Month: July 2018

Categories
Politics

Connecting Dots

I’m seeing spots! Actually, it’s lots and lots of dots! I’ve been seeing them for several years, and their number is increasing, though the connections between them have seemed confusing or altogether missing. Then in the last two weeks’ dizzying rush of shock-and-awe headlines and breaking news, finally a name appeared which began to make sense out of the galaxy of random dots: Maria Butina. Ms. Butina is the woman you’ve all heard of by now: alleged Russian spy, worked with Aleksandr Torshin, began traveling between Russia and the U.S. in 2011, moved to the U.S. on a student visa in 2016 and became a graduate student at American University in D.C., allegedly used sex among other weapons to carry out her assignments, founded a Russian gun-rights organization called Right to Bear Arms, and along with Torshin established a “cooperative relationship” between Right to Bear Arms and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Aha! Those random dots suddenly seemed far less random and more a part of an intricate pattern woven of Russian involvement in our democracy, NRA control over our politicians, Russian and NRA control over our “president,” and our Congress’s inaction on pretty much everything.

In a Guardian article published on July 26, 2018, Jon Swaine names a Russian billionaire alleged to be Ms. Butina’s “funder”: Konstantin Nikolaev, whose wife Svetlana Nikolaeva is “the head of a gun company that supplies sniper rifles to the Russian military and intelligence services.” Swaine states the finding that Mr. Nikolaev allegedly invested money in his wife’s gun company “sheds further light on the links forged in recent years between America’s powerful gun lobby and well-connected Russians.” Add those allegations to the allegation by US prosecutors that “Butina’s activities were directed by Alexander Torshin, a senior Russian state banker and an NRA member,” and I think we’re starting to see some lines connecting a few of those dots.

While Ms. Butina rests in her jail cell, investigators are pursuing charges of “illegally operating as a foreign agent . . . working to infiltrate the NRA as part of an attempt to influence the Republican party and establish secret backchannels with American politicians” (also from the Swaine article). It should be completely unsurprising that she has denied all charges. Meanwhile, we should perhaps take a moment to review the history of the organization which she is accused of infiltrating and using as a backchannel to connect the Republican Party with the Kremlin.

According to the NRA’s official website, the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who expressed dismay over “the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” Contrary to a revisionist claim that the NRA was formed to drive out the Ku Klux Klan and help freed slaves defend themselves against racist attacks (a claim debunked by Snopes and other fact checkers), the real purpose of the new organization was “promoting the safe and proper use of firearms” (Ron Elving, NPR). “The idea was to educate a new generation of marksmen, whether for war or hunting or recreational target shooting” (Elving).

In our country’s earlier years, there was little or no debate about the necessity of gun use in everyday life, since guns were essential for survival during the frontier era. According to Mr. Elving, debate over the necessity of gun ownership began in earnest after four of our presidents were assassinated. During those years between the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, the NRA supported restrictions on gun availability, particularly for convicted felons and people with mental illness. Each time a new conversation arose, the NRA wanted to be involved but consistently worked with Congress and the White House toward implementing and enforcing prudent restrictions.

That was then. According to Ron Elving , change began in 1971 when an NRA member who had a large cache of illegal weapons was killed by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The NRA’s first lobbying group, Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), was formed in 1975 under the leadership of “Texas lawyer . . . Harlon Carter, an immigration hawk who had headed the Border Patrol in the 1950s” (Elving). Carter, a “hard-liner, ” made the statement, “You don’t stop crime by attacking guns. You stop crime by stopping criminals.” Hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?

The ensuing power struggle culminated in a coup at the 1977 NRA convention, resulting in Carter’s rise to the position of executive vice president and his appointment of fellow hard-liner Neal Knox to replace him as head of the ILA. Elving says, “The new marching orders were to oppose all forms of gun control across the board and lobby aggressively for gun owners’ rights in Congress and the legislatures.” Elving adds, “Carter proclaimed his group would be ‘so strong and so dedicated that no politician in America, mindful of his political career, would want to challenge our legitimate goals.’”

The powerful gun-lobby organization we see today bears little resemblance to the NRA that aimed to train hunters and a great resemblance to the new NRA born in 1977. In the words of Snopes writers, today’s NRA has “a single overriding purpose: to promote and defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms.” I’ve written before about their concept of what the Second Amendment actually says, so I’ll let that point rest for now and just mention the fear tactics shamelessly employed to garner support for their political agenda, especially under the leadership of executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who famously wrote an editorial dated February 13, 2013, where he said among other things:

The president [Obama] flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.

When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along.

A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of gun control.

No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever.

Mr. LaPierre goes on to say,

Responsible Americans realize that the world as we know it has changed. We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.

Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn’t there—or simply doesn’t show up in time.

Well, let’s just start right here with the horse’s mouth, or perhaps some more southern body part. Why is it that, although no serious proposal has ever come before our congress to ban guns, the gun clutchers by default begin every conversation by defending themselves against the plot to “ban all the guns”? I think the answer to that question is right here: that’s the brainwashing they’re receiving from the horse’s mouth.

The executive vice president of the NRA decries the lack of a “secure border fence along the entire Mexican border,” and–voila!–his newly purchased Republican presidential candidate makes building a wall the centerpiece of his campaign. Mr. LaPierre makes terrifying claims about immigrants who cross that border, or who might cross it in the absence of sufficient security, and guess who launches his campaign with absurd and unfounded claims about Mexican immigrants and continues to attack immigrants in every inhumane way he can think of? That’s right! The NRA-purchased “president,” who assures the organization that its $30,000,000 donation has purchased them “a true friend and champion in the White House.” Even Donald Trump is smart enough to know that if he doesn’t give them their money’s worth, they might buy a replacement in 2020.

So how much money does the NRA spend on politicians, and where does all of that money come from? As usual, the answer depends on whom you ask. If you ask the NRA leadership (and why would you?), the answer as of October 2017 was $3.5 million, according to PolitiFact. Well, that can’t be right. PolitiFact, however, says it is actually an accurate number but accounts for only one small pot among many from which the NRA draws to wield their vast influence. That figure accounts for only direct contributions to currently serving members of congress, elected between 1998 and 2017. Never mind the members who served during only part of that time or the many collateral expenses that arise from buying congressional representatives and senators. Selling one’s soul is serious business, and the Devil’s prices ain’t cheap.

When you add lobbying, campaign ads, party and leadership PAC contributions, and independent campaign expenditures (whatever the heck those are!) to the contributions for individual candidates (only those currently serving as of 2017), you get a much larger number than the paltry $3.5 million claimed by the NRA. PolitiFact says the full tally for “political activities” is $203.2 million for the 1998-2017 period. So they were off by $200 million! Are we going to hold a little mathematical error against them? Geez! They’re paid to buy politicians, not do math.

Also worth noting in the PolitiFact numbers is the yuuuuge spike in spending during 2016. What was it that happened that year?

Brennan Weiss and Skye Gould report in a February 28, 2018, Business Insider article, that although the NRA is bipartisan in its contributions, it’s only barely so. Of the top 85 career recipients of NRA funds, 82 of them are Republicans (citing a database from the Center for Responsive Politics). John McCain and Richard Burr, of Arizona and North Carolina respectively, top the list for career donations, with $7,755, 701 going to McCain and $6,986,931 to Burr. Florida’s Marco Rubio–number 6 on the list–is indebted for $3,303,355. Adjusted for time of service, however, Marco Rubio, having logged only seven years so far, is just as dirty as those in the top 5. Rubio, in case anyone needs a reminder, is the sniveling coward who stood on a platform with Marjory Stoneman Douglas survivors, in the immediate aftermath of their trauma, and excused his NRA association by rationalizing “They come to me; they align themselves with my purposes”–or some such drivel.

The NRA is also noted for issuing its infamous report cards, ranking senators and representatives for their NRA-friendly stances. Here’s just a sampling. The A-list is comprised of 39 Republicans and ten Democrats; the F-list contains 35 Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. The B, C, and D lists are far shorter, demonstrating that the majority of law makers who have been rated fall into the extremes, with one extreme (the pro-NRA group) heavily Republican and the other (the anti-NRA group) almost exclusively Democrat. (from margieroswell.com)

The next logical question is where does the NRA get all that dirty money with which to purchase law makers’ souls? For starters, the organization currently claims more than 5 million members, each paying annual dues. The base price is $40 for one year, with incentives for longer commitments, the best value being five years for the low bargain price of just $140. Those little tidbits are straight from the NRA website, followed by these statements, in response to the question “How does the NRA use my membership dues?”:

Your support will help us defend your Second Amendment freedom whenever and wherever it comes under attack.

In addition, your membership dues will help the NRA cultivate the next generation of sportsmen and women through our youth firearms trainings…empower women with our self-defense programs…and support our police officers with our world-class law enforcement training programs.

I guess that’s pretty clear: politics first, sports and law enforcement second.

In addition to annual dues, the NRA rakes in a few more million each year from “program fees,” such as money paid to use their shooting ranges, open to both members and non-members, with slightly higher prices for non-members; admission to sporting events; and fees for education and training programs.

The organization also takes in vast revenues in contributions. According to an October 15, 2015, CNN report by Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken,

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates. That’s where individual donations come in.

