Category: Politics

Categories
Politics

How Conservative Are Conservatives?

Image result for liberal conservative spectrum

Perhaps some of the most misunderstood and misused words in our 21st-century language are “liberal” and “conservative.” In a fractured and splintered political atmosphere, both ends of the spectrum have more factions than most of us can keep up with; and for many, both terms are nothing more than pejoratives used to describe the “idiots” on the other team.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a [person] from the vexation of thinking.” With our modern appetite for categorizing, combined with a widespread distaste for reflection and analysis, this saying has perhaps never been more accurate. 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.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, in this year’s Democratic primary, demonstrated the various shades of blue on the liberal end of the spectrum. And that brings us to one of the problems with categorizing: most terms are relative. To an extreme conservative, for example, even a moderate or slightly left-leaning person can seem like a raging socialist. Add to that the tendency to bandy about terms about whose meanings we are clueless and you have a recipe for the confusion and tension that now exist.

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 (Huffington Post, 24 Dec 2012).  In Mr. Guenin’s introductory paragraph, he suggests that modern conservatives and liberals have somewhat switched places, with liberals demonstrating more of the traditionally conservative principles than do those who currently call themselves conservative:

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.

Guenin goes on to offer this definition of “conservatism”:

Conservatism, as eloquently introduced by Edmund Burke (1729-1797), 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.

According to Guenin, that was then; this is now:

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.

Nowhere does one find a greater disdain for government than at Donald Trump’s rallies. The vile, abusive, violent atmosphere and language are the opposite of reverence for “the established order, its constitution, and its history”; and there is no evidence anywhere of “a cautious disposition.”

But la-de-da! We citizens of the 21st century are not ones to let facts get in our way. The pseudoconservatives of whom Louis Guenin speaks are actually a diverse group united around their religious beliefs on abortion and what they consider traditional family values.

The Tea Party Movement was a populist response within the Republican Party for whom the party was not quite “conservative” enough. Sparked by Rick Santorum’s remarks on February 19, 2009, opposing President Obama’s mortgage relief plan, the movement quickly grew through social media to include far-right voters whose common umbrella was hatred of the president.

The Tea Party ranks were swelled by ‘Birthers’—individuals who claimed that Obama had been born outside the United States and was thus not eligible to serve as president (despite a statement by the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health attesting that she had seen Obama’s birth certificate and could confirm that he had been born in the state)—as well as by those who considered Obama a socialist and those who believed that Obama, who frequently discussed his Christianity publicly, was secretly a Muslim. (Brittanica.com)

As I said, we modern Americans never let facts stand in our way! The Tea Partiers were angry at government, especially government spending policies.

According to Paul H. Jossey, “Today, the Tea Party movement is dead, and Trump has co-opted the remnants. What was left of the Tea Party split for a while between Trump and, while he was still in the race, Ted Cruz.” He goes on to say that Tea Party rallies have given way to Trump rallies (“How We Killed the Tea Party,” Politico Magazine).

Think about it: same people, same attitudes, and same utter disdain for government. Conservative? Not by a long shot!

The most disturbing right-wing faction now gaining attention is the alt-right movement. Until a month ago, I’d never heard of alt-right; and I was feeling embarrassed about that until I heard some very knowledgeable pundits on the news admit that they too were just learning about it.

The name is short for “alternative right” and, according to NPR (“What You Need to Know about the Alt-Right Movement”),

It is mostly an online movement that uses websites, chat boards, social media and memes to spread its message. (Remember the Star of David image that Trump received criticism for retweeting? That reportedly first appeared on an alt-right message board.

Hillary Clinton, in a Reno, Nevada, speech, commented on the movement:

This is not Republicanism as we have known it. These are racist ideas. These are race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim, anti-Immigrant, anti-women ideas—all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’

And Mrs. Clinton’s assessment is affirmed by the NPR description:

Most of its members are young white men who see themselves first and foremost as champions of their own demographic. However, apart from their allegiance to their ‘tribe,’ as they call it, their greatest points of unity lie in what they are against: multiculturalism, immigration, feminism, and, above all, political correctness.

Quoted in the NPR article, Nicole Hemmer, says, “They see political correctness really as the greatest threat to their liberty. So, they believe saying racist or anti-Semitic things—it’s not an act of hate, but an act of freedom.”

It should come as no surprise that this group found its ideal presidential candidate in Donald Trump, who has built his campaign on all of the same pillars articulated in the list of things they’re against. Before Trump, the Alt-Right found its home with Breitbart News Network, and now the merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign has been completed by Trump’s hiring of Stephen Bannon, chairman of Breitbart News Network, as his campaign’s chief executive. And thus what was a radical lunatic fringe group has now moved center stage in American politics.

Although Nicole Hemmer does not believe Trump “pledges allegiance” to the Alt-Right, she believes “They are attracted to Trump [and]see him as a vessel for getting their ideas out there.” And I would add that Trump has not disavowed their support; so whether he pledges allegiance or not, he clearly welcomes any fringe element (KKK et al.) that will help get him elected. Such are the choices of those who have no moral compass.

In this same article, Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying, “Donald Trump has a ‘profoundly dangerous’ disregard for the nation’s values.” And her assessment is echoed by many newspapers, including the Dallas Morning News, whose editorial board has announced they are breaking with a tradition they have held to since 1964: they have always endorsed the Republican nominee for the presidency.

This year, however, the editorial board has announced that they cannot in good conscience endorse the Republican, since Trump is “no Republican and certainly no conservative.”

We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, not in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory. Trump doesn’t reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn’t reflect the GOP of the future.

(Huffington Post 6 Sep 2016)  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-dallas-morning-news_us_57cebaf3e4b078581f13d342?section=&

Tea Party, Alt-Right, birthers, conspiracy theorists, science deniers, guns are more important than lives advocates, racists, misogynists, “Christians” who know nothing of Christ’s example, white supremacists. Do any of these terms sound conservative?

On Thursday, September 8, the Family Research Council, a group that calls itself “Christian” and “conservative,” held a Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., and Donald Trump was the featured speaker. This is an excerpt from an article by Amy Sullivan:

Enthusiastic chants of “Lock her up!” filled the room in the middle of Trump’s speech, only to be replaced by earnest applause minutes later as he read from the New Testament: “No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a more graphic image of sheer hypocrisy: juxtaposing chants of “Lock her up!” with a scripture reading about love for one another as the evidence of God’s love being made complete in humans. Where’s the love? This behavior is neither Christian nor conservative, and it certainly doesn’t speak of any values I’d want to emulate. This sounds more like the alt-right than traditional evangelical values, but evangelicals have moved so far right of center that it’s hard to see the dividing line between the Christian Right and the Alt-Right.

I recall learning in my high school and college government classes about the liberal-conservative spectrum. According to the most simplistic explanation, in the center of the line are the moderates/centrists; to the left are the liberals, moving in degrees from “left-leaning” to the most extreme point: radicals. To the right of center are conservatives, also moving in degrees from “right-leaning” to the most extreme point: reactionaries. I see very little true conservatism among those to the right of center in our current political atmosphere, and I see a lot of reactionaries. According to The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought,

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.

Ring any bells? “Make America Great Again.” “Back to our roots.” “Back to the Christian beliefs our country was founded on” (our founders were mostly deists). These people left conservatism long ago, and they’ve been opening new right-wing territories ever since.

Donald Trump—in his ignorance and irreverence—and the Republican Party—with its factions, infighting, and collective spinelessness—have muddied the waters of true conservatism and brought the far-right fringe to center stage. The Trump Train has carried the Party of Lincoln to a place Lincoln—with his knowledge, wisdom, and eloquence—would never have dreamed of going. It’s time to turn the train around before it goes off the cliff!

 

 

Categories
Musings Politics

Facts Are Facts, and That’s the Truth!

Andy Borowitz, the Jonathan Swift of the Internet, wrote this about how contemporary humans often respond when confronted with facts:

Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.” (12 May 2015)

For the full post: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

Satire is amusing, but anyone who has attempted to make a fact-based argument for or against any political candidate or issue has quickly learned the futility of such an exercise, and it’s not funny. I recently read a post on social media written by an avid Trump supporter. The writer declared that Trump supporters know he’s crass, he swears from the podium, he’s been married three times, he’s cheated on his wives, he’s an egomaniac, he frequently changes his positions, he’s picked public fights with multiple people, he’s filed four bankruptcies—in other words, just a few of the facts his fans have been confronted with for over a year. And the supporter’s response to this list of facts? “We don’t care.” In their minds, the truth is Trump can fix what they see as the problems with our country and the mainstream Republican Party; and their personal “truth”—however baseless it may be—trumps fact.

On the other hand, the “truth” about Hillary Clinton is that she’s a liar and a criminal, and no amount of fact will change that “truth” in the hearts of the true believers. Her humanitarian work on behalf of women, children, military families, and the 9/11 first responders–none of these facts can pierce the thick shell of hatred surrounding her enemies. “Lock her up!” they chant.

Even though PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-Prize winning organization that fact-checks candidates’ speeches, has rated Hillary Clinton (who told the truth or mostly the truth in 53% of 120 claims) among the most honest politicians they’ve checked and Donald Trump (who outright lied in over 60% of 158 claims) among the most dishonest, current polls show voters trust him more than they trust her. A classic case of “Don’t bother us with the facts! We’ll make up our own minds, thank you!”

I won’t even attempt to explain why or how we’ve reached this stage, but the truth is folks don’t care much about facts these days; and that’s a fact. How people feel about someone or something carries far more weight in swaying their decisions than hard fact does.

What is the relationship between truth and fact? Here’s a good way to remember it: All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

Facts can be proven. They’re not arguable. They’re not affected by opinion. They’re more permanent than truth. Here’s a definition I found on Philosophy Stack Exchange, “a question-and-answer site for those interested in logical reasoning”:

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say “fire is hot,” I don’t care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn. . . . Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say “fire is not hot,” you are lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

According to Diana Hacker,

A fact is something that is known with certainty because it has been objectively verified: The capital of Wyoming is Cheyenne. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. (A Writer’s Reference, 5th edition)

Truth, on the other hand, has to be discovered. Some people devote their entire lives to the “search for truth.” To those who believe in the existence of God, God’s existence is truth; to those who do not believe in the existence of God, God’s non-existence is truth. Each group can point to facts upon which they base their truth, but the facts alone don’t prove their claims. Truth is subjective; it’s subject to interpretation. Facts are objective; they can support an arguable premise, but they themselves can’t be interpreted.

Facts answer the “where,” “when,” and “how” questions; truth answers the “why” question.

