Tag: 2016 election

Categories
Politics

It Can’t Happen Here

The first presidential election I can remember is the one in which Dwight Eisenhower ran against Adlai Stevenson. I was in elementary school, and Eisenhower was the clear favorite in our little political world. We chanted on the playground, “We like Ike. He’s our man. We threw Stevenson in the garbage can.” Fast forward through 16 more presidential campaigns and we’re now living in that garbage can, thanks to a campaign that has dragged us so low into the political gutter that it’s hard to see how we can ever climb out.

Sunday night, October 9, the world watched in horror as an orange fascist strongman degraded a debate for the high office of President of the United States of America to a playground fight. Things that have never before happened in a U. S. presidential campaign—things we thought could never happen here—unfolded before our eyes in a nightmare scenario that has left sane voters reeling and running from the orange terror.

But not all voters. And that’s the frightening part. That there could be even one person left in this country still planning to vote for Donald Trump is beyond belief, but in fact there are millions who look at the same information you and I look at and see him as their messiah. How the hell did we, the United States of America, reach a point where sewer politics seems normal to a large contingent of our population? How is it possible for millions of Americans to be so oblivious to facts that no matter how much evidence mounds up, they stand by their man to the end?

These are some things I jotted down on my note pad as I watched Sunday night’s debate. Donald Trump said to Hillary Clinton at least twice, and I think more, “You should be ashamed of yourself.” At one point, he churlishly responded to her, “Yeah, because you have nothing to say.” He called her the devil. He asked the moderators more than once, “Why don’t you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time. Why don’t you interrupt her?” He accused them more than once of siding with her: “Yeah, three on one. That’s real fair.”

In the 56-year history of televised presidential debates, beginning with the 1960 debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Americans have never witnessed anything close to the churlish, fifth-grade, school playground language that we heard from the candidate representing one of our two major political parties. In past debates, did candidates clash? Of course! Did they have extreme differences? Plenty of them! Did any of them ever call his opponent the devil or whine about the moderators or directly attack the moderators? No! Dignity is dead.

Donald Trump, throughout the debate, resembled an angry, defiant child who has been chastised and is determined to reassert his bully stance and subdue those who have humiliated him. His face was expressionless, his posture stiff. The body language expressed rage and hatred. These things don’t happen in the U. S. A. But most menacing of all is not the childishness and fifth-grade bullying; we’ve been watching that for over a year. What has often been referred to as “scorched-earth politics” was the thing that made this second debate particularly ominous, and Americans have never before seen anything that comes close to Trump’s gutter tactics and strongman persona.

Before the debate began, as we all know, he gathered four women who have made past allegations against former President Bill Clinton and broadcast a video of himself sitting at a table with them. He then took them into the debate hall to sit facing Hillary Clinton to unnerve, humiliate, and intimidate her. This is NOT the America any of us have ever known! Even worse, according to CNN’s Dana Bash, Trump’s plan was to seat those women with his family and have them enter with his family, meaning that Bill Clinton would have had to greet each of them face to face and shake each of their hands (or not), as he greeted and shook hands with Melania Trump and the rest of the Trump family members. Fortunately, word of this plan reached the debate co-chair in time for him to stop it from happening. Who would have believed we’d see such strongman tactics used in American politics, with the whole world watching us? That stunt is stunning.

Then there was Trump’s physical intimidation and menacing behavior on the debate platform itself. When Trump was taking his turn at speaking, Clinton sat respectfully on her chair and laid her microphone on the table. She picked it up and rose to her feet only when it was her turn to speak. She also looked at him and listened to him while he was speaking. In stark contrast, when she was speaking, he roamed the stage, spent little time looking her in the eye, at times lurked menacingly behind her, invaded her space, and clearly intended to unnerve and intimidate her. His microphone was always in his hand, making it convenient to interrupt her 15 times. Several times, he snapped his mic to his mouth while she was speaking, ready to pounce at the first opportunity. These are bullying and intimidation tactics the likes of which Americans have never before witnessed.

But we’re still not to the low point of the night: his direct threats of prosecution and implied threat of jail for her if he is elected president. Wow! Russia, Venezuela, Taiwan, Chile, Egypt, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran—all of these places have in their history examples of leaders killing or imprisoning their political opponents. But those things could never happen in the U. S. A. Or so we thought. However, we’re now one step closer: the threat has been made in front of an international audience. That’s enough to keep every citizen awake at night.