Private citizens, incited to paranoia by the gun lobby’s scare tactics, collectively donate millions of dollars toward keeping gun-friendly candidates in power. According to the same article,

Since 2005 [that’s a 10-year period, since the article was written in 2015], the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk.

While President Obama was calling for better regulation of gun sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the gun clutchers responded by buying more guns and donating more money to the NRA.

Donations in the 2014 election cycle were up by more than 50% compared to the prior two years, and nearly doubled from a decade ago.

‘Americans look to the NRA to defend their constitutional right to self protection,’ NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker told CNNMoney. ‘When gun control advocates ramp up their efforts to pass gun control, people voice their opposition by donating to the NRA.’

Then along came Maria Butina, and that dirty money just got a whole lot dirtier! Secret back channels; Russian billionaires; an organization long on receiving donations and short on basic decency, morality, and humanity add up to a much bigger coffer that now can afford to buy not just penny-ante MOCs but a moronic, narcissistic “president” who will allow his strings to be pulled by anyone who will feed his gargantuan ego and allow him to believe his election was legitimate.

Okay, we pretty much knew all of that, except maybe the spy/NRA connection, but that is the connection which explains why members of Congress continue to support a treasonous president, why their only response to mass murder is “thoughts and prayers,” why they are paralyzed to act against the treason and mental illness on display daily in the White House. It’s clear now that Donald Trump is not the only elected official beholden to Russia. Paralyzed MOCs are not just protecting a dysfunctional “president,” they’re protecting themselves.

Michelle Goldberg, in a July 20, 2018, opinion column for the New York Times, calls the National Rifle Association “the most important outside organization in the Republican firmament.” According to Ms. Goldberg, “Legal filings in the case [Maria Butina’s case] outline a plan to use the N.R.A. to push the Republican Party in a more pro-Russian direction.” She adds, “The young Russian woman clearly understood the political significance of the N.R.A. In one email, court papers say, she described the central ‘place and influence’ of the N.R.A. in the Republican Party.”

Goldberg quotes Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon:

I serve on both the Intelligence Committee and the Finance Committee, so I have a chance to really look at this through the periscope of both committees. And what I have wondered about for some time is this whole issue of whether the N.R.A. is getting subverted as a Russian asset.

Another dot is connected! Why were House Republicans so eager to wrap up their investigation into Russia’s election interference, declare no wrongdoing had occurred, and close their ears to any more uncomfortable information? Ms. Goldberg reports that Democrats on the committee were preparing to interview Ms. Butina and Paul Erickson, with whom she had developed an “insincere” romantic relationship. Apparently, the Repubs preferred not to know about all that back channel stuff, so they decided it was time to close up shop.

According to the Goldberg article,

McClatchy has reported that the F.B.I. is investigating whether Torshin [Aleksandr Torshin, Russian allegedly in cahoots with Butina] illegally funneled money to the N.R.A. to help Trump. Wyden [Oregon Senator] has also been trying to trace foreign money flowing into the N.R.A., but has found little cooperation from the organization, his Republican colleagues or the Treasury Department.

Funny how all those dots don’t seem nearly so random and unconnected any more! It’s all starting to make perfect sense. It’s terrifying, but it makes sense. I don’t know about you, but I’m keeping my eye on the Russian spy.

 

 

Categories
Politics

Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Centrist, Moderate, Radical, Wingnut, Snowflake?

So many labels! How’s a responsible citizen to choose? Things used to be much simpler. People were Republican or Democrat; they disagreed on specific issues but agreed on certain foundational principles. They for the most part were cordial to each other, and each respected the other’s right to hold a different opinion. They could have conversations, sometimes heated ones, even verbally duke it out, and then have a drink together at the end of the day. Candidates for office were more or less acceptable to both parties; people preferred their own party’s candidate but could somewhat graciously grit their teeth, accept, and live with the other candidate if that person became the majority’s choice.

That was then, before mayhem ensued and the fragments flew. That was before the Internet, which opened the door to daily conversations with complete strangers, conversations which are anything but cordial. That was before the lines in the sand became thick walls separating Americans of different opinions into tribes and cults, each having its own inviolable code of belief and conduct which anyone who wishes to be a member must agree to. That was before cordial conversation died and was replaced by shouting across the thick walls of separation and never listening to the other group’s response.

There’s so much to say about the demise of our two-party system, but what troubles me most are the other labels applied to various groups, such as “liberal” and “conservative,” labels which used to be descriptive of the groups’ positions and values but which now have devolved to nothing more than disparaging names spewed in disgust by opposing tribes. Most troubling to me, as a word lover, is that labels are no longer accurately indicative of what each group stands for; and in some cases, even those who ascribe to a particular way of thinking find themselves baffled by the confusing disconnect between standard definitions of terms and their meaning in actual usage.