Whether God exists or whether there’s life beyond the grave or whether there is life in other parts of the universe are all valid questions and warrant our most diligent and sincere efforts to search out the truth. Whether 2+2=4, whether fire will burn, or whether the Civil War actually happened are not open for debate. These are facts; they need only to be acknowledged, not sought out or proved.

Facts have, of course, been disproved. Look at a science or medical textbook from a hundred years ago. Everything in those books was fact at the time it was written, but much of it is laughably false in the light of new research and development. Yet even disproved facts are different from truth. The possibility of saying conclusively that something is false is part of what makes it fact-based.

You can choose your truth, but you can’t choose your facts. Climate change is fact; it’s backed by a plethora of scientific research. President Obama is a citizen; that’s a fact based on the same documentation the rest of us use to prove our citizenship. President Obama has repeatedly made clear profession of his Christian faith; to call him a Muslim denies fact.

Claims that the president and the Democratic presidential candidate are “coming to get your guns” and to repeal the Second Amendment have not a shred of fact to back them up, yet I can’t count the number of people who have posted such claims on social media as if they were indisputable truth.

I heard an interview on the news last night in which the reporter was stating facts about Donald Trump to one of his steadfast supporters. The supporter didn’t contradict any of the reporter’s statements, since they were clearly fact; but she said those facts don’t matter to her. In conclusion, she said with conviction, “I trust that man.”

I saw a meme attacking Hillary Clinton, the last line of which mentions her accomplishments, then says, “She doesn’t have any.” That statement is neither true nor factual. The fact is she has a long list of accomplishments, going all the way back to her college days. I doubt many of her critics could come close to her list of credits, yet their “truth” is that she’s a failure as a person and as a leader.

I think we’re headed down a dark path when we collectively make decisions which ignore fact and base our truth on feelings or outright lies. The more we ignore facts the further divorced we become from the truth, and that leaves us in a moral wasteland. Truth is not fact, but it must be married to fact. Truth divorced from fact is fantasy.

The Wizard of Oz, which contains many truths but few facts, is wonderful entertainment. Through the willing suspension of disbelief, viewers can enter the world somewhere over the rainbow, enjoy a delightful fantasy adventure on the Yellow Brick Road with Dorothy and her traveling companions, and end it with affirmation of the truth that there’s no place like home.

That’s great, but the evening news should not require us to suspend our disbelief while grown-up smart people sit around tables trying to make sense of the latest nonsense syllables spoken by the self-professed wizard who is going to save us all from the mess we’re in. It’s surreal! They may as well be discussing whether Dorothy will be victorious over the Wicked Witch or whether the wizard is real or a phony or what the wizard meant when he said “That’s a horse of a different color.”

Fareed Zakaria became my new hero last night when he said to the panel on which he was participating, “There are no flying monkeys!” Actually, it was more like Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about! We’re sitting here talking about what he meant, and he doesn’t even know what he meant. He’s ignorant, and when asked a question, he has to pull out an answer. We’re trying to analyze nonsense! But it meant the same thing: Let’s stop treating fantasy as if it’s real! “There are no flying monkeys!” or “This emperor is naked; so let’s stop discussing the color, texture, and fit of his clothes!” Bravo, Mr. Zakaria!

The dumbing down of America has reached a frightening stage. Fantasy land is a fun place to visit but a dangerous place to live. We need to make America smart again!

 

 

 

Categories
Politics Religion

If That’s Your Idea of Christianity, Count Me Out!

Image result for god, guns and glory graphic

Still befuddled by the disconnect between evangelicals’ avowed religious beliefs and their support of Donald Trump’s candidacy, opposition to reasonable measures for reducing gun violence, vitriolic hatred for our black president, and general opposition to any laws which might make life easier for people who look or think differently than they do, I have to ask myself “Who is this Jesus whom these people claim to follow?”

For the last several decades, the Republican Party has been known as the “Christian party”; but in 2016, the party has been tasked with trying to defend a candidate whose words, actions, and life history do not in any way represent what most of us have been taught are Christian values. Numerous writers have contributed to the mental gymnastics show, stretching and manipulating their scriptures to make a vote for Donald Trump seem the moral, godly thing to do.

In addition to the “conservative” writers who present their “Christian” messages supporting all manner of non-Christian ideas, some of my social media friends are fond of posting YouTube videos by a young woman named Tomi Lahren, an anchor for One America News Network (OAN). Her videos show the closing act of her “news” show, called “Final Thoughts.” These closing rants of hers are presented in an angry, accusing tone, with no facial expression, and with lots of finger pointing. In a particularly appalling rant, she “takes down” President Obama, whom she addresses as Barry, for his speech at this year’s DNC. She concludes her thoughts with the statement, “Keep your paws off our guns, our God, and our glory.” Now there’s a righteous combination for you: guns, God, and glory!

Ms. Lahren and other “conservative” Republicans are the most vocal opponents of even discussing the problem of gun violence and mass murders because their sketchy understanding of the Second Amendment—actually the second half of the Second Amendment—trumps the importance of saving lives. Yet ironically, those same people claim to follow a pacifist who willingly submitted himself to death by execution; who, according to the New Testament narratives, was often “moved with compassion” when he met people in need; and who spent his entire years of public ministry saving lives—not condoning their destruction.

And how often do you see the most vocal members of the “Christian party” moved with compassion on people who are down on their luck or who are desperately seeking refuge from war and oppression? There’s plenty of passion for saving unborn babies—and I support that discussion—but how about the people who are already here? How about the people whose families would be ripped apart by deportation or who would die on the other side of that great big wall?

I’ve been so baffled by these questions that I decided to review the first four books of the New Testament, also known as the Gospels, which contain the narratives of Jesus’ life. I focused on the first three—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—since these are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they are based on common sources and recount most of the same stories, often in similar sequence and wording. The writers’ point of view contrasts with that of John, who wrote the fourth book.

Quick disclaimer: I am not a theologian, and my comments should not be read as the definitive exposition of the first three books of the New Testament. I am just someone who thinks a lot and who tries to understand things that don’t make sense to me. It’s a curse. But moving right along.

It’s really no surprise that politics and religion so often overlap and even collide; both are part of our individual world views. In our human efforts to make sense of the world around us, we come to various conclusions about the existence or non-existence of a higher power and what our relationship to that higher power should be, if we decide there is one; the proper way to relate to and live in peace with the other more than seven billion humans with whom we share this small planet; and conflicting allegiance to human government and to God’s law. These are heady topics, and some people invest a great deal of time and energy into finding the answers to their questions.

A few years back, it became popular to ask the question “What would Jesus do?”when seeking answers to questions of morality and ethics. More to the point, I think, is “What did Jesus do?” This is the question that led me to review the narratives of Jesus’ life, and here’s what I discovered (again, from strictly a lay person’s point of view). Jesus’ public ministry lasted about three-and-a-half years; and during that time, he spent most of his time healing, teaching, and practicing civil disobedience.

He also invested himself in relationships, not just with people who liked him or agreed with him; he was frequently criticized for dining with “sinners.” On one such occasion, some Pharisees asked the disciples,

“What kind of example is this from your Teacher, acting cozy with crooks and riffraff?”

Jesus, overhearing, shot back, “Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? Go figure out what this Scripture means: ‘I’m after mercy, not religion.’ I’m here to invite outsiders, not coddle insiders.” (Mt. 9: 11-13, The Message)

Everywhere Jesus went, large crowds followed him, many of them desperate for healing, either for themselves or for loved ones. Jesus healed without vetting, without expectation of payment. He never condoned the actions of those who didn’t take the moral high road, but neither did he make their morality a condition of his helping them. He seemed to understand that hungry and sick people would have a harder time listening to and responding to his teachings, so he healed and fed first and then preached.

Although I’m not a country music fan, I recall a Johnny Cash song from many years ago that expressed his response to those who want to teach first as a condition for meeting physical needs:

At the end of our street
Is a mission so sweet
Where me and all my friends
Get a little something to eat

Though you can’t pick and choose
You sure like their stew
And if you don’t get fried chicken
What you get you can use

Praise the Lord and pass the soup
Praise the Lord and pass the bread

Sister, you can bang on your tambourine
Just let my body be fed.

The greatest example of Jesus’ teaching is recorded in what is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, which includes a list that we often call the Beatitudes. I’ve discussed those in another article, so I won’t elaborate here, but I think those whom he calls “blessed” may not be the same as some might have expected. Also, in that sermon, Jesus addressed the question of the Old Testament law and whether it must still be observed.

His answer was that he came not to abolish the law but to teach a different understanding of it, an understanding which encompassed not only strict adherence to rules but also attitudes of goodness: it’s no longer enough to refrain from murdering; anger, hatred, and verbal insults are also assaults. It’s no longer enough to refrain from physically committing adultery; men must also cease to look at women only as sex objects and must honor their marriage vows in spirit as well as action. His followers were given a higher calling than merely keeping rules.

Jesus also taught, in Matthew 7 and in Luke 6, that it is not our place to judge others.

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Let me take the speck out of your eye, while the log is in your own eye?” You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. (Mt. 7: 1-5)

Possibly Jesus’ most comprehensive statement on what his followers should do is presented in his answer to some of the religiously orthodox people of his day who asked him which of the law’s commandments is the most important. He responded:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

In other words, if you love God and love each other, you’ve fulfilled the law. These two commandments summarize all of the laws and commands in the scripture. I think some people have missed this passage, because I’ve met an awfully lot of people who are still worried about a lot of other rules on which they base their treatment of those who don’t share their views.

Another well-known teaching is found in Matthew 25: 31-40. Jesus created an end-of-time scenario when all people would be called to account for their deeds, and he listed six criteria for being judged righteous by God: feeding Jesus when he was hungry, giving him something to drink when he was thirsty, welcoming him when he was a stranger, giving him clothing when he was naked, caring for him when he was sick, and visiting him when he was in prison. Confused, the disciples wondered what on earth Jesus was talking about. “We never did any of those things for you!” Jesus’ answer is a frequently quoted line: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Wow! That’s pretty simple, but I wonder why he didn’t say anything about excluding people who don’t live the same way we do or who don’t look like us. Wait a minute! Did he just say everyone is a member of his family? Maybe we’re supposed to treat everyone the same? Nah!

In addition to his healing and teaching, Jesus had to deal with the religious and government leaders of his day; and these are the only people for whom I find he had harsh words: “hypocrites,” “brood of vipers,” “child of hell,” “blind guides,” among others. Along with the crowds who followed him around seeking what he offered, the Pharisees and the Sadducees also followed Jesus and began early on to conspire against him and to entrap him. As early as Matthew chapter 11, we’re told, “The Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.”

