Tag: 2016 campaign

Categories
Politics

Open the Eyes of Our Hearts

Langston Hughes–American poet, social activist, novelist, playwright, and columnist–posed these questions in his 1951 poem “Dream Deferred”:

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

My question is what happens to a prejudice when it’s no longer legal to exercise it openly. Does it go away? Do old attitudes change immediately? Can a law require people to respect each other? Do laws have anything to do with bigotry, or is prejudice a dark part of the human condition, lying dormant in each of us? Can laws erase prejudice or only forbid its open expression? A popular expression in the 1960s was “You can’t legislate morality.” The longer I’ve lived the more I understand and agree with that statement. Laws don’t make people good. Good people make good laws and govern themselves by high standards which can’t be externally imposed.

Racial injustice is written into the earliest pages of American history, including the genocide of Native Americans and a two-and-a-half-century slave trade. The first African slave ship arrived in the Jamestown colony of America in 1619, bringing extra hands to labor in the tobacco fields and other fields that produced lucrative crops for the enterprising colonists. Let that sink in for a moment. The slaves were here one year before the Pilgrims and eleven years before the Puritans, the two groups who established the New England states.

From 1619 until 1862 when the Emancipation Proclamation was published and 1865 when the ratification of the 13th Amendment made emancipation the law of the land, the kidnapped Africans were property of white planters who amassed fortunes on the backs of their laborers. Dark-skinned people in America were not citizens and had none of the rights of citizenship or residence, including the right to be educated or to be accorded the personal respect and dignity due every human being. They were just property at the disposal of powerful whites.

From 1865 to 1965, the “free” black citizens lived under Jim Crow laws: ordinances enacted by local and state governments in the South to ensure that people of color continued to be denied the full rights of their citizenship. These laws established a system of segregation that was strictly enforced for a whole century after the Civil War ended and the 13th Amendment was passed. People of color lived in fear for their lives and safety if they strayed the least bit from their adherence to these oppressive laws.

Schools and churches were segregated, blacks could not use the same restrooms or water fountains as whites, blacks were required to sit in the rear seats on public transportation, they were denied entrance to restaurants and public libraries, and they were subjected to numerous other indignities unimaginable to most of us in 2016.

In addition to government-sanctioned segregation, oppression, and violence, other organizations took it upon themselves to help keep “freed” blacks living in fear and subjection, most prominent among them the Ku Klux Klan. A group of Confederate veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee, wasted no time making sure there would be a force in place to prevent the “freed” blacks from exercising the rights of their newly conferred citizenship; they formed the original Ku Klux Klan in 1866, less than a year after the Civil War had ended. According to History.com,

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.

 It’s interesting to note that the Republican Party, Party of Lincoln, was the one at that time fighting for equal rights, whereas now they’re the ones who’ve lost their minds and are supporting the oppression of everyone they deem threatening—which is pretty much everyone except white heterosexuals, with bonus points for being male.

But back to the KKK, they’ve gone through periods of decline, popping up again whenever their white supremacist ideals seem threatened. Over the course of the century and a half the Klan has existed, they’ve added immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and organized labor to their hit list. As everyone is well aware, these are not peaceful protesters; their vitriolic, violent attacks have ranged from protests and intimidation to bombings and lynchings.

Echoing Langston Hughes’s question, my question is what happened to all of that hatred and prejudice when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. Did everyone start treating blacks, immigrants, Muslims, and women with respect? We all know the answer to that one. Did the KKK disband? Unfortunately not; we’ve been hearing frequently that they are still very much alive and active. Did white supremacists become nice, kind people tolerant of all races? That didn’t happen either.

It seems what happened is that prejudice went underground. It became socially unacceptable to express open hostility toward those whom we label as “other.” Many of us began trying to look at the world through the eyes of the oppressed and to learn different ways of treating our fellow humans. Many others, however, gave only grudging lip service to acceptance and equality while continuing to harbor prejudice in their hearts and minds; and among those of like mind, they even felt the freedom to express their prejudice out loud.

The term “dog whistle” has become a familiar phrase: an expression of hatred and intolerance inaudible to some but clearly heard by others, coded to bypass the censorship and judgment of the more enlightened, the ones trying to rise above those base instincts. The so-called “birther movement” has been labeled a dog-whistle strategy aimed at setting apart our first black president as “other,” as not one of us.

As a nation, we have congratulated ourselves on our progress in race relations since we have been legally bound to equal rights for all. We tell ourselves that we used to be a culture which discriminated against races other than whites, but we’ve gotten over that; we’ve conquered our baser instincts and become a better people. All of that discrimination was in our past, or at least that’s what we desperately want to believe. The view of the white majority eager to absolve ourselves from the guilt of our past sins, however, is not shared by people of color whose life experiences tell a very different story.