Respected journalist Dan Rather’s takeaway from Sunday night’s debate is “I suspect . . . that this is a man who, at a fundamental level, does not understand what it means to be an American.” To be qualified to lead this country, one must understand who we are as a people; and that requires knowledge obtained through years of study, reading, observing, and understanding. Trump has done none of these.

Intelligent people who have been listening to Donald Trump since July of 2015 have observed the lack of specifics in his “policy” speeches, such as they are. He claims he will deport 11 million people, build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, ban an entire religious group from entering our country, clean up the inner cities, make everyone obey the law, and a lot of other things; but we have heard barely a word about HOW he would make these things happen. That’s because Trump is what’s known as a strongman. Ed Kilgore, in an article entitled “Trump’s Strongman Politics” published in the Daily Intelligencer,” explains:

Trump’s whole platform is himself, a strongman in the ancient tradition of tribal chieftains whose very presence is a guarantor of safety and prosperity. Whatever the problem is, he’ll “fix it,” and that’s particularly true of challenges where “strength” is, in theory, of inherent value, such as maintaining a credible deterrent to foreign aggression, negotiating trade agreements, or in general threatening law breakers with violence. Adopting policies like other politicians actually undercuts this message, so Trump doesn’t bother with them. The convention managers last night might as well have emblazoned on the screen behind him Pontius Pilate’s words in presenting Jesus to the people of Jerusalem: Ecce homo! Behold the man!

Mr. Kilgore goes on to say that the strongman is reassuring to some, terrifying to others. This helps to explain the loyalty of Trump’s base and finally sheds a small glimmer of light on the ever-perplexing mystery of his popularity among evangelical Christians, whose stated beliefs are so starkly at odds with his rhetoric and life history. Central to Trump’s hold on his base is their authoritarianism. Matthew MacWilliams conducted a national poll of 1800 registered voters and published the results in Politico Magazine, titling his article “The One Weird Trait that Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter”:

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated? You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

The problem with the strongman and authoritarianism is that it’s so starkly at odds with our better nature as Americans. To be sure, we have a long, dark history of human rights abuses, beginning with our robbing Native Americans of their ancestral home and continuing with kidnapping and enslavement of Africans, followed by another century of Jim Crow laws and oppression. Collectively we’re not exactly saints, but there is what we like to think of as our better nature: the part of us that promotes justice; that has fought against racism and extended equal rights to oppressed people; that hears the voices of Native Americans trying desperately to protect the remnants of their ancestral places from being raped by more corporate greed; that rushes to the aid of suffering people around the world; that says “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”; the part that has made us—with all of our sins—the shining example of democracy and human goodness.

The world is changing. Even in the country where we’ve always thought we were safe because we had abundant resources and power, and we’ve always come out on top in international conflicts, we’re now seeing other countries developing nuclear capabilities; we see leaders who don’t like us and who have not only the desire but potentially the ability to do us great harm. Our feeling of security is being threatened, and many now see the strongman as our only hope for peace and safety.

As ludicrous as the Orange Man’s promises are to many of us, many others see a system that has been increasingly rigged against them, that has ignored their ideas and needs and pandered to the richer and more powerful. The problem, and the enemy, in their minds is the government. Now someone who could possibly become the leader of that government has become their spokesman, voicing their sentiments, admitting that the system is rigged against them, and in true authoritarian fashion is assuring them that he will change it all and make their lives better.

Dan Rather wrote:

It was John Adams who penned the phrase, “a government of laws, and not of men.” This is how our Founding Fathers saw our national destiny. This is the spirit that our citizens, over the ages, have demanded of our political leaders follow. I suspect it is something most Americans still believe.

A government of laws. That’s our Constitution, the document which assigns power and authority to lawmakers and with which all of their actions must agree. Our Constitution calls for a separation of powers, our founders’ plan for making sure our nation would never be at the mercy of a strongman. The executive branch of our government must work with the legislative and the judicial branches; a president has limited power to act independently; but he can’t build 1900-mile walls, ban religious groups from entering the country, or deport 11 million people on his own. And such things can’t be accomplished within a week of a new president’s taking office; there’s a protocol in place for congressional action, which as we all know, can be a tortuous process which can takes months or even years. Donald Trump doesn’t know any of that, because he doesn’t read and has no experience with government; he knows only his own need for power.