Am I a liberal or a progressive? Some say they’re two names for the same thing; others clearly spell out the nuances of difference between the two. I’m not sure I really care, just so I’m identified as being on what I consider the side most conducive to sane government and peaceful, loving, compassionate coexistence. By strictest definition, I even think of myself as conservative: one who loves and wishes to preserve the institutions which are the bedrock of our social order. Today, however, I would never whisper that word in reference to myself because of the craziness currently associated with it.

To sort this out, let’s just go ahead and begin with Donald Trump, shall we? As the whole planet knows, he won the presidency as the Republican candidate, but he in no way embodies the historic principles or values of the Republican Party. Let’s just say he is NO Abe Lincoln! He’s not even a Ronald Reagan or a George W. Bush. Trump is neither Republican nor Democrat; he’s an opportunist. He’ll say anything, do anything, and join any party necessary to achieve his own narcissistic ends.

According to a June 16, 2015, article in the Washington Times, Trump has changed his party affiliation at least five times since the late 1980s. The article says he first registered as a Republican in 1987; by my math, he would have been in his 40s at that time, which would make him a late-comer to the party. In 1999, he switched to the Independent Party; in 2001, he became a Democrat; in 2009, he returned to the Republican Party for two years before deciding in 2011 that he wanted no party affiliation. In April 2012, he registered once again as a Republican–just in time for his 2015 announcement that he wanted to be the party’s presidential nominee. What a coincidence! Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, whom you may recognize as senior advisers to the current “president,” were unable to vote for him in New York’s Republican primary because they were not at that time registered as Republicans.

Why does any of this matter? This family’s loose connection to the party which they ostensibly represent says a whole lot, I think. First, it says that Donald Trump is an opportunist who would have resurrected the Whig Party or run on the Magic Dragon or Purple People Eater ticket if it would have gotten him elected. He has no loyalty to the GOP yet demands the party’s unquestioned loyalty to him. Pre-Tea Party Republicans, those still trying to be the standard bearers for the Party of Lincoln, are beginning to admit defeat and abandon the ship before it hits bottom.

Mark P. Painter, a 30-year judge and author of six books, explains his reasons for leaving the GOP:

This was once my party. And even when the wingnuts took it over, I had hopes for a return to sanity. I had worked for many candidates, was president of the 11th Ward Republican Club for 10 years, and was a candidate and officeholder myself. . . . . . .

I took pride in belonging to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

Now we have a Republican Party that stands for cruelty, hatred, bullying, proud stupidity, trade barriers, science denial, massive deficits and strangling debt. The president wants to build a colossal boondoggle of a wall to keep ‘them’ out. If Reagan were here today, he would say ‘Mr. Trump, don’t build that wall.’

Trump is a danger to our nation and a disgrace to our party. But he can’t accomplish this perversion of America alone. The Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans are equally culpable. They are fellow travelers with disaster. The next generations will pay for their folly.

Paul Best, who says “Trump was the first Republican nominee I did not vote for in a presidential election,” is also finding the exit, according to a letter he published in the Chicago Tribune. Steve Schmidt, prominent and widely respected Republican strategist, this week announced his departure from the party he has served because of Donald Trump’s policy on separating children from their parents as a deterrent to those crossing our southern border in search of asylum. On June 20 2018, he tweeted:

29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

In a series of tweets written on the same day, he added:

It [the GOP] is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party’s greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken. The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.

Those are damning words from a lifelong Republican voter and public servant.

George Will, well-known Washington Post columnist, renounced his GOP membership in 2016, switching to “unaffiliated” and urging other Republicans to do the same. Will cited Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Trump for the 2020 election as the trigger for his decision. Mary Matalan, another long-time strategist, left the party in May 2016; her departure, she says, was not related to Trump. I would add that Trump, as I have said many times, is the result–not the cause–of the problems in the Republican Party; so it doesn’t much matter whether one leaves directly because of Trump or because of the internal rot that caused Trump to become the party’s nominee.

I come from a Republican family, and most of my extended family are still Republican. My stepfather joined our clan in 1973 and was the first Democrat in the immediate family. My sister switched her party affiliation when the GOP nominated Ronald Reagan; my mother, the first time George W. Bush was elected; and I, the second time he was elected (I gave them one more chance to get it right).

The Republican Party freed the slaves while the Democrats fought against the passage of the 13th Amendment, yet today it’s the Republicans who are holding over 2000 children hostage in cages and in some cases can’t return them because they forgot to keep track of who and where their parents are, while the Democrats are calling for their release. Don’t misunderstand. I think some of our Democratic officials are rather feckless in their opposition and at times more talk than action, but at least none of them are supporting the continued internment of these innocent children.

