate, and a country that was so polarized by ideology and party politics that it could not move forward. There were tough words and important disagreements over everything from taxation to Medicare and military spending. But there was yet a stronger commitment to getting things done. That commitment to put country ahead of personal belief and party loyalty is what . . . millions of Americans miss so much right now.”

Indeed we do miss leaders who are willing and able to compromise for the sake of “getting things done,” who are capable of “commitment to put country ahead of personal belief and party loyalty.”

Now here’s the catch: We’ll never get leaders who respect each other and work toward the common good until the voters who elect those leaders can make the “commitment to put country ahead of personal belief and party loyalty.” When citizens of Everytown USA cease to be “polarized by ideology and party politics,” we’ll start electing that kind of leaders. As it is, we elect leaders bent on carrying out our polarized beliefs; hence, Donald Trump. As I’ve often said, and many others have also said, Trump is the effect, not the cause. It’s high time we start examining the causes and turning the conversation toward fixing ourselves.

The DC Swamp is out of control, and there’s only one way you and I can change that situation. We have to start by draining our own little swamps, changing the conversation in our own corner of the world. Different world views have existed as long as the world has turned on its axis, and humans will disagree for as long as at least two people remain on the planet. The only thing anyone has control over is how those disagreements are handled. It’s time to change the conversation. It’s time to listen more and talk less. It’s time to allow others to hold opinions at opposite poles from our own yet extend to them the same respect we demand from them. It’s time, as Thomas O’Neill says, even when we can’t embrace another’s worldview, to respect the other’s right to hold it, to respect the other as an equal person.

If you’re saying to yourself right now, “Yeah, that’s what those other people need to do,” you’re part of the problem. Think about it.