The Pharisees represented the religious orthodoxy of the time and considered themselves superior in virtue and piety because of their strict observance of the written law. The Sadducees were wealthy aristocrats who occupied the highest religious offices and also held a majority of the seats on the ruling council called the Sanhedrin; so they were politically powerful as well being religious leaders. Since Israel was under Roman domination at that time, the Sadducees attempted to keep peace by agreeing and cooperating with the Roman authorities.

Everyone knows how things ended for Jesus, but I’d like to look for a moment at how he responded to the conflict in the years before his eventual execution. As I read it, he practiced civil disobedience. In Jesus’ teaching, he focused on the concept of two different realms and two different kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of human governments. He acknowledged the possibility of divided loyalties and taught that in cases of conflict, those who follow him owe primary allegiance to God.

Like more contemporary examples—Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau and others—he lived according to the law of his conscience, even when that law was in conflict with the dictates of the government. Yet, like these others, his resistance was always non-violent. He usually simply left the place of conflict and sought another location to continue his work. He spoke the truth boldly to those who oppressed him, but he sought to stay on message rather than initiating conflict or retaliating against the wrongs done to him.

As President Obama likes to say, let me be clear: Donald Trump in no way exemplifies anything I have found in the narratives of Jesus’ life. None. There is NO resemblance. His words and his actions could not possibly be more diametrically opposed to the narratives of Jesus’ life and teachings. And no amount of theological gymnastics will make him what he is not: a representative of Christian principle. So the Republicans who feel they must choose the Christian candidate would more logically choose Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump; she has spent her entire adult life handing out “cups of cold water” to people in need. Donald Trump has lived his entire life seeking power and wealth for himself only; and so be it, but you can’t sell that as Christian virtue. That pig just won’t fly!

And for that matter, what about the other Republicans making news these days? Disrespecting our black president, scoffing at systemic racism, casually dismissing gun violence as being less important than their “right to carry,” disregard for the downtrodden and desperate, demonizing and vilifying their fellow humans who live or think differently than they do—the list could go on and on. Are those followers of Jesus and their “Christian party” representatives in Washington really doing what Jesus did, or are they doing the exact opposite? Does anything in Jesus’ life say “God, guns, and glory”?

Love God and love people. That’s it. Loving doesn’t mean always agreeing with or approving, but it means respecting and treating with kindness—not excluding or vilifying and not making laws which deprive others of their right to pursue happiness.

Which party better represents Christian values? Well, neither of them completely; but I’ll say those who call themselves the “Christian party” should examine their definition of Christianity. And if some of their examples are what it means to be a Christian, stop the bus and let me off!

 

Categories
Politics

We Don’t Need No Stinking Pivot!

Photo: James Devaney

Pivot, schmivot! Donald Trump is once again on the clock to prove that his latest pivot can last more than 36 hours and that he is now ready to be President of the United States. In the past, when people spoke of a candidate’s pivot, they were referring to the shift which must occur between the primary—where the goal is to win over the party’s base—to the general election—where the goal is to retain that base while also appealing to a broader audience of undecided voters, voters who are not affiliated with either major party, and voters from the opposing party who are lukewarm about their own party’s candidate.

“Pivot” has never meant growing up from a toddler to an adult, ceasing to hurl insults at everyone who has offended the thin-skinned candidate, or simply showing any small sign of having a temperament suitable for the office the candidate seeks. Pivoting, in political terms, has traditionally meant tailoring and focusing the message for the new audience, not trying to figure out what the message is going to be, especially with a mere 77 days left before election day.

Even in basketball, the pivot is used by the player in possession of the ball to better position himself or herself to make a play. It’s not used for gaining possession of the ball; one has to be in control of the ball before the pivot becomes necessary.

The pivot which politicians, RNC bigwigs, and many voters have been calling for from Donald Trump fits neither of these descriptions. He can’t tailor his message from the primaries to fit the larger general electorate because he had no message then, and he has no message now; and he’s not currently in possession of the ball, given his sliding poll numbers. So what is this “pivot” of which everyone has been speaking?

Donald Trump has said one thing in the last fourteen months with which I wholeheartedly agree: “I am who I am.” And that, fellow voters, is all we need to know!

For the past fourteen months, we’ve all been watching the hottest reality TV show in history. This show beats 19 Kids and Counting, Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo, and all of the others combined. Our favorite show, Donald Trump Live!, is broadcast seven days a week on cable, network news, and the Internet, with new episodes every day—often multiple episodes in one day. And we keep tuning in because we’re so morbidly fascinated by the bizarre things we see and hear that we just can’t help ourselves. We don’t want to miss a single episode, because we have to see what he can possibly do today that will top yesterday’s or last week’s stunt.

After every episode, the TV news hosts gather their pundits around the tables to parse the latest word vomit and always to speculate about when the “pivot” will come. And after the episodes during which Trump has made some slight nod toward behaving like an adult, many assume that he has made the long-awaited “pivot” and then proceed to speculate on how long it will last this time.

Here’s the thing: There is no pivot. This “candidate” has had fourteen months in which to articulate a message, but he has squandered that time on picking fights, inciting violence, insulting every person and every group of people who have crossed his path, inciting hatred and intolerance against whole ethnic and religious communities, and in no way demonstrating the temperament necessary for being the leader of the free world.

There is no pivot because he has had fourteen months in which to gain possession of the ball against a flawed, vulnerable opponent; but he has squandered that time attacking talk show hosts, media outlets, and everyone else except his opponent.

There is no pivot because he doesn’t know the rules of the game he’s trying to play. On January 20, 2017, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will place his or her hand on a Bible and repeat the words, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” For Donald Trump to honestly make that pledge, he would first have to study the Constitution, since until now he has shown no signs of ever having read it.

There is no pivot because one does not undo fourteen months of bizarre reality TV behavior and become a responsible leader in 77 days. No one could make that dramatic a change in that length of time. Tonight on Anderson Cooper’s AC360, Ana Navarro–speaking for Latino voters–said, “We’re not going to get election day amnesia.” Everyone recalls that Trump’s earliest comments in this campaign were about illegal Mexican immigrants. Maria Cardona followed up with the comment, “We’re not going to un-see or un-hear what he has done and said in the last 428 days.” In other words, he is who he is.

Change is hard for everyone; trust me, I’ve tried it. I’ve never smoked, but I’ve known many who’ve tried to quit that habit, and very few have succeeded on the first try. A habit which I’ve long needed to break is sitting on the sofa to eat dinner, on the nights when no family or friends are here, while watching the news, only to wake up around 11:00-12:00 remembering that the last face I saw was Anderson Cooper’s sometime during AC360. By the time I’ve turned off the TV, carried my dishes to the kitchen and rinsed them, checked the doors and set the alarm, washed my face, and brushed my teeth, I’m wide awake again. This is not smart; this is dumb. But I’ll be damned if I can break the habit, and it’s been years. I also need to change the consistency of my exercise habits, but we’ll talk about that another time.

The point is that what’s needed here for the star of our favorite show is not just a tweaking or tailoring of the message or better positioning himself to make his final play. What is needed for this person is a change of character, a change in his intellect, a change in his heart, a change in his morals, and a lot more; and those kinds of things don’t happen in 77 days, especially when the person has 70 years behind him.

Trump has said it repeatedly: “I am who I am.” Amen, Brother! During these last fourteen months, Trump has shown himself to be a loud-mouthed, arrogant bigot with no capacity for empathy or compassion. He has made fun of his opponents, of people with disabilities, of media personalities, of Gold Star families, of military heroes. He has promised to deport 11 million people (though that changes in each new episode), to ban a whole religious group from entering the country, to build a wall along an entire border, and all the other things you’ve heard as often as I have.

The things he has said in rallies are the same sorts of things he’s said his whole life, and the attitudes are the same ones he’s always had. In other words, he is who he is, and 77 days won’t change that.

He’s always demeaned women and boasted of his sexual conquests, he’s advanced conspiracy theories, he’s been accused of and sued for fraud and rape, he’s been guilty of dishonest business practices including according to recent reports a practice called greenmailing, he’s filed four bankruptcies, he’s been ranked the biggest liar ever rated by fact-checking organizations, and you know the rest. His adamant refusal to release his tax returns speaks volumes about his dishonesty. One who has nothing to hide does not so steadfastly resist demands for transparency.

With all of this as background—70 years and two months, 14 of those months as a candidate for POTUS—in a recent episode of our favorite reality show, he spoke these 63 words:

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

You’d have thought we were at a tent revival and some people had just felt the spirit of God descend on them. Hallelujah, he’s pivoted! Now he’s presidential!

Even if there were a hint of sincerity in those 63 words, Donald Trump has spoken millions of words in his life; and those millions of words can’t be erased by a brief admission of having said some unspecified things about unspecified people which have done unspecified damage. This so-called apology does not suggest remorse or empathy and does not suggest a change in direction, aka “pivot.” One desperate comment does not absolve him for 14 months of irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric or 70 years of shady morals and ethics.

The real question is, with all of this evidence, why are we even still having this conversation? How on earth did our bar get set so low that a person without the slightest trace of presidential character can say 63 words and make people believe he’s qualified to be given the nuclear codes? How did our bar get set so low that we celebrate when a person running for president talks ever-so-slightly more like a grown-up for three days?

And why is Donald Trump the one person who receives this special treatment? S. E. Cupp, in a CNN article “Media Should Stop Indulging Trump Pivot Talk” (08/22/2016), says:

Yet this reality [facts cited in the previous paragraph] doesn’t seem to stop the media offering the Trump campaign the privilege of the pivot treatment. No one suggested, for example, that after Hillary Clinton admitted keeping a private server at her house was a bad idea that she was somehow pivoting toward becoming a more truthful person or accountable person. Yet, we are discussing on an almost daily basis whether Trump can pivot toward becoming a less extreme person.

What is the attraction of Donald Trump?

Trump is a morbid fascination, like the gruesome car accident that people crane their necks to see or the drunk stumbling around and falling down in the parking lot or the video that’s so stupidly amusing we watch it fifteen times while shaking our heads at how stupid it is. We can’t turn our heads from this reality show because we’re afraid we’ll miss the next outrageous performance.

Trump is also a celebrity. Even though I don’t watch reality TV or beauty pageants, I’ve long known his name as someone who built big buildings and plastered his name on them in giant letters; I recall standing in front of the Trump Towers bewildered by the sight. And I of course have heard his favorite lines from the TV shows. Even before he became a wannabe politician, he was a universally known name, a brand, someone who represented big business and the glittery New York social world. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, many people are starstruck over seeing someone famous in person. Feeling like part of his tribe and maybe even getting a chance for a selfie with him hold an irresistible appeal for lots of people.

Trump is bigger than life. Like the ridiculous letters on his buildings and his plane, he’s yuuuge. His reputation for success is evidence that he can turn anything he touches to the gaudy gold with which his whole house is gilded. If he’s built all of these companies, of course he can manage the country. How lucky would our country be to have a person of his professional caliber in the White House! And as long as he keeps those tax returns secret, the illusion of his being the consummate businessman can’t be disproved.