A government not of men. That was the promise of our founders that our system of government would never allow for a strongman, a dictator, but that power would always rest on the will of the people expressed through their representatives who would be guided by our Constitution, “the Law of the Land.” And we’ve always felt secure in the belief that the atrocities we’ve seen happen in other countries couldn’t happen here.

Until now. Now we have a strongman who has captured the hearts and minds and unwavering loyalty of millions of our fellow citizens. According to MacWilliams, authoritarians “respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.” Sound familiar? This tells us that at the root of authoritarianism is fear: fear of government, fear of oppression, fear of attack, fear of one’s own powerlessness against hostility. What’s the answer? The strongman: the person who “alone can fix it.” What authoritarians fail to recognize at the outset, however, is that such protection—even if it is real—comes at a high price. The problems they see in the current situation are nothing compared to the system that will be created by the strongman once in charge.

But that can’t happen here. This is the U.S.A. We don’t do things like that. Really? An authoritarian leader has a rabid core of supporters who will vote for him even if he grabs every single one of them by the crotch; and there are millions of them. He won the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the U.S.A. He’s polling in the 30% and 40% range for winning the presidency of the United States; unless he increases that percentage, he’ll lose, but let it sink in that over a third of your fellow citizens plan to cast their sacred vote for this empty suit. And last of all, the threat has been issued: this person plans to punish his political opponent if he is elected. It couldn’t happen here? It’s already happening. And we alone can fix it, through the power of the vote.

Since the root cause of attraction to authoritarian leaders is fear, we’d do well to remember these words from Martin Luther King:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

When You’re a Star, You Can Do Anything–and Not Lose Votes!

Friday, October 7, should have been the day when Donald J. Trump had the decency to announce that he is ending his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Actually, there have been many days when revelations about his past and his basic character should have ended his candidacy and would have ended it for anyone else who has ever sought our highest office. But since Trump has never been held to the usual standards, we can only guess how long the outrage over the hot-mic tape will last or how many endorsements he will lose because of it. The degree to which the general electorate has gone into the gutter with this person is appalling and frightening.

At the heart of his lewd comments in the tape released on Friday by the Washington Post is his statement:

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p—y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

In Trump’s view, celebrity has its privilege. No one says “No” to power. Even more shameful for us as a culture is that when you’re a celebrity, “You can do anything” and people will still vote for you and one of our two major parties will still support you as their candidate for leader of the free world.

Emma Gray, in a Huffington Post article titled “Trump’s Latest Comments about Women Are Rape Culture in a Nutshell,” says:

As he says to Bush: “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

This is what rape culture looks like.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens explicitly connected Trump’s 2005 commentary to sexual violence.

“What Trump described in these tapes amounts to sexual assault,” she said. “Trump’s behavior is disgusting and unacceptable in any context, and it is disqualifying for a man who is running for president of this country.”

And what was Trump’s immediate response?

“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close,” Trump said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I apologize if anyone was offended.”

Where does one even begin on this statement? The tape in question was captured in 2005, eleven years ago. That means he was 59 at the time he made these comments and only a few months into his third marriage. His first four children were ages 28, 24, 21, and 12.

So a married man with grown-up children who work for him and look to him as a role model admits of an unnamed woman:

“I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it.”

“I did try and fuck her,” Trump added. “She was married.”

He said he moved on the woman “very heavily,” even taking her furniture shopping. “

I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”

This is what a person with no shred of moral decency calls “locker room banter.” He was 59 years old, not in junior high; and he was not just talking about a girl he thought was “hot.” He was bragging about his sexual assaults on women. As a words person, I can’t get past his choice of “banter.” According to the first dictionary I grabbed off my shelf, “banter” is “good-humored, playful conversation.” There is nothing good-humored or playful about sexual assault, adultery, or being a scumbag father.