The dilemma for today’s intelligent, responsible, morally upright Republicans–now that many analysts agree the GOP has become fully the Party of Trump–is whether to stay and attempt to save it and return it to its former position of respect or to save their own reputations by dropping out. Those choosing the latter option feel they can do more good by joining forces with like-minded people of other parties and political persuasions.

Perhaps the most confusing, misunderstood, and misused words in the jumbled jargon of today’s politics are the words “liberal” and “conservative.” The website lps.org offers a comparison of “liberals” and “conservatives.”

Liberals generally believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the government to reduce community issues and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Also believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems. Liberals are often referred to as being on the LEFT when put into a political spectrum. Democrats are often viewed as more liberal.

In contrast,

Conservatives generally believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Also believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Conservatives are often referred to as being on the RIGHT when put into a political spectrum. Republicans are often viewed as more conservative.

Although there are clearly shades of blue, I think they may not be quite as confusing as today’s shades of red. A favorite article, which I review periodically, especially during election season, is called “Why Voters Should Turn from the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession,” by Louis Guenin.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), widely regarded as the Father of Conservatism, wrote that conservatism ‘advocates esteem for government and established institutions. It holds that within them lies an accumulated wisdom that citizens and their leaders should respect and consult. Revering the established order, its constitution, and its history, conservatism cultivates a cautious disposition’ (paraphrased by Louis Guenin, Huffington Post, 24 Dec 2012).

Guenin adds:

Today’s Republican Party consists of pseudoconservatives, wearers of the ‘conservative’ mantle who repudiate conservatism. Rather than esteeming government, they disdain it. They seem to delight in ridiculing government’s failings.

Mr. Guenin further suggests that liberals and conservatives have somewhat switched places in today’s politics:

The politicians who now travel under the banner of ‘conservatism’ happen to espouse views and methods that . . . are incompatible with the philosophy bearing that name. Meanwhile members of the opposing political party have imbibed a dose of the wisdom conveyed by conservatism.

Other standard definitions of “conservatism” include this one from an online dictionary:

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.

Today’s conservatives also belie that definition; but then, according to Corey Robin in The Reactionary Mind, the conservative movement has always been characterized by “racism, populism, violence, and a pervasive contempt for custom, convention, law, institutions, and established elites.” Now THAT sounds like the conservatives I’ve talked to lately! “From its inception,” says Robin, “conservatism has relied on some mix of these elements to build a broad-based movement of elites and masses against the emancipation of the lower orders.” He goes on to call Donald Trump “the most successful practitioner of the mass politics of privilege in contemporary America.”

Not only can Donald Trump not be called a Republican in the historic sense, he can’t be called conservative either, unless you agree with Corey Robin’s assessment that the movement is characterized by “racism, populism, violence, and . . . contempt for” all that forms the foundation of our country, our government, and our culture. By that definition, he’s the most fitting standard bearer ever born.

Today, our “conservative” leader stood on a stage in Helsinki, Finland, and denigrated our own intelligence agencies, previous government leaders, and the work of independent counsel Robert Mueller while heaping praise on our chief adversary and proclaiming that he accepts at face value the words of Vladimir Putin who says he did not interfere in our 2016 election. Even if Trump did not collude with Russia in 2016 (and I believe he absolutely DID!), he’s colluding now. He’s destroying every pillar of our democracy under the flag of “conservatism,” supported and defended by the “conservative” masses. This treasonous man and his treasonous followers need to find another label for themselves, because they are not conservative. True conservatives want to conserve, not destroy.

The Free Dictionary (online) offers this definition of “conservatism”: “The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.” Never in the history of our country have leaders acted with less caution or moderation or exhibited less respect for the existing or traditional order. Donald Trump would burn the whole country to the ground and sell the ashes if doing so would further enrich him and make him more powerful, and his base of deplorables would cheer him on, even as they themselves were being destroyed. The fact that all of this is happening in the innocuous-sounding name of “conservatism” makes it all the more sinister and deceptive. We liberals, in the prevailing view, are the evil ones who want to steal their guns, allow immigrants to come in and kill our citizens, and allow Muslims to establish sharia law.

One of my favorite quotations from Ralph Waldo Emerson is this: “A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a [person] from the vexation of thinking.” I think he nailed it. Religious affiliations and political parties allow us the security of being surrounded by like-minded people and the luxury of having someone else articulate the beliefs to which we profess allegiance, whether or not we know or understand them. Our country has reached a crisis; this is emergency mode. We no longer have the luxury of letting someone else do the thinking and tell us where to sign our names. Every single citizen has to think and act. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative–whatever those terms mean!–the only label that matters now is “American.” Americans have been attacked by a common enemy, and it’s up to each of us to respond. Either we ALL win or we ALL lose. I’d like to win!