And finally, for the angry white men who comprise his base, Trump is a folk hero: he stands in front of audiences and brazenly speaks the forbidden words they have also said but for which they have been socially ostracized. They feel cheated, disenfranchised, and ignored by a system that has been unfair to them. Here, in this arena, however, they are the “in crowd,” their opinions are the majority opinions, and they get to make fun of all those idiots who are so politically correct and who have made them feel inferior. They get to sucker punch anyone who threatens the sanctity of their club, and their leader condones their violence and offers to pay their legal fees. They get to escort the intruders out of the club and bask in the approving smile of their esteemed leader. In the microcosm of the Trump rally, they are at the top of the social order, and that’s intoxicating.

We don’t need no stinkin’ pivot! What we need is a candidate with integrity, discipline, and knowledge. As the saying goes, the leopard can’t change its spots. A pivot is a shift, a positioning, an adjustment; it’s not a metamorphosis into a whole different being. What voters really want is for Donald Trump to grow up, to start talking and acting like an adult; and that’s just not humanly possible in 77 days. Forget the pivot. Look for another candidate.

Categories
Politics Religion

“Christian Democrat” Is Not an Oxymoron!

03xTr1471405864

Walk into the average evangelical church, and to some extent even mainstream churches, and ask for a show of hands: How many of you are registered Democrats? I can tell you the response would be sparse. So how has it happened that the Republican Party has become the default political affiliation for those who belong to the Christian faith? And how is it that many self-identified Christians look askance at other Christians who are registered Democrats or who cop to being [gasp!] liberal or left-leaning?

According to Frank Schaeffer, in his book Crazy for God, “Evangelicals weren’t politicized (at least not in the current meaning of the word) until after Roe v. Wade and after [religious leaders] stirred them up over the issue of abortion.” Schaeffer goes on to chronicle how the single issue of abortion became the litmus test for the Republican Party’s choice of candidates and right-wing voters’ willingness to support a candidate.

Schaeffer also says:

Bush Jr. was the “Christians’” president. So it was bitterly ironic that Bush Jr. was personally responsible for, amongst other self-inflicted horrors, the persecution, displacement, and destruction of the one million, three hundred thousand-person beleaguered Christian minority in Iraq. They had fared much better under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein . . .

It bears repeating: Bush Jr., the Bible-believing, born-again president, delivered up his Iraqi fellow Christians to be destroyed. They fled, died, or went into hiding because a “faith-based” evangelical American president stupidly unleashed a civil war.

Mr. Schaeffer has much more to say on the subject; for those who are interested, it’s in chapter 57.

I’d like to select just one more quotation:

It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders. What we are left with are those willing to toe the party theological line . . .

But what if absolute consistency on any issue from the left or the right, religious or secular, is an indication of mediocre intelligence and a lack of intellectual honesty? What if the world is a complex place? What if leadership requires flexibility?

Obviously, these are Frank Schaeffer’s opinions and interpretations, and readers are free to agree or disagree with what he says. I’d like to focus on this statement, with which I strongly agree: “It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders.” George W. Bush left the White House almost eight years ago, and abortion is still legal. So what did the Right gain by electing a “pro-life” president who did not succeed in reversing Roe v. Wade (as they wished) but who did lead our country into two wars which have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and irreparable damage to our national morale? I’d say they made a really bad deal.

I know many people who question how any Christian can possibly belong to a party that condones abortion, and I would ask those same people how they possibly can belong to a party that condones the racism and disrespect that Republicans have shown President Obama for the last eight years. Although I am not in complete agreement with the Democratic Party’s views on abortion, I believe the Republican Party belies its passion for life by disrespecting life and human dignity in many other actions and policies. Making abortion an extreme religious issue polarized views to the extent that, in my opinion, all intelligent discussion on the subject was cut off.

That being said, let’s look at some of the major differences between the current Republican and Democratic Parties. The two parties differ on many issues, but the most incendiary for most people are social issues and social programs. As already stated, abortion has been a moral battleground for decades, with marriage rights, LGBT rights, and gun ownership becoming equally intense and polarizing in more recent years. And very recently, we’ve added bathroom wars and gender identity to the list. Democrats as a group support government social programs such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and health care for people in need and approve of their tax dollars being used to support those programs. Republicans as a group are less willing to allocate tax dollars for social programs and prefer allowing private organizations to attend to the needs of the less fortunate. Of course, there are other differences, but these seem to be the real battlegrounds between the two parties. And these are also the reasons many Christians believe the only party they can in good conscience belong to is the one that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, stricter regulation on gun ownership (I’ll never understand that one!), changes to traditional gender definitions, and giving “hand-outs” to those “too lazy to work like the rest of us.”

Regardless of where one stands on any one of those issues, choosing either party based on just one thing out of the list and declaring that party the only choice for people of faith can lead only to inconsistency and hypocrisy. How does one reconcile being anti-abortion and pro-guns? Life is life, right? How do those who so rigidly oppose welfare programs convince themselves they are following Jesus’ teachings to love and care for the poor, to give the cup of cold water in his name? The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that anyone who values consistency can’t choose a party or cast a vote based on any single issue.

Someone recently shared with me an article titled “Wake Up, Christians. There Is No Place for You in the Democrat Party,” by a blogger named Matt Walsh. Mr. Walsh addresses his article to someone named Lana who has emailed him that she is proudly both a Christian and a Democrat. His response, long on sarcasm and ridicule, short on reason and logic, begins:

Please don’t misunderstand me. A Christian can certainly be a Democrat, just like a Christian can be a Buddhist, or a Christian can be a Scientologist, or a Christian can worship a goat or a join a suicide cult. Christians can do anything and believe anything while still retaining the title of Christian — that is, so long as we define “Christian” as “Someone who says they are one.” It’s no surprise that Democrats would define the term in such a way, seeing as how these days they even define “man” and “woman” that way. In the liberal world, in order to be something all one must do is declare that they are that thing. This is a view shared by my 3-year-old and by Michael Scott from “The Office,” who famously declared bankruptcy by standing outside and shouting, “I declare bankruptcy!”

Walsh goes on to offer this definition:

A Christian, by definition, believes that Christ is the Son of God; that He was sent to Earth to suffer and die for our sins, opening up the gates of Heaven for all who follow Him (John 3:16). If we accept and believe this great Truth, we are Christian. And we remain Christian even if we stumble, sin, and fall short of perfection, as I have done and continue to do more often than I care to admit.

Moving on, Walsh makes this statement:

I’m saying that being a “loyal Democrat,” as you describe yourself, requires that you fundamentally reject the authority of Christ. Not in the sense of sinning and falling short, but in the sense of actually disbelieving and condemning some of His most important teachings and some of the most essential lessons of Scripture.

Huh? That contradicts my experience because some of the finest Christians I know are Democrats, just as some are Republicans. I don’t associate people’s faith with their political party.

And there’s more:

The question is this: Can you believe that Christ is Lord and that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and also believe that Christ was, in some cases, a liar or a fool, and that the inspired Word of God needs to be trimmed and updated? And if you disbelieve these massive chunks of the Bible, how can you believe in Christ, considering the Bible tells us about Christ? And if you don’t believe everything Christ said, how can you believe that He is Lord, considering we only know that He is Lord because He told us? You can believe and fall short at the same time, but can you believe in Christianity and resolutely reject its precepts at the same time?

Am I the only person wondering right now what these massive chunks of Scripture are which he is implying (I think) that the entire Democratic Party denies or disbelieves?

Walsh then launches into a long rant about abortion and at the end tacks on a few thoughts about same-sex relationships and transgender people. Finally, he begins his conclusion with the line “So, can you be a Christian and agree with the Democrats on all of these points? The answer is clearly no.” So there. You are no longer a Christian because some guy named Matt Walsh says you’re not.

I mention Mr. Walsh’s article because it so clearly articulates the thinking of many other evangelicals with whom I’ve spoken in person. I have many questions for this writer; one of them is this: Does anyone—Republican, Democrat, or one of the third parties—agree on ALL points with the party platform? Or do most of us choose the party that most closely fits our personal values in both word and spirit, even though we have points of disagreement?

I respect people who choose to label themselves independents or who opt to belong to a party other than the two major parties. I have chosen to be a registered Democrat (and a Christian) because in the state of Florida, independents are not allowed to vote in primary elections; and although some of the third parties seem to have a great deal to offer and will hopefully some day grow to exercise more clout, right now, they don’t have the clout necessary to fight undesirable majority-party candidates.

Contrary to Matt Walsh’s definition, I believe a Christian is one who is committed to following the teachings and example of Jesus; and those teachings and that example do not include membership in any particular political party. Jesus famously responded to someone trying to trap him into making a statement about the relationship of faith to politics: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I think Jesus just made the very first statement regarding separation of church and state, and I believe those who are committed to living by his example may choose either political party or no political party without compromising their faith.

I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that includes all life. If we loved and cared for those in need as Jesus taught, we might have fewer crisis pregnancies. We would have more efficient systems for adopting children who sometimes wait years to be placed in forever homes. We would take better care of our veterans. We would do our best to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We wouldn’t threaten programs like Social Security and Medicare which are the life support of the oldest among us. We would try to help those who have come to us in desperation, seeking a better life for themselves and their families instead of threatening them with wholesale deportation. We would love transgender persons, whether or not we understand them. We would allow people to find love and happiness with their partners of choice, even if we don’t understand or approve. And yes, we’d have some intelligent discussions about abortion instead of waving signs on one side and parroting catchy slogans on the other side; we’d listen to each other and work to do what’s best for the most helpless among us.

I’ve concluded that it’s not my job to attempt to legislate how other people live their lives so long as those people are living peaceably and not harming others. No one needs my approval, and no one will be changed by my disapproval. Those who sincerely attempt to follow the example set by Jesus will not attempt to police the 7.4 billion other human beings currently living on our planet and impose their values on them. Jesus didn’t. Jesus didn’t vet people before he fed or healed them. The only people with whom he got testy were the Pharisees, who were the local hypocrites. He taught people how they should live but didn’t reject those who deviated from his teachings. He showed love and forgiveness to all he met. Can those who claim to be his followers say the same?