Many years ago? Eleven years is not all that long. Eleven years ago, the 9/11 attacks were already four years in the past, George W. Bush was president, I was still coloring my hair, and my daughter who is now a 34-year-old mother of two was a 23-year-old bride. I remember that day as if it were yesterday. By contrast, Bill Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001; so his well-known infidelities during his presidency happened years before 2005, yet Trump isn’t willing to give Clinton the same leniency he claims for himself.

Trump’s first two sentences—“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course ― not even close”—can be boiled down to “Boys will be boys.” This is just how guys talk when no one else is listening. Not only should every woman in the world be outraged by Trump’s making light of sexual assault but every man should be outraged by the suggestion that this kind of talk is part of “boy culture.”

Don’t even get me started on the non-apology: “If I’ve offended anyone . . . “! The media have spent the last fifteen or so months mining every statement that has come out of Trump’s mouth for any small nugget of sanity or decency; so when they came across the word “apologize,” you’d have thought they discovered gold or struck oil. Fortunately, many of them are intelligent enough to acknowledge that throwing the word “apologize” into a sentence in no way makes it a real apology and have publicly said so.

Mentioning things which Bill Clinton allegedly said is the standard school-yard defense: “Well, Billy Clinton said it first” or “Billy Clinton said worse things than I did.”

Billy Bush doesn’t get a pass here, but at least his statement comes closer to being a true apology:

“Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened eleven years ago — I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Although Bush also tries to play down the impact of his actions by pointing out that he was younger and less mature, he does at least admit to being embarrassed and ashamed and says “I’m very sorry,” without adding the caveat “IF anyone was offended.” He does seem to understand that his actions and words were offensive, which shows some small sign of a conscience. It should be noted, however, that in 2005 he was 34 years old—plenty old enough to know better.

Trump’s vulgar words were said eleven years ago, but his slimy response to them was spoken yesterday. He still doesn’t know that people ARE rightfully offended by this kind of trashy talk; and he still, at 70 years old, doesn’t understand what real contrition is or what constitutes a sincere apology. The only thing Donald Trump is sorry about is that the Washington Post got its hands on this tape. And this is a person who, a mere one month from today, could be elected as this nation’s president and commander-in-chief and the leader of the free world. God help us all!

Finally, after hours of hunkering down in his golden tower with his panicky campaign staff, Trump issued a video “apology,” which Paige Lavender of the Huffington Post amusingly calls a “hostage tape.” He begins this attempt at damage control with the statement, “Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am . . . I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” Actually, Donald, as you would say into your “faulty mic,” “Wrong!” We voters are learning more and more about who you are, and these words reflect your character exactly. In fact, you should know that few of us were really even shocked, because the person in this video is the person we’ve been watching and reading about for over a year. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Trump further invalidates his “apology” by returning to the school-yard tactics of talking about things Billy Clinton has done. In fact, nothing in the “hostage video” speaks of contrition or remorse. He sounds defiant, unrepentant, and evasive. He moves quickly from “I apologize” to brushing off the whole incident and trying to return to his lame, tired “campaign” lines and his attacks on Bill Clinton, who it bears noting is NOT on the ballot this November.

The only remaining question is WHY on earth anyone is still voting for this sexual predator! I guess he said it best: “When you’re a star, you can do anything.” To anyone still even considering voting for Donald Trump, you’ve been raped and you don’t even know it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Sometimes a Conscience Needs a Reboot

I grew up with such advice as “Always listen to your conscience,” “Follow your conscience,” and “Let your conscience be your guide.” Henry David Thoreau—in one of my favorite essays, “Civil Disobedience”—says the conscience is the highest authority, superseding the laws of one’s state or country. As members of the electorate, we’re often advised, “Vote your conscience.” Although all of those statements sound right and wise, they’re actually misleading. It may sound as if the conscience is the voice of the universe, which speaks the same language into the soul of every person. As we go through life, however, we learn a very different reality.

The conscience is not a single voice that speaks the same things to all, and conflicting loyalties and cross currents in life can make the conscience a confusing set of voices which don’t provide much of a guide at all. Adding to the confusion is the fact that what we believe is the conscience speaking is often our prejudices. And then there are some people whose consciences can’t be trusted at all, and we’d be scared of the results if they were to follow the advice “Let your conscience be your guide.”