A few years ago, a dear friend and colleague of African descent told me that when he drives from Florida to his home state of North Carolina, he knows where it’s not safe for him to stop. He told me that in the 21st century, less than sixteen years ago. Another African-American friend who is married to a white man is still nervous about holding her husband’s hand in public. According to CNN, a high school in Georgia held its first integrated prom in 2014, and another school in Mississippi waited until 2009 to integrate this annual school event.

Those of us who were trying to learn how to be better human beings began paying attention to language, to the ways we talk about each other. We made the N word socially unacceptable; we decided people should have the right to decide for themselves what they prefer to be called. We learned that words matter because words inform attitudes. It’s easy to mistreat someone you’ve dehumanized by referring to them as a N—-, not as easy when you’ve accorded them the dignity of a respectful title which acknowledges their humanity and equality.

When the people in your closest social circle are accepting and respectful of all people groups, it’s easy to assume everyone thinks and acts like you and yours. It’s shocking to hear rants coming out of a fellow citizen that sound like throwbacks to a century or more in the past. Those who live in the dark recesses of a culture that has tried to move on, to evolve, feel increasingly left out, disrespected, made to feel small because they harbor attitudes which they can’t freely express for fear of being ostracized or legally penalized. While some of us consider changes in our language and attitudes a matter of courtesy and respect for others, those in that angry subculture scorn and chafe under the constraint of what they call “political correctness.”

This evolution toward tolerance and equality requires a constant learning process even for the most devout. When we first hear “black lives matter,” some may not immediately understand why it’s necessary to remind anyone of what seems to be a given. But those who want to be better human beings and to live in a culture of equality, tolerance, respect, and kindness take the time to listen and learn and to hear the narratives as told by those who need to be assured that their lives matter. While we’re listening and learning, however, others are becoming more angry and resentful over being required to publicly conform to politically correct attitudes which they have not internalized.

Then along comes a demagogue who says, “I get it. I’m one of you. That political correctness stuff is just BS. Elect me your leader, and we’ll take America back to a period of greatness when we white men were supreme and everyone else bowed to us. We’ll deport a bunch of people, we’ll deny entrance to a bunch of people, and we’ll make America white again. By allying ourselves with the alt-right and securing endorsement and support from the KKK, the NRA, and the other darkest parts of the subculture, we’ll reinvent racism and make bigotry great again.”

There is clearly a civil war going on, which we can only hope will never see a battlefield, but which is just as divisive and polarizing as the Civil War of 150 years ago. One side aims to protect its turf by guarding its right to own as many weapons as possible and hoping to elect a leader who legitimizes their bigotry. What is the weapon of the other side, of those who want justice and equality for all, who want to keep what IS great in America and fix the things we still need to work on, without losing what we’ve already gained?

Mahatma Gandhi is often credited for saying “Be the change you want to see in the world.” That’s not what he actually said, but it’s still a good principle to live by. Here’s what he really said, which I think is even better:

We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of the body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world could also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.

 There’s the weapon: Change yourself; change your nature. There’s a little bit of prejudice in all of us, and change doesn’t come easily or quickly, but we can all do it.

Jesus told us to love God and love other people. When we love God, we’re seeing the world as something bigger than ourselves. Those who don’t acknowledge God still need to see the world as bigger than themselves and equally inclusive of everyone in it. We all need to remove ourselves from the center of the universe and make our organizing principle our love of God or love of the universe or love of the planet that gave birth to us and nurtures us.

Then we need to learn to look at everyone who shares this vast space with us as equal recipients of God’s love or equally deserving of the benefits of the earth that created us all. You can’t truly love God and hate God’s creation; you can’t truly love Mother Earth and hate any of her children.

When a football player refuses to stand for the national anthem, instead of instantly condemning him as undeserving of citizenship in our country and deserving of being fired from his job for being such a poor role model, we should ask ourselves why he made that choice. We should listen to his story and attempt to see the world through his eyes, not force him to see it through our eyes. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid we may have to admit he has a point? Might considering the problems he calls to our attention force us to look into a mirror and see things we don’t want to face? Might that require us to step out of our comfortable complacency and DO something?

Prejudice is here. It never went away. We’re once again looking into its vile, ugly face. We can’t make it go away by electing a demagogue or by pretending everything’s okay or by blaming the victims. Change starts with looking inward and allowing the light of love to shine through us. That sounds a little corny and trite, but it’s the only way.

 

 

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

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

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.