The most vocal Christians today, the Matt Walshes and others, teach a view of Christianity greatly at odds with the teachings of the one who founded their faith. There is little love or acceptance in their actions and a great deal of judgment and rigidity, and they have found a home in the modern Republican Party. I, however, cannot belong to a party that values gun ownership over public safety or that protects the lives of the unborn but disrespects the lives of immigrants and people of other faiths or ethnicities or lifestyles. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers have spent the last almost eight years doing nothing but obstruct, instead of the job they were sent to Washington to do, just to spite a black president and make sure they diminish his legacy. I can’t belong to a party that would shut down the government and jeopardize the citizens they were elected to serve in order to defeat the president’s signature piece of legislation. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers refuse to perform their constitutional duty of interviewing and voting on the sitting president’s Supreme Court appointee. Racism, disrespect, and failure to perform duties—none of those qualities are Christ-like; yet Christians accept the people who practice such ungodly behavior because those same people toe the party line of being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights. Wow!

And last of all, I absolutely cannot support the party which has perpetrated the greatest fraud I have witnessed in my lifetime: foisting upon voters a reality TV clown as a candidate for the high office of the presidency of the United States. This “candidate” exemplifies none of the Christian values with which I am familiar, yet he has the overwhelming support of the religious right. The Republican Party has placed voters in the unthinkable position of having only one viable candidate. And since that candidate is one who is widely disliked and distrusted, many will vote for the clown and rue the fact that they were not given an acceptable choice.

The fact is there is plenty in the ideology of both political parties that is out of harmony with the Christian faith; but if we’re giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, I don’t believe we should expect politics and religion always to agree. So yes, I’m a Christian and I’m a Democrat, and I think I’m in good company. “Christian Democrat” is not an oxymoron; it describes some of the finest and most godly people I know.

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

. . . but words can never hurt me.

A familiar line? My parents and teachers taught me and my classmates and friends this retort to invalidate the power of bullies who said cruel things to us or called us mean names. And although it did make us feel a little better at the time, on reflection, this statement is simply not true. Bruises, abrasions, broken bones—these things heal in time; but the damage done by words lives on in the soul and can last a lifetime.

I had a graduate school professor who talked about “parental tapes”: those recordings in our brains of the things our parents said which continue to influence how we see ourselves and how we respond to the world well into our adult years. People who have been told that they’re lazy or too fat or less smart than someone else or that they’ll never amount to much will often fulfill those words in their adult lives. Words inform self-image, which leads to actions, which result in failure and unhappiness. On the contrary, children who have heard positive words about themselves will often live up to the image created by their good “parental tapes.”

I graduated from high school decades ago, but certain words spoken by unkind classmates still trigger involuntary responses in my mind. Even before high school, I recall watching my grandmother can jelly. Each time she prepared to pour hot jelly into a jar, she placed a spoon in the jar. When I asked why she did that, she replied, “To keep the jar from breaking, stupid.” My grandmother didn’t think I was stupid; this was a careless word spoken at a busy moment. She was a very kind and loving woman who was still raising and caring for grandchildren until she died. I remember many kind things she did and said, but that one careless word has also stuck throughout the decades.

The power of words to injure and to incite rage and violence in our age of mass communication, when every word spoken by a public figure is heard live or is on the Internet within minutes of being uttered, is extraordinary and causes thoughtful people to pause and reflect. I’ve heard it said recently, “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re also responsible for what people hear.” How can that be? some may ask. I can’t help what someone else hears. Well, of course no one can anticipate how every listener will respond, but everyone can—and must—consider carefully the impact which spoken words might possibly have on those who hear them. Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult, bully, or harass. It is not freedom to incite violence or panic. It’s often been said, “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire”–pointing to the limits on our freedom to say whatever we like, when the words we say may cause harm to others. Laws governing libel and slander also enforce the requirement to speak responsibly and civilly.

To our great shame as a nation, we have a reality TV show going on right now in the guise of a presidential campaign. We have a candidate who is a loose cannon, saying whatever pops into his head at any given moment. The Republican candidate’s loose tongue is disturbing and dangerous on many levels. Insulting and bigoted remarks toward women, immigrants, the media—these all reveal deficiencies in his character and knowledge and are reason enough to discount his seriousness as a candidate for the highest office in our government. But even more frightening are his accusations against his Democratic opponent and our sitting president. Regardless of personal opinions about them, calling our national leaders the founder and co-founder of the world’s largest terrorist organization is unconscionable, especially by someone who thinks he’s fit to serve as our president and to unify us as a nation.

Statements such as calling members of the media “the lowest form of life,” suggesting that an opponent’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination, sparring with a Gold Star family, stating with “100%” certainty that his opponent can’t possibly win the state of Pennsylvania except by cheating, referring to his opponent as “Crooked Hillary,” remaining silent while his adrenaline-fueled supporters chant “Lock her up,” and suggesting that his opponent might be conveniently assassinated are unprecedented in presidential politics. They would be more at home in a high school locker room or a fifth-grade contest for class president. The fact that a chronologically mature adult would publicly make such statements defies belief.

The candidate continues to evade responsibility for his incendiary words by playing cunning games. His statements are made in ways that allow him to easily deny that he said what everyone clearly heard. He called President Obama and Hillary Clinton the founder and co-founder of ISIS. When an interviewer tried to give him a graceful way to make sense of his false claim, he dug in and said he absolutely meant the accusation in the most literal sense: they founded ISIS. But as media attention continued, he reversed his course, said he was only being sarcastic, and called the media stupid and “the lowest form of life” because they don’t get his humor.

Same game, different statement. When he suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of President Kennedy, he brushed it off as simply pointing out an article which other people had seen; “they” said these things, he didn’t. Same game, yet another statement. He suggested that the “second amendment people” might do something to prevent Hillary Clinton’s liberal SCOTUS appointments. But when confronted, he claimed he meant the “second amendment people” would surely vote against her and help him win the election.

Is it possible that he’s just so stupid he doesn’t know what he’s doing? It’s possible, but does anyone want someone that stupid to be leader of the free world? Or is it possible that he actually does know what he’s doing and phrases his messages in ways that allow him to deny responsibility? That’s also possible, and I for one believe he is well aware of the games he plays and is a master of manipulation who is consciously conning millions of people. He’s perpetrated scams before, but this one is by far the largest and has the most far-reaching consequences.

This is where the statement “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re responsible for what people hear” becomes important. It doesn’t really matter whether Trump was suggesting that gun owners become assassins or simply use the power of their vote; it doesn’t matter whether he really meant to say that Obama and Clinton co-founded ISIS or he was being sarcastic. The statements are indefensible, regardless of their meaning, because what he said allows different people to hear very different messages. No one can control others’ hearing 100%, but it is the speaker’s responsibility to anticipate the obvious legitimate interpretations of his words and make every effort to be sure the intended meaning is the one that is heard. A speaker who doesn’t do that is either stupid or manipulative—neither of which belongs on a resume for the presidency.

Entire news cycles are devoted to parsing this candidate’s words to determine what they mean: time which could much more profitably be spent comparing candidates’ stances on real issues or reporting other important events. Instead, viewers are treated to nightly round-table discussions of the latest verbal vomit from the RNC candidate, keeping full media attention on him and away from his opponent or anyone else who may have happened to make news that day. And to the news media, I would also say, “It doesn’t matter what he meant!!!” His words disqualify him. Period. The most important thing we do every four years as a nation is elect our leader. This is a privilege denied the citizens of many other nations, a privilege we should treat with respect and reverence. Seeing this process reduced to reality TV should make every responsible citizen heart-sick and disgusted.

The defense “I was joking” or “I was being sarcastic” is not an excuse, either. This is not stand-up comedy or reality TV; this is a presidential campaign. Voters want to hear serious proposals or serious concerns about the opposing candidate–not outrageous “jokes” which serve only to demean the process and to plant seeds in the minds of unstable listeners who may take the “jokes” seriously and act on them. One doesn’t tell jokes at a funeral, especially ones that make negative statements about the deceased. Sometimes humor is inappropriate. The presidency of the United States is not a joking matter.

In a Daily Kos article, a writer who calls himself CleverNickName says he believes Trump was only joking about someone shooting Mrs. Clinton and adds:

But that doesn’t matter, because the threat that he made today isn’t limited to Secretary Clinton. When someone in the position he is in — a celebrity entertainer who is the Republican nominee for president — suggests that not only would it be acceptable for the Second Amendment Crowd to go take care of her, but laughs about it, he is normalizing violent behavior, on a national stage.

He continues:

But what about the angry alt-right guy who wants to go use his Second Amendment Remedy to take care of another [person] who bothers him?  . . . What about that guy, who is waiting to hear someone say what the voices in his head are saying? How much did the danger to us and people like us go up today, because Donald Trump normalized and amplified his thinking?

Beyond the surreal feeling of disbelief renewed with each daily dose of outlandish verbiage lie very real dangers. On Wednesday, November 9, if the Democratic candidate wins (Please, God!), the millions of people who have supported and voted for the speaker of these irresponsible words will not be going back to business as usual and happily looking forward to January and the inauguration of the second President Clinton. The adrenaline- and testosterone-fueled rally goers who chant, swing fists, assault protesters, stage angry mob scenes outside rally venues yelling “F*&% everyone” will be angry. By telling these angry mobs that the election may be rigged and that the opponent can win only by cheating, not only is Trump covering his ass in advance to explain his loss but he’s also insuring vengeance against the system and the opponent who beat him. If millions of supporters who already felt angry, cheated, and ignored now believe their messiah was robbed of his rightful victory, there could be riots unlike anything we’ve seen before. And since most of these people are also gun toters, the possibilities are frightening beyond imagination.

Donald Trump is playing verbal dodge ball: he says things, and when his words are thrown back at him, he ducks and dodges so that nothing sticks to him. But the damage is done as soon as the words are spoken, and the Republican Party can’t figure out what to do. The Party of Lincoln has become a national disgrace: what bitter irony! The party that saved the union and made us all equal is now set to begin a new civil war, in some ways more devastating than the war of 1861-1865. The hand-wringing, the tentative endorsements, the apologies for their candidate’s latest childish antic, the bail-outs by those who can’t stomach remaining party to the disgrace—none of this is going to stop the destruction of their party and the damage to our country.

Words matter. They may not break bones, but they can do irreparable damage.

In the words of Dr. Maya Angelou,

Words are things, I’m convinced. They get in your wallpaper. They get in your rugs, in your upholstery, in your clothes, and finally, into you. We must be careful about the words we use. Someday we will be able to measure the power of words.

In the same interview with Oprah Winfrey, Ms. Angelou continues:

On June 4, 2003 I wrote, “When I was thinking about how to explain why one’s choice of words are so important, I came across an article titled ‘Seeking Peace Through Our Words’ written by Lauren Grabelle, a rabbinic intern at Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis.”