Since at least the time of Socrates, philosophers have examined the concept of conscience, and so much has been written on the subject that it would take a long time to read and absorb it all. So I’m just going to select a few brief passages to illustrate the complexity of understanding the human conscience.

Larry May, in his article “On Conscience,” in the January 1983 edition of The American Philosophical Quarterly, compares conscience to virtue:

Conscience, like virtue, is a capacity which leads to socially beneficial consequences in those who develop it. . . .  Conscience places barriers in one’s path which contribute to the avoidance of wrong-doing. Yet conscience, unlike the virtues, seems to be grounded in a concern for the self, for the self’s inner harmony . . . Conscience does seem to be different from virtue in that it proceeds from and remains closely allied with self-love. [Conscience is] an egoistic concern which nonetheless leads to restraints on selfishness.

According to Mr. May, the chief end of the conscience is to act as inner peace keeper, not to make the world at large a better place.

Simpler definitions are found in a variety of online dictionaries:

An inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one’s behavior.

 

The feeling that you know and should do what is right and should avoid doing what is wrong, and that makes you feel guilty when you have done something you know is wrong.

Anyone who’s ever wrestled with a guilty conscience—and that’s all of us—knows it’s not a pleasant experience. So what Larry May says about the conscience’s primary purpose being to act as inner peace keeper sounds reasonable.

These simple definitions, however, raise more questions than they answer. If everyone follows their conscience and votes their conscience, why do we not all do the same things and vote for the same candidate? And if the conscience is the inner peace keeper, how the heck can some people do some really awful things yet never seem to feel guilty about them? Do you think Hitler had a hard time sleeping at night, tossing and turning as he thought of all the Jews and other people his minions were torturing and murdering? Most of us would feel more guilt for accidentally running over a squirrel with our cars than Hitler visibly showed for torturing and murdering millions of human beings.

Most discussions of conscience include the concepts that the conscience is those internalized social norms which help individuals make distinctions between what is right and what is wrong and which cause individuals inner guilt and pain after knowingly violating those norms. But that leads us right back to the question of why we don’t all have the same sense of what is right and what is wrong. Obviously, we’ve internalized different norms, determined by the teachings of our parents, our schools, and our religious affiliations or lack thereof, to name a few.

I know people who don’t believe in killing insects, even the scourge of Florida living: the cockroach. Their consciences would make them feel very guilty if they were to violate that social/ethical norm. I, on the other hand, can viciously murder a cockroach without the slightest twitch of guilt if it dares to invade my home. I leave them alone outside, but the occasional one that has the audacity to cross my threshold will be murdered, and I will celebrate its death. Don’t judge.

I was raised in a fundamentalist religious household; the church which my family belonged to taught us a long list of “sins”: drinking, smoking, dancing, watching Hollywood movies, and a whole lot more that you wouldn’t even believe. My first task as an adult was to begin retraining my conscience to stop feeling guilty every time I entered a movie theater or drank a glass of wine. I’ve looked over my shoulder many times in the wine aisle of the supermarket, knowing intellectually that I had nothing to feel guilty about; but that stupid conscience just wouldn’t shut up.

So for some of us, the social norms we internalized were a bit extreme, causing our consciences to be overactive and need retraining to function more normally. The vast majority of the people I know have never experienced the slightest twinge of guilt when entering a movie theater, since that taboo was never included in their social norms.

People raised in the Jim Crow South didn’t feel guilty about what we today see as blatant, extreme racism, because their social norms included the idea that the black race was inferior and that the white majority was therefore justified in not treating them as equals. That sounds outrageous—and it IS outrageous—but to many people in my youth and way before I was born, that made perfect sense.

We all know those racist attitudes didn’t simply evaporate when the Civil Rights laws acknowledged equal rights for every citizen, regardless of race or skin color. Since expressing such attitudes publicly was no longer acceptable, however, those who held onto their prejudices no longer felt free to voice them. So for them, their silence on the subject had nothing to do with their consciences; they simply didn’t want to be socially ostracized.