 

Categories
Politics

Walking on Quicksand

Not much surprises me these days, and I fear I may be suffering from what some are calling “outrage fatigue”: the state of exhaustion that results from daily bombardment by too many outrageous events. I do, however, still feel a mild shock every time I think our polarized citizenry may have finally found some common ground only to discover once again that it’s just another patch of quicksand.

The Columbine High School massacre, almost twenty years ago (April 20, 1999), was the first mass school shooting to shock the nation. Images were seared into our memories of terrified teens being led from their school, a place which should have been a haven of safety where young people could prepare for their futures, knowing they were leaving behind twelve classmates and one teacher whose chances for a happy future had just ended. It seemed we as a nation had reached a crisis point at which we could no longer ignore our broken gun laws and that there could surely be no resistance to having a bipartisan discussion about how to keep our children safe. Children’s safety is, after all, a universal concern. Right?

The intervening years have proved that assumption wrong. Nothing happened after Columbine to prevent future tragedies, and so the massacres have continued with increasing frequency, each bringing the hope for uniting Americans against a common enemy, each time followed by more disappointing partisanship.

On December 14, 2012, when 20 children barely old enough to tie their shoes and zip their own pants were shot to death in their little school desks, it was assumed that surely no self-respecting person could resist supporting changes to our gun laws to ensure such an atrocity would never happen again. Six adult staff members rounded out the total, making it the deadliest mass school shooting in U. S. history. Five- and six-year-old babies’ bodies torn apart by bullets would rip the heart out of any decent person, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Right? Finally, we would find the common ground on which we could unite. Finally, Congress would take bipartisan action to end these atrocities. Wrong again. The parents of those murdered children are still petitioning Congress, and still nothing has been done.

On June 12, 2016, the violence shifted from school to a place of entertainment. At the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida, 49 people were murdered. The victims were mostly Latino and LGBT, so I guess Congress figured they don’t count. So much for “All lives matter.”

On October 1, 2017, a crowd was enjoying a Sunday-evening concert in Las Vegas when a gunman opened fire from a nearby hotel, killing 58 and injuring a whopping 851. The dead included at least one toddler. A toddler! I think we’re seeing the pattern by now: what should have caused universal outrage and calls for action elicited nothing but “thoughts and prayers.”

On February 14, 2018, when 14 students and three staff members were mowed down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, once again the pathos of distraught parents and friends weeping over the massacre of these children seemed a sure fix to our polarization. The bitter irony of this horrific event occurring on Valentine’s Day, the day we celebrate love, was not lost on hearers of the tragic news. How could anyone not agree that action must be taken quickly? Yet in spite of the surviving students’ passionate pleas and political activism, Congress has still done nothing. No thing. Instead, David Hogg and other survivors who made pleas for action were accused of being “crisis actors.” But this is not who we are as Americans, is it? We don’t make light of our fellow citizens’ pain and heart ache. Apparently now we do.

A little out of chronological order, but on a different subject, on October 7, 2016, the Washington Post uncovered and published a 2005 video now known as the Access Hollywood tape, in which Donald Trump and Billy Bush were overheard having “an extremely lewd conversation about women.” They were together in a bus on the way to film an episode of Access Hollywood. With less than a month to go before the presidential election, it was widely assumed that this would be the end of Trump’s candidacy. He would do what every decent presidential candidate has done when evidence of his moral turpitude has been made public: he would, of course, resign from the race. Donald Trump, however, was not a decent candidate and has never been a decent human being, so his response was that there was “zero chance” of his resigning. And he didn’t.

Okay, but naturally, the Republican Party would insist he withdraw and not further sully their name? Wrong. Well, then he would definitely lose all of his support and no respectable person would vote for him? Wrong again. Instead, we for the first time in our history heard news anchors and panelists use the word “pussy” on cable TV. Since then, we’ve heard them use “shithole,” again quoting our esteemed “president.” But, but no one believes presidents should behave this way or talk this way in public. Presidents don’t make fun of people, attack private citizens, or call other national and international leaders childish names. We all know presidential behavior when we see it, don’t we? Sadly, what we previously thought was bedrock universal standards has turned out to be just more quicksand.

Then there’s the Russia probe, which has been ongoing since Trump’s election–actually before the election. The entire U. S. intelligence community–consisting of 17 separate agencies–agreed that Russia acted to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. Horror of horrors! Even those who voted for this catastrophe would be outraged by the thought that a foreign adversary helped determine the results of our “free” election. And if there is even the slightest possibility that any American cooperated with that foreign adversary and happily accepted the benefit of their interference, we would all agree that no stone should be left unturned to determine the facts so that such a thing could never happen again. Those would seem to be safe assumptions, but not any longer. When Donald Trump says an investigation is a “witch hunt,” millions of people write it off as a witch hunt, without question; and the enemy becomes the special counsel in charge of ferreting out the truth, not the potential criminal occupying the West Wing of the White House. Attacks against Robert Mueller are a classic case of shooting the messenger.