This was during the first war in Iraq when the elder George Bush was in office. Grabelle wrote, “Jews are instructed not simply to desire peace, but to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ (Psalm 34:15). The question for us, then, is how do we seek peace when we are in the midst of conflict? How do we pursue peace in a time of war? The same psalm that instructs us to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ tells us to ‘guard your tongues from speaking evil and your lips from deceitful speech.’ Peace begins with the very words we utter. When we speak words of hate, we create hate. When we speak words of peace, we create peace.”

Dr. Angelou continues to quote Ms. Grabelle:

“We can pursue peace by engaging in dialogue. We have to consider the words of those whose views are different than [sic] our own. Hearing perspectives other than our own allows us to continue to see those around us as btselem elohim, created in the Divine image.

In the current situation, we may not feel like we have much control over what is going on in the world. Yet we do have control over what we say in response to the world around us. We could use our words and our voices to say hateful things about those with whom we fight and disagree or we could use words to seek common ground. We could make statements of resignation. Or we can use our words to uplift ourselves and to remind us of our common humanity.”*

Peace and love to you all!

 

 

*Here’s the link to the article about Dr. Angelou: http://jewishpostopinion.com/?page_id=1608

And this is the link to the Daily Kos article:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/9/1558491/-Trump-s-assassination-call-isn-t-just-a-threat-to-Secretary-Clinton?

Categories
Politics Religion

Evangelicals for Trump. Seriously???

Evangelicals find themselves facing a yuuuge moral dilemma this November. They can’t stomach the thought of voting for a Democrat, especially that woman. Yet their default candidate sends shivers up their spines every time he opens his mouth. Some are exploring third-party or write-in candidates, but others recognize the pitfalls of voting outside the two major parties, since so far no third-party candidate has ever won an election and there’s no way to be certain which major-party candidate will be more affected by third-party votes. What’s a god-fearing, self-respecting evangelical to do? For a number of them, the answer seems to be “rationalize.” Vote for someone who in every way violates your confession of faith, but construct arguments to make the wrong you’re about to do feel right.

Let’s face it: every honest person will have to admit to doing something in their life that has violated their own personal moral code. I admit I have. Sometimes the deed is the result of too much temptation and too little will power. Sometimes it’s a gross error in judgment. And sometimes we feel that we’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils, in which case we’re likely to be left feeling guilty no matter what we do because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whatever the reason for our lapse, the resulting spiritual turmoil is painful.

So how does one make peace with one’s own conscience after having done something which has grossly offended the conscience? I would argue that the only honest way to proceed is to simply own the deed: admit it, accept your human weakness, seek forgiveness from anyone who has been hurt by your action, confess and seek forgiveness from God if that is part of your belief system, and then most important of all, forgive yourself. Then go on and live your life, believing you are still a good person, not damaged goods, who is still entitled to respect and is able to make sound moral judgments in the future.

I would also argue that the most dishonest and damaging way to make peace with a troubled conscience is to construct an argument that changes wrong to right. That approach leads one deeper into self-delusion and further from any connection to or understanding of truth. People who lie to themselves no longer see the dividing line between truth and falsehood. In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” Polonius gives a long list of advice to his son Laertes, ending with the most important: “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man.” If Polonius is right, one who is honest with oneself can’t be dishonest with anyone else, isn’t it fair to say the opposite is also correct: One who is dishonest with oneself can’t possibly be honest with anyone else.

Evangelicals* (See note at end) have been doing battle with their consciences for over a year now, and that battle intensifies with every day we move closer to November 8. Some, as I mentioned before, are looking at third-party and write-in candidates; others are going to sit out this election (cowards); others are just going to swallow hard and vote for Trump because he’s the only Republican on the ballot. Then there are the most disturbing of all: the ones who are going down that dark, twisted trail of attempting to construct an argument that will morally justify their choice and quiet their consciences.

I mentioned one of those in a previous post: Wayne Grudem, whose article “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” is being read, parsed, and widely refuted. Wayne Grudem is an influential evangelical theologian, professor of Christian ethics, author, and study Bible editor. Professor Grudem rationalizes:

He [Trump] is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I’m still choking on “lacks nuance” and “I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws.” But moving on, in another passage he says,

But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

I agree with Professor Grudem that single-issue voting is narrow and disqualifies otherwise good candidates for a single disagreement. However, character is an overriding factor which encompasses who a person is, to what extent the person can be trusted, and the moral compass by which the person lives. That’s NOT the same as voting only on a candidate’s stance on immigration, guns, or abortion. There is NO way Professor Grudem can honestly reconcile his own description of Trump with his own belief system.

Here’s an Evangelical Statement of Faith, taken from the National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/. Of course, individual groups will add to or alter the list in accordance with their personal interpretations, but I think this list is a pretty basic general summary.

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no way of knowing what Donald Trump believes concerning the first three items on the list; of course I could comment, but I’ll resist. I’m most drawn to the fourth and fifth. Can anyone honestly argue that someone who attacks and vilifies women, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who were captured in war, Gold Star families, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father; who boots a mother with a crying baby from a rally; who has described his own daughter as “hot” and said he’d date her if she were not his daughter; who is being sued for child rape; who condones and incites violence; who proposes banning entire people groups from our country—that this person exudes the spirit of one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit or who is living a godly life? That’s too big a stretch for my imagination!

And how about the last item on the list: “the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Has Professor Grudem’s “flawed candidate” done a single thing to promote unity since he launched his campaign? Or has everything he has done promoted division and discord? Of course, Mr. Grudem would argue that Hillary Clinton is even more flawed in regard to Evangelical standards, but the title of his article is not “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is Better than Voting for Hillary Clinton.” It’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice,” and I think that statement cannot be argued without compromising one’s evangelical beliefs.

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Then as I was still reeling from Professor Grudem’s article, I came across another article this morning, this one written by an unnamed author, “To the ‘Never Trumper’—A Biblical Case for Trump.” The author introduces herself thus:

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself [to] ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

Her tone throughout the article is confrontational, her logic is confusing at best, and the accusations she freely hurls at Mrs. Clinton are unsupported. As the title suggests, her target audience is voters in the “Never Trump” movement, which means she’s speaking to Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump. Unlike Wayne Grudem (whose article she references at the end of her own), this writer does not deny any of the negative charges against Trump; in fact, the above quotation suggests that she agrees with those charges, as does this one:

I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. . . . He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America.

Note that she has omitted how Mr. Trump will “protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical.” Could it be because he has never told us how he intends to carry out any of his “plans”?

Going on to address the “lesser of two evils” that we’ve heard so much about, she says:

The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

Am I the only one who missed the parts of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign speeches where she says she plans to suppress our right to worship freely and to destroy our sense of decency? And I’m curious what “them” is in line 3, that says Mrs. Clinton has promised to “suppress them.”

There’s more:

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Following that statement is a list of things which Never Trumpers will have lost the right to complain about if Mrs. Clinton is elected: the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel; third-trimester abortions; future liberal supreme court rulings; your pastor being imprisoned for hate speech crimes; losing your right to bear arms and having to fret about the safety of your family.

I admit I am disturbed by third-trimester abortions, but I guess I fell asleep during the time Mrs. Clinton was talking about destroying our sense of decency, imprisoning our pastors, and taking away everyone’s guns.

And finally, here’s the wrap-up:

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

So it seems this author is admitting that Donald Trump is all of the awful things we know he is but believes Jesus can use him anyhow to protect and defend us. I’d like to know a little more about how anyone can know that Jesus is behind a political candidate, but I guess I’ll have to wait for her sequel.

Her “argument” is, of course, sprinkled liberally with cherry-picked Bible verses because no self-respecting evangelical would dare debate those. If you want to “prove” something, just pick a verse–any verse.

https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

So far, the only “moral” arguments that have been advanced in favor of electing Donald Trump as president are based solely on the facts that he’s not Hillary Clinton and he’s not a Democrat. I saw a comment on social media this week calling the Democratic Party the “Party of Satan.” And most evangelicals I know, even if they don’t use such strong language, seem to agree with that statement at least in sentiment. It goes without saying that the standard bearer of the Party of Satan must then be Satan herself, which also seems to be a widely shared sentiment among evangelicals. That neither of those judgments can be substantively supported has not deterred any of those who continue to piously proclaim them.

Okay, I get it. You will never vote for a Democrat, especially not that Democrat. If the Republican Party nominates a hamster, you will swallow hard and vote for the hamster because it’s a Republican. Whatever! But can we at least be honest? Do whatever you have to do to be at peace with your conscience. Vote for the person who in no way represents your moral code if you feel you must. But puh-leeze spare the rest of us the ridiculous mental gymnastics of trying to convince yourself that what you’re doing is in harmony with your stated beliefs. It’s not.

 

*Note: I belong to the Christian faith, but I am not an evangelical. I am a mainstream Protestant.

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

If there had been any lingering doubt in my mind after looking at the two candidates’ credentials, experience, and character, their respective conventions and acceptance speeches alone would have been enough to clinch my decision.

The GOP convened in Cleveland amid much turmoil because of the deep divisions in the party, and the convention did little or nothing to heal the rifts. Trump kept on being Trump, with some small exceptions for his acceptance speech. Even that was long on bluster and short on specifics and plans. As President Obama so aptly put it, “The Donald is not really a plans guy. He’s not really a facts guy either.” The Donald has had over a year since he made his announcement that he was running for president to learn some facts and to make some plans, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that he has no desire to know any more than he knows or to be any more specific than he has been about plans. I would also conclude that he is intellectually incapable of doing either of those two things.

The president went on to say, “[Trump] calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated . . . Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent his 70 years on this Earth showing no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion?” Good question, Mr. President!

Vice President Joe Biden said, “No major party nominee in the history of this nation has ever known less or been less prepared to deal with our national security.” California Governor Jerry Brown added, “Even the Know Nothings, anti-immigrant party of the 1850s, did not stray this far into sheer ignorance and dark fantasy as have the Republicans and their leader Donald Trump.” And Michael Bloomberg aptly observed, “Trump says he wants to run the nation like he’s running his business? God help us. I am a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one. . . . Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.” From Tim Kaine, we have this assessment: “To me, it seems like our nation is too great to put in the hands of a slick-talking, empty promising, self-promoting, one-man wrecking crew.” And Joe Biden summed it all up as only Joe can: “That [Trump’s speech] is a bunch of malarkey!”

What was Mr. Trump’s response to these scathing accusations? How did he respond to Khizr Khan, father of a slain Muslim U. S. soldier, when he held out his well-worn pocket edition of our country’s constitution and asked Donald Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” How did the Donald respond? Did he defend his knowledge of the constitution, saying he has read and cherishes it? Did he admit his knowledge is limited but he will devote his every waking moment to learning this sacred document? Did he apologize for any of his insults to women, veterans, Muslims, Mexicans, or any of the other numerous groups he has disrespected? Did he vow to help American workers and actually outline plans for doing so? Did he express sympathy for the Khan family’s loss and promise to honor their son’s life and memory? Did he promise to change his tactics to prove his critics wrong? Did he promise to release his tax returns??