Other people negotiate deals with their consciences to keep them quiet: I’m justified in doing x because someone did y or z to me. As a very young woman, I worked briefly with a middle-aged woman who had engaged in a long-term extramarital affair; and even though extramarital affairs violate nearly every ethical code and set of social norms, her conscience was fine with her actions because she’d struck a deal with it. Her first husband had cheated on her, and she’d divorced him because of it; her second husband was a model of love and faithfulness, but she cheated on him. Her justification was “I never did it until it was done to me.” Never mind that the person she was doing it to was not the same person who did it to her.

This, of course, is called rationalizing, and most of us have learned that it can be quite an effective way to quiet a troublesome conscience. We justify everything from disregarding our parents’ instructions as children to shirking our professional responsibilities to treating other people with disrespect because of things they’ve done to us or because we’ve decided for the purpose of building our case that they’re not good people and not worthy of proper treatment from us.

It’s safe to conclude, then, that the conscience is an unreliable, inconsistent guide to our actions. In fact, in some cases, it’s hard to distinguish conscience from prejudice or rationalization. Hitler rationalized that certain groups of people—Jews and others—were inferior and therefore needed to be eradicated; so instead of feeling guilty, he believed he was doing the world a service by being the one to perform the extermination.

The loud, rowdy, vile chanters at some presidential campaign rallies are among those who’ve simply felt the social pressure to keep quiet about their prejudices until someone came along who created a new social environment in which bigotry and violence are the accepted norms. For them, voting their consciences would in reality be voting their prejudices, because their consciences have accepted norms that deviate from every standard of what is good and moral.

The New Testament writer Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, speaks of a seared conscience: one which has accepted so much wrongdoing that it no longer has the ability to feel guilt, as skin that has been seared, or badly burned, no longer feels the sensation of pain. Most people can relate to that idea on a limited level. You broke a house rule as a teenager, and your conscience went into full inner turmoil; but because it was so much fun or your peers encouraged you to continue participating, the guilt lessened with each repetition. I think lots of voters, particularly those at the rowdy rallies, have such numbed consciences that their conscience votes can’t be trusted at all.

Many voters’ consciences pivot on a single issue, such as their disapproval of abortion. Their consciences simply won’t allow them to vote for a candidate who openly supports legal abortion, even though that candidate—if elected—would have little to no power to affect the abortion laws one way or the other. That means that their consciences then have to accept faults in the other candidate—faults which will strongly affect that candidate’s performance if elected—and that just doesn’t make much sense to me. As I’ve said before, I support having a more rational conversation about abortion, since it is an issue that has so deeply divided us as a country for so long. But single-issue voting can’t possibly be consistent. If your conscience’s rejection of the pro-choice candidate means it has to accept the pro-bigotry, pro-violence, pro-lying, pro-cheating, pro-unethical and possibly pro-illegal business dealings candidate, your conscience is really screwed up and it really needs a reboot.

Clay Shirky, in his Huffington Post article “There’s No Such Thing as a Protest Vote,” gives all of our consciences some things to chew on:

We’re in the season of protest vote advocacy, with writers of all political stripes making arguments for third-party candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson), write-in votes (Bernie Sanders, Rod Silva), or refusing to vote altogether (#NeverTrump,#BernieOrBust.) For all the eloquence and passion and rage in these arguments, however, they suffer from a common flaw: there is no such thing as a protest vote.

The authors of these pieces rarely line up their preferred Presidential voting strategies — third-party, write-in, refusal — with the electoral system as it actually exists. In 2016, that system will offer 130 million or so voters just three options:

  1. I prefer Donald Trump be president, rather than Hillary Clinton.
  2. I prefer Hillary Clinton be president, rather than Donald Trump.
  3. Whatever everybody else decides is OK with me.

That’s it. Those are the choices. All strategies other than a preference for Trump over Clinton or vice-versa reduce to Option C.

Voting is not all about how virtuous and moral it makes us feel; it’s about intellectually deciding what is best for the prosperity and security of our country. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about your conscience if our national security and our world standing are jeopardized because your conscience won’t allow you to vote for someone who supports Planned Parenthood. Get a grip!

I guess the only way to conclude here is to say that if you’re going to vote your conscience, you’d better first examine your conscience and, if necessary, talk some sense into it. We’re all in this together, so we owe it to each other to get it right.