As I write this article, approximately 3000 would-be immigrant children and babies (100 of whom are under the age of 5) are being held in cages and tents at our southern border, having been torn from the arms and breasts of their frantic parents, who came here to escape the violence in their home countries only to be met by more violence in the “land of freedom and opportunity.” One would think this would be that proverbial “last straw.” No one disagrees that families shouldn’t be separated, right? Everyone condemns child abuse, right? Nope, wrong again. Social media comments and memes prove we are deeply divided even on the treatment of children and our country’s role in providing sanctuary for desperate people seeking asylum.

The children of God who are being brutalized at our border are not “criminals and rapists” sneaking into our country to join gangs and murder U. S. citizens. They are human beings fleeing violence and seeking a safe refuge for their families. What kind of monsters have we become when we imprison their children and threaten to deport the parents without due process? As I’ve said before, this is not the USA’s first rodeo when it comes to human rights abuses, but have we learned nothing? How can we “civilized,” enlightened citizens still be capable of such cruelty and inhumanity to fellow children of God?

One opinion being expressed right now on social media is that folks who don’t want to lose custody of their children should stay the hell away. They know what’s going to happen, so if they come here anyway, it’s their own damn fault. This attitude comes largely from those citizens who like to insist that we are a “Christian nation.” I know enough about Christianity and the Bible to know these attitudes are found nowhere, least of all among the teachings of Jesus, who must surely be weeping over Jeff Sessions’ and others’ perversion of the scriptures by which they attempt to justify ungodliness and brutality. One social media user did point out that Pharaoh, Herod, and Pontius Pilate are biblical figures who separated families. Perhaps those guys are the new “conservative” heroes.

What is becoming clearer with each passing day is that this is no longer a country where people simply have differences of opinion, where Republicans have a party platform which is different from the Democrats’ party platform but where shared values based on our common history and heredity supersede party differences. Shared values and common ground have all but disappeared from our national discourse–if what we’re doing can even be called discourse.

I taught my college writing students, when writing persuasion, you have to look for common ground. You and your audience disagree on x, y, and z; if you agreed on everything, there would be nothing to persuade them of. So you have to look for things you do agree on: find your common ground and base your appeal on that. When we discussed using credible evidence to back up the points of the argument, I instructed them to look for evidence that’s universally accepted and respected. I always told them, for example, to avoid quoting the Bible as evidence since many people don’t accept its validity and would therefore remain unconvinced if the writer were to quote the whole book.

The problem in our current social and political climate is that there is no common ground, no universally respected source of information, because finding common ground requires an acceptance of facts; there have to be some absolutes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is often quoted as saying, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” That was then. We have since entered the age of “alternative facts”: if you don’t like the facts you’re presented, you can simply make up your own. Truth no longer exists, because truth is an absolute. Many today have no desire to know what is true; “research” is the process of finding information that validates their “facts.” Marco Rubio, in a June 28 tweet, said, “It’s not good that people increasingly get news & information only from sources that confirm what they want to hear. It’s terrible that there is increasingly no space for nuance or 3rd way on any issue.” I immediately stashed this gem away in my file, since it’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with Marco Rubio. I would note, however, that Senator Rubio is as guilty as anyone of the behavior he condemns.

Snopes and other widely respected fact-checking sources no longer serve as “proof” of authenticity; many on the Right scoff at Snopes as a tool of the Left. Journalists now are “the enemy of the people,” so nothing they say is valid. Old, trusted publications such as the New York Times are now labeled “failing” and “fake” because they dare tell the truth about the corruption in our government.

American citizens in opposing parties no longer have differences of opinion; what we have is a difference of values, of character, of humanity. We are fundamentally different people. Kayla Chadwick, in a June 29, 2017, article titled “I Don’t Know How to Explain to You that You Should Care about Other People,” put it this way:

“But if making sure your fellow citizens can afford to eat, get an education, and go to the doctor isn’t enough of a reason to fund those things, I have nothing left to say to you.

I can’t debate someone into caring about what happens to their fellow human beings. The fact that such detached cruelty is so normalized in a certain party’s political discourse is at once infuriating and terrifying.

I cannot have political debates with these people. Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why any of that matters.”

Last week, CNN reported that after nearly two months in immigration detention, a 7-year-old child was reunited with her mother. The mother’s message to other mothers is, if you’re thinking of claiming asylum here, find another country. “The laws here are harsh. And people don’t have hearts.”