NO. The answer to each of the above questions is NO. Here is how he responded to his chastening at the DNC: “You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor. I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

I guess this must be that pivot we’ve heard so much about. You know, the pivot he would make when he entered the general election season to more presidential behavior. It should be abundantly obvious by now to any thinking person that Trump is not going to pivot. He can’t. If I were asked to pivot and start acting like a genetic scientist, I couldn’t do that because I know very little about the science of genetics. It’s just not in me to act like that. And it’s not in Donald Trump to act like a president, because he knows nothing about what presidential behavior is. When did we parents begin teaching our children to find ways other than physical violence to resolve conflicts? When they were toddlers! The first time one of them hit a sibling in anger or retaliation, we started the conversation. Donald Trump is an emotional toddler. What we’ve seen so far is all he has. That’s it. Ain’t nothin’ else ever going to emerge because it’s not there.

Hillary Clinton also entered her party’s convention with deep and potentially disruptive divisions. Bernie Sanders had not completely yielded to her victory, and he had some strong Bernie or Bust supporters who did not want to let go. The first day started out pretty rocky, but by the end of the evening tempers had settled and there was the beginning of party unity. And by the end of the roll call on Tuesday, most of the dissension had been quelled and the convention was ready to go forward pretty smoothly. I credit both Bernie Sanders and the Clinton campaign for the quick restoration of party unity. Sanders acted as the adult and made the motion to elect Clinton as their candidate by acclamation, and the Clinton campaign and convention organizers gave Bernie Sanders his due respect and credit for the work he did during the campaign. Mutual respect, something completely missing at the RNC, saved the day. Oh, I didn’t see Bernie smiling or putting his hands together during Hillary’s acceptance speech. It was a crushing loss for him; he’s allowed to grieve his loss. But what’s important is he did the responsible adult thing, and his party is more unified because of his actions.

What the DNC did for Hillary Clinton is introduce America to a different person than the caricature which has so dominated public opinion for decades. As one commentator put it, “She is the most famous person in the world that no one knows.” On Wednesday evening, following Bill Clinton’s speech, the talking heads—many of them seasoned political pundits who’ve been covering presidential elections for decades—were genuinely surprised, wide-eyed and open-mouthed, over the things they had learned that evening about someone they thought they already knew. As Van Jones put it, Bill Clinton had “put together the dots” to make a surprising picture of a “workaholic do-gooder chick.” That sounds a lot like her personal motto, learned from her Methodist faith, which we heard more than once: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Then how did it happen that a “workaholic do-gooder chick” who lived by the motto ““Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can” ended up with the nickname “Crooked Hillary” and a reputation for being a liar and a criminal? According to President Obama, it was because “That’s what happens when we try.” He said you have to get into the arena to make a difference, and those who are in the arena, the people who are trying, will make mistakes; and “Hillary Clinton is that woman in the arena.” The president went on to say, “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport.” Hillary has never settled for being only a spectator. From her college days until today, she has been an advocate for children’s and women’s needs, she has served her country as governor’s wife, president’s wife, senator, Secretary of State, and numerous other jobs where she was less in the national spotlight. She has stood by hurting people and been their voice wherever she has served.

According to Politico Magazine, “On the whole, Clinton’s misstatements are those of a typical politician. She has changed her position on a number of issues, and some of these reversals—like her newfound opposition to the Pacific trade deal she championed as secretary of state—rise to the level of flip-flops or, perhaps, insincere electioneering designed to obscure what she really thinks. In defending her use of a private email server, Clinton has clearly stretched the truth, though whether she grasps the fallaciousness of her statements or believes herself to be giving straight answers is impossible to know.” This doesn’t exactly award her Sunday School teacher status, but it also does not justify William Safire’s 1996 accusation that she is a “congenital liar.” On the other hand, Politico Magazine says of Trump: “Three Politico reporters fact-checked Trump’s statements for a week, [and] found he had uttered ‘roughly one misstatement every five minutes.’ Collectively, his falsehoods won PolitiFact’s 2015 ‘Lie of the Year’ award. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has judged Trump ‘perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-history-presidents-liars-dishonest-fabulists-214024#ixzz4FoiFjIAI

Mrs. Clinton’s biggest enemy is just pure sexism, in the same way President Obama’s is racism. Yeah, I said it! Hillary Clinton has been put through “scandal” investigations for things which men in high position have done without a fraction of the consequences. Emails have been in the news before: George W. Bush, David Petraeus. Even her husband has not suffered the same long-lasting attacks she has over the Whitewater scandal. And for evidence of the different standards to which men and women are held, we need look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Mr. Trump. Legal actions are pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He spews insults at every demographic; childishly and maliciously lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him; mocks people with disabilities and veterans who were captured; responds to normal political speeches by wanting to punch those who spoke about him; appears to be colluding with a foreign leader to tamper with our election. And where’s the outrage? Where are the investigations? Does anyone believe that if half these charges could be made against Hillary Clinton she would still have won her party’s nomination? Does anyone really believe there would not be a far greater outcry?

Society has strictly defined parameters for what is acceptable behavior. Whenever anyone steps beyond their designated boundaries, they are viewed as presumptuous, arrogant, uppity, ungodly, and generally suspect. They are also intimidating. And what do we humans do when we are intimidated? Why, we attack, of course. We attack the person who has violated our norms, who has raised doubt in our minds about the validity of those norms, who has shaken our world view, and who has made us feel less secure in our own worth and understanding. How dare those persons cross our lines? Who do they think they are? How dare they think they’re so smart or so powerful? A black man wants to be president? Who the hell does he think he is? We’ll show him; he might be president, but we won’t give him the respect due the office, and we’ll jeopardize our country just to be sure he doesn’t succeed. A woman wants to be president? Who the hell does she think she is? We’re just going to pick out every little mistake she’s ever made in her lifetime of service to her country and magnify it as if she were Satan personified. We’ll show her!

Shirley Chisholm, in 1968, became the first African-American congresswoman. In 1972, she became the first woman to run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. She had this to say about her experience: “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black.” Well, that sounds like sexism to me.

In her acceptance speech, Mrs. Clinton humbly acknowledged voters’ distrust and dislike of her. She said in essence, “I’ve heard you. I know how you feel about me. Let’s have a conversation about that.” Instead of talking about punching people, she pledged to take people’s feelings seriously, to be more open, and to work on gaining voters’ trust. That won’t erase all that has caused people to have those feelings, nor should it; but a head-on, straightforward conversation is a lot more honest and trustworthy in my book than doubling down when confronted and threatening to punch someone hard enough to make his head spin. The things I’ve heard this week have made me willing to give her another chance, to view her through a different lens.

Trump’s acceptance speech was all about what HE will do, single-handedly: “I alone can fix it”; all of our problems will magically disappear as soon as I walk into the Oval Office. (This attitude, by the way, further demonstrates his ignorance of how government works.) His speech was the “I” speech. Clinton’s acceptance speech was the “we” speech: what we can all do together to address our country’s needs and problems. She said, “We’ll fix it together.” Hillary Clinton’s speech beautifully described what a democracy is and made me proud to be part of the greatest democracy on earth. Donald Trump’s speech was the ranting of a demagogue: this country is dark, scary, and doomed; and you need me to fix it and make it great again.

News flash, Donald! This country has always been great. It’s never stopped being great. We don’t need you and your childishness, your ego, your anger, your insults, your pettiness, your divisiveness, your misogyny, your xenophobia, your lies, or your threats. What we need is a president, not a demagogue.

So you can just take your big orange self back to Trump Tower, because we’re with her.

 

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

In this long, contentious year of campaigning for the presidency, there is only one thing just about everyone agrees on: we don’t like either of our choices. Oh, there are exceptions to that generalization: many Donald Trump supporters are so blindly loyal they would probably validate his boast that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone without losing support. I don’t even know what to say to those people, and obviously nothing will get through to them anyway, so I’m just going to focus on folks who think. We thinking folks see two flawed candidates, and some think that makes for a tough choice. For me, the choice is as clear as a blue, sunny Florida sky. Hillary Clinton must be our next president.

I say that not because I think Mrs. Clinton is an ideal candidate or because I’m blind to her flaws. I say it because she is the only person who can save our country for a Trump presidency, and a Trump presidency is unthinkable. Both candidates have high unfavorability ratings, both are intensely disliked by many, and both have questionable items in their past records. That may sound like a wash, but it’s not. The thing I think we must do right now is stop thinking of Donald Trump as just another presidential candidate and stop thinking of this election as the usual weighing of one knowledgeable candidate against another or Democratic platform vs Republican platform. That is NOT what this election is about. This election is a choice between a president and a demagogue, a team builder and a narcissistic strong man. This is the most frightening presidential election of my lifetime or in the history of our country.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because—in spite of her negatives—she has the relevant knowledge and education for the office, she has the relevant experience for the office, and she has the temperament for the office. Donald Trump has none of those qualifications, and he has shown no interest whatsoever in learning or even admitting what he doesn’t know.

I spent my career teaching English. I loved the classroom so much I never wanted to move into administration, so I’ve never been the “boss” in charge of hiring. I did, however, serve on my share of search committees at the college where I spent my last 26 years; so I know a little bit about the process, and I’m sure some of you do as well. When a position opened at the college, it first of all had to be published so that people could know of the opening and apply for it. After applications were closed, the division dean would collect all of the applications and resumes, make copies, and distribute them to those who had been selected to act as the search committee. The committee members then had to review the stack of applications, make our individual selections, meet to put our choices together, narrow down the composite list to a short list of candidates who would be given phone interviews, then decide on two or three to be brought to campus for in-person interviews, and then make our final recommendation to the dean.

In reviewing the resumes, the first thing we looked for was the proper academic credentials. At the community/state college, a candidate had to hold a minimum of a master’s degree and a Ph.D. was a plus. Having a bachelor’s degree, or no degree, obviously would be a disqualifier. It was also essential that the degree be in the field in which the candidate was applying to teach (duh!). If we were hiring a philosophy professor, a candidate with a Ph.D. in math or psychology would not be considered. Then we looked at experience. Every young person knows the dilemma of having the education and training for a job but no experience because they’re applying for their first job or perhaps making a career change. All of us are grateful to those employers who gave us our first break and allowed us to gain experience, and it helps that sometimes relevant experience can be considered. Perhaps in our case a candidate had never taught before but had served as a TA in college or worked in a different position where the same skill set was required. And then we considered temperament, how compatibly the candidate would fit into our faculty, and whether he or she seemed to be a person of character and ethics.

I imagine the process at your work place is similar.

The United States has a job opening. As of January 20, 2017, the presidency will be vacant. WE are all the bosses responsible for hiring President Obama’s replacement. We’ve looked at the resumes—about 21 of them all together—conducted the interviews, in the form of televised debates and campaign speeches. And now we have our short list: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Next step.

Let’s look at these two candidates’ credentials. Hillary Clinton has a degree in law and is thoroughly familiar with the U. S. Constitution. Donald Trump has a bachelor’s degree in business. He has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, government, and history and his utter lack of motivation to learn about them. Credentials: Hillary.

Except for presidents seeking a second term, no one comes to the presidency with first-hand experience, so we have to look at relevant experience. Hillary Clinton was active during her husband’s presidency, served as a United States Senator, and served as Secretary of State. She is one of the most experienced candidates ever to apply for this job. Donald Trump has built buildings, run companies, organized beauty pageants, and worked as a reality TV star. Some argue that his business acumen is a transferable skill set, but I think making deals—the skill on which he most prides himself—is not really applicable to being a leader and diplomat. Moreover, four bankruptcies do not speak well of his business smarts or ethics. And if you don’t believe me, ask Michael Bloomberg. Therefore, I’m also going to award experience to Hillary.

So far, we have a clear winner; but we still have to look at the questions of character, temperament, ethics, and history. And this is where things get muddy; here’s where our front runner loses ground. Many voters question her character, don’t care for her temperament or personality, don’t believe she’s ethical, and have a long list of concerns about her past. Fair enough.

Hillary Clinton’s negative reputation began even before her husband became president. She was not the traditional First Lady. She didn’t, as she said, want to stay home, bake cookies, and have teas. She was a smart professional woman, and she chose to do First Lady her way.  According to the National First Ladies’ Library http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, her image problems began during the primaries. Among other things, according to this site, Bill Clinton announced from the get go that his wife would be an equal partner in his presidency, that they would be a “two for one deal.” The biography goes on to say, “Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president’s senior staff. [Because of] her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. . . . When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President’s potential response.” This is starkly different from the usual role of First Lady and earned Mrs. Clinton many early critics and enemies.

Then there was a long investigation on Whitewater, involving both of the Clintons. Later, she scored her own ethics investigations with Benghazi and her infamous emails. The FBI declined to bring charges against her for the emails, although not without some pretty harsh words: “extreme carelessness.” Even so, emails have often been an issue for other people in government, yet without anything close to the level of media attention. Benghazi was a tragedy, but seven investigations—led mostly by congressional Republicans—failed to turn up enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing. All of this attention would make one think the Benghazi incident was the first time a U. S. ambassador had been killed. Politifact, however, has a detailed analysis of embassy attacks and deaths under other presidents and other secretaries of state: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/.

So far, our candidate who nailed credentials and experience may appear to be faring not so well on the character issues. These are the facts, and no one can argue with them, and no one should attempt to whitewash them. But we still have to compare these facts with facts about her opponent’s character. Donald Trump has regularly been labeled liar, misogynist, xenophobe, and inciter of violence, among other things. He has ridiculed people with disabilities; he has ridiculed prisoners of war; he has made irresponsible public statements about his opponents, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father, all women, all Mexicans, all Muslims. It’s well documented that he refuses to pay many of the people who do work for him or at least pays them less than he originally agreed to pay. His steadfast refusal to release his tax returns makes it quite clear that there’s something or some things he doesn’t want us to know. He has barred members of the press from his events and has whined about his treatment by them. He has five children by three different mothers, whom he admits were raised mostly by the mothers. He has described his older daughter as “hot,” has repeatedly said he’d date her if she were not his daughter, and patted her ass on national TV. Eeewwwwwww! He has made irresponsible charges that his opponent (HRC) was responsible for Vince Foster’s death as well as some others and has led his supporters in the chant “Lock her up!” He has lawsuits pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He says wages are too high and would even allow states to lower the minimum wage. He is delusional enough to think he can build a wall on a 1989-mile border and make the other country pay for it. He appears to be in collusion with a foreign government not friendly to our democracy. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things, but these are enough for me.

To summarize, Clinton takes credentials and experience. Clinton and Trump both have some negatives on character, but I think his negatives are worse than hers. Hers have at least been investigated; and even though the court of public opinion is keeping the cases open, they’ve been closed in courts of law. She has actual plans and proposals, and she explains how she will accomplish them; he has a few vague ideas (mostly the stupid wall) and in a whole year has given no indication how he intends to accomplish anything he’s mentioned. So I’m going to say his negatives are far worse than hers. Final score: Clinton 3, Trump 0.

I’m with her.

 

Categories
Politics

Be the Change

handshake

Donald Trump has pulled off the unthinkable: a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. The Dump Trump, Never Trump, Vote Your Conscience initiatives are dead. The final nail for the coffin has been forged, and the hammer is poised to drop this week in Cleveland. All that remains is for the RNC delegates to make the deal official. This whole debacle is disturbing on so many levels, but one question I have to ask myself is what this means for the future of presidential primaries and caucuses. We’ve already spent a whole year listening to speeches and debates and casting our votes; and the Party of Lincoln has fallen into the hands of a vulgar, crass, racist reality TV star. How much longer can voters driven by anger, distrust, and a hearty appetite for entertainment be trusted to select our own leaders?

Our Constitution does not specify a process for electing our president, so the political parties have over time developed their own procedures and policies. In the early days, candidates were selected by their fellow politicians; in the ensuing years, the process has gone through reform after reform, leading to the mess we’re in today. Now voters have so much power that even when they elect a candidate whom the party leaders can’t conscientiously support, those leaders have no recourse because the delegates are bound by the will of the voters. And that sounds great when the process goes well; but when it produces a national nightmare, reasonable people begin contemplating the next reform of the system.

In the opening lines of Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau says:

“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

“Civil Disobedience,” is about the individual citizen’s relationship and obligation to government. The words “That government is best which governs least” are enclosed in quotation marks in the essay because obviously Thoreau is quoting someone else. The line is widely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but that attribution is unconfirmed. At any rate, this essay—written in 1849—begins as a response to someone else’s idea.

Today we refer to the scope of government’s power over our lives as big government and small government. Jefferson, or whoever is being quoted here, comes down on the side of small government. The less it governs the better it is. And Thoreau begins by agreeing with the assertion but then takes it a step further: “That government is best which governs not at all.” So far, he’s said small government is better than big government, but no government is the best of all possibilities. He makes it clear in the rest of the essay he’s not an anarchist; he’s not talking about turning people loose to do whatever they want without responsibility or accountability. The key is the last clause: “When men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.” There’s the catch! If we don’t want a lot of laws and government control, it’s up to us to be “prepared for it.” We have the power, at least in theory, to lessen the grip of government on our lives and to protect the rights and privileges we have.

What does that mean? I think it means the more we govern ourselves the less we have to be governed by anyone else. I, for example, don’t need a law to tell me not to help myself to what I see in my neighbors’ homes or yards or the many shiny, attractive things I see in retail establishments. I do see lots of things I admire and would like to have; and okay, I confess, I might sometimes feel a twinge of envy when someone else has something I like but don’t have or can’t afford. But nothing would ever induce me to take anything away from another person or to pocket an item in a store. So for me, all of the laws regarding stealing could be removed from the law books and my behavior wouldn’t change at all. My conscience is enough to control my actions; in other words, I can govern myself on the issue of stealing, thank you very much.

According to Thoreau, if our consciences were properly tuned, none of us would need the government because we’d do the right things by our own conviction. It’s when we don’t govern ourselves or when we abuse privileges that those privileges must be restricted. When I was a teenager, I didn’t temporarily lose my driving privilege for doing errands for my mom or for being safe and responsible when I was out with friends; I lost my privilege to drive the car when I’d done something stupid. When my three children were teenagers, they didn’t get grounded for bringing home good report cards, contributing to the work of the household, being safe drivers, and returning home by curfew (all of which they did most of the time). They got grounded on the occasions when they made bad choices, not the times when they made good ones. I used to tell them that if they were tired of hearing me “discuss” what constitutes a good choice, there was an easy solution: just start making the right choices on your own and I will be more than happy to shut up, because I’m as tired of saying these things as you are of hearing them.

Often on social media, I’ve made the statement that it seems to me people who really want to protect what they view as their second-amendment right to gun ownership ought to be the very first in line to support common-sense safeguards on gun sales and ownership. As you can imagine, that position has not been politely received by my gun-loving friends; but I’m sticking to it! We lose the privileges we abuse, not the ones we use responsibly. Our country is in a mess right now. Violence and lawlessness reign. Mass murders are the norm. I don’t see this ending well for gun owners. If you want to protect your privilege, you have to willingly accept limitations. You have to govern yourself, just as when you were a teenager, the best way to persuade your parents to give you a later curfew was to abide by the one you already had. Coming home late every night doesn’t put you in a good bargaining position when requesting an extension. So even if you do think the second amendment to our Constitution guarantees you the right to own every type and amount of weapon and ammunition your little heart desires, and even if you think you have the right to tote that gun with you everywhere you go, it seems to me the smart choice would be to accept reasonable limitations in the interest of saving the overall privilege. Sacrifice a couple of battles so that you may be able to win the war. The only reason so many are currently seeking new laws is that far too many gun owners are abusing their privilege.

All of our freedoms are at stake if we can’t figure out how to govern ourselves. A country that descends into lawlessness and violence is begging for an authoritarian figure to take over and restore order: order that comes at the price of our personal freedom. I know I’m oversimplifying the matter, because our country’s problems are complex and deeply rooted, and we all feel powerless to untangle the web. Some things we can’t do, but what we can do is take control of our own attitudes. We can model responsible behavior for our fellow citizens. We can stop caring more about the success of our own political party than we care about the success of our country. We can stop hating and ridiculing everyone who doesn’t see the world the same way we do. We can stop framing every situation as “us” and “them.” We can stop believing we have to choose between black lives and blue lives and realize we can love and value all of our fellow citizens and want to protect all of their lives. We can stop being so damned rude and mean to each other. We can learn to solve our individual problems in ways that don’t involve violence. We can stop acting as if “our side” has all the answers and “their side” is automatically wrong. We can stop shrugging our shoulders and saying “God is in control.” God told US how to live, and we can’t do stupid things and then think God’s going to take control and fix the mess we’ve made. That’s not how it works. I don’t think very many people are listening to God when they make Donald Trump a presidential candidate and go around killing each other every week.

These problems won’t be fixed in a month or a year or even ten years; I’ve resigned myself to the probability that they won’t be fixed in my lifetime. But we’re not powerless. We each have a voice and a sphere of influence, and if we don’t start using them more effectively, the consequences could be dire. Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I think it’s our only hope.