I can’t relate to anyone who can read those words and not be crushed in spirit by the fact that our country is now being seen as the place where people have no hearts.

I have nothing in common with people who can look at terrified children in cages, separated from the only safe people they’ve ever known–their parents–and say “Serves the parents right for coming here. Don’t want to lose your kids? Stay away.” And do what? Go back to the places where they are subjected to all manner of violence, where there is no safety? Anyone who would send those asylum seekers back where they came from rather than allowing them a place of refuge is simply cut from different cloth. We don’t just have a difference of opinion; we have a difference of basic human decency and compassion.

I have nothing in common with people who can watch videos of detained children “representing” themselves in court–children whose feet don’t touch the floor from the chair they’re sitting in; children who don’t understand what the judge is saying to them because they don’t know the language and even if they did, they’re too young to have any understanding of legal procedures. Anyone who is unmoved by those images is a fundamentally different person than I am, and we have no ground for a conversation.

I have nothing in common with people whose first response after hearing news of the latest mass shooting is “Blah blah blah Second Amendment. Leave our guns alone. Guns don’t kill people. We have to have guns in case our government goes crazy and deprives us of our rights.” Yeah. Because private citizens’ weapon stashes, no matter the size, would protect them against the resources of the U.S. Military: war planes, drones, tanks, machine guns, and whatever else they have. Anyone who defends their imagined “Second Amendment right” in the face of human carnage is someone with whom I can’t have a conversation. I and people who think this way don’t have a difference of opinion; we have a difference of character and values, values like why it’s important to learn to live in community.

I have nothing in common with people calling for an end to Robert Mueller’s investigation, people whose loyalty to a demagogue supersedes their desire to know the truth about an attack on our democracy and the certainty of continued attacks.

I have nothing in common with people who are not outraged by our government’s gross negligence in supplying aid to the American citizens in Puerto Rico who for almost a year now have lived without basic necessities and of whom thousands have died. The “I’ve got mine, screw you” attitude is not part of my worldview.

I have nothing in common with people who can listen to our “president” lie every day and either deny that he’s lying or rationalize why it’s okay or why his statements are not really lies. His total number of lies to date well exceeds 3000, and the number grows every day. I have nothing in common with those who accept and make excuses for such behavior.

I have nothing in common with those who oppose every effort to provide affordable health care for all Americans. Anyone who would allow their fellow citizens to die or be debilitated by curable conditions and who would make cost a factor in people’s treatment choices is not someone with whom I have a difference of opinion; it’s someone who has fundamentally different values than I have.

I have nothing in common with my fellow citizens who can listen to our “president” attack private citizens, call our elected leaders and the leaders of other nations childish names, and mock the brave women who have spoken up and begun the “Me too” movement and respond with uproarious laughter, applause, hoots and hollers, and chants to lock somebody up. And what’s more, I don’t want to have anything in common with them. In fact, I don’t even want to know them. The only person who should be locked up is the clown at the podium delivering his lame stand-up comedy act under the guise of a presidential address.

I am a Christian, but I have nothing in common with others who claim that name and use it to justify degradation, immorality, and cruelty. I respect the Bible, but I have nothing in common with those who use it as a weapon against their fellow human beings. I have nothing in common with those who quote scripture to suggest that a God of love supports and defends their cruel, racist agenda.

I have nothing in common with my fellow citizens who see our current situation as a normal he-won-she-lost-getthehell-over-it election outcome. Those who normalize Donald Trump and try to shut down the search for truth and the attempts to save our democracy are not our friends. Yes, they are in many cases our neighbors, our co-workers, our family members, our fellow church members, and our erstwhile close associates. But they have fundamentally different views of who we are and who we ought to be as a people.

Please don’t misunderstand. In case you think I’ve painted myself as a saint in these last few paragraphs, allow me to put your mind at ease. I am NO saint, and I am the first to acknowledge that fact. People who think like me are not saints either; we simply have different views of what is good, true, and decent than those among us who think electing a racist, xenophobic, lying, heartless demagogue as president is a good idea.

Every human being has the same core nature. We are all capable of immense good, and we are all capable of immense evil. The line that divides us is our own choice of which side of our humanity we will live on, and that choice is determined by what we accept as truth. In what has often been labeled the “post-truth era,” many have been deluded into accepting evil as good and the unthinkable as normal.

There is no more common ground, only quicksand. The only option left to those who would have us remain free and retain our democracy and defend our constitution is to resist with all our might. We cannot become weary in well doing; rest is not an option. Accepting the status quo is unthinkable. November is coming. Resist, resist, resist. And then vote.