 

 

Categories
Politics

Changing the Narratives

Everybody has a story; and factual or not, that story–or narrative–forms the lens through which each person is judged. Remember when your mom taught you that you should always strive to make a good first impression because “First impressions are lasting impressions”? Your mom may not have known it, but she was talking about narratives. That first impression becomes the lens through which everything else you learn about a person is viewed, and any new information that conflicts with the first impression is either twisted to fit the narrative or discarded because it won’t fit.

A few years ago, I met one of my neighbors from down the street for the first time. She was falling-down drunk in her front yard, trying to catch her little dog that had run across the street. I’m not really sure if I’ve ever met that neighbor again; but if I ever do, I’ll have to make a conscious effort to erase the image of her ridiculously sprawled on the grass and create a new narrative in my mind reflecting who she really is when she hasn’t emptied too many glasses.

Biblical literalists have been known to measure whales’ stomachs and study their digestive systems searching for proof that Jonah really could have gone down that whale’s esophagus, survived three days in its belly, been puked up on shore, and gone about his business only a little smellier for the experience. Those willing to consider a different narrative, however, find that the real message of Jonah is so much more important than whales and their digestive systems. The reason Jonah was headed in the wrong direction is the first place is that he was sent to express God’s love to a group of people he deemed unworthy of God’s love or of their fellow humans’ love and respect. What Jonah really teaches us is about our relationship with and attitude toward people who are different from us, whom we see as the “other.”

It takes time and a concentrated effort to change a narrative—or, as your mom called it, a first impression—once it’s set. Unfortunately, many people are the products of schools which for several decades have been so focused on teaching students to pass high-stakes standardized tests that they’ve had no time in the curriculum to teach critical thinking: challenging narratives and assumptions, analyzing sources of information, or even the necessity of having sources outside one’s own narrow “opinions” and biases. Add to that the overall dumbing down of our electorate and the anti-intellectualism that has dominated the last few decades, and it’s not too difficult to understand why we’re in the shape we’re in.

I watched an online video this morning in which Jordan Klepper, in a sort of man-on-the-street segment on Trevor Noah’s The Daily Show, goes to a political rally to interview some of the attendees on their opinions of the presidential candidates. After hearing some pretty outrageous narratives, he asks for their sources; and the interviewees proudly admit their sources are Facebook, Twitter, and “my own opinion.” Most smug of all in her ignorance is the last woman interviewed: “Do I have proof? NO. Do I have articles? NO.” In response to the interviewer’s question “So your mind is made up without any information?” she proudly responds with a self-satisfied smile, “My mind is made up.” Wow. This is scary.

How is it possible for voters’ minds to be made up without any information? Narratives. It’s all about the narratives: those stories that have been embedded in their consciousness and into which they have to fit any new information they may happen to hear.

Think about it.

Jimmy Carter was the fumbling, bumbling nobody from Plains, Georgia. His arrival on the political scene was greeted by the question “Who the hell is Jimmy Carter?” Largely ridiculed during his one-term presidency, he left office in 1981 widely regarded as a failure and an object of derision.

John F. Kennedy was the first member of the Catholic faith to become president. I remember hearing concerns that the Pope might wield too much power over U. S. affairs because of the narrative regarding his total authority over all members of the Catholic Church.

Ronald Reagan was a divorcee. Could a divorced person be president? Not according to the narratives of the time.

Lyndon Johnson was sworn into office on November 22, 1963, aboard Air Force One, just before it departed for the return trip from Dallas to Washington, DC. He became president amid conspiracy theories that he had been complicit in John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

President Obama is a Muslim. He was not born in America and is therefore not a citizen and not qualified to be president. He founded ISIS. He’s an ISIS sympathizer.

Hillary Clinton is a cold, aloof, deceptive, lying, murdering criminal who should be locked up. Oh, and she cofounded ISIS.

Donald Trump is a wildly successful businessman who would bring his financial acumen to the oval office and clean up our country’s debt problems. Also, he “shoots from the hip” (so does your drunk uncle) and therefore must be honest.

Jimmy Carter has overcome the narrative that accompanied him onto the public stage; he is now a Nobel Prize winner and the model ex-president. Historian Richard Norton Smith, cited in a New York Times opinion piece by James Warren,  says of Carter, “He invented the modern ex-presidency.” George Edwards III is quoted in the same article: “He’s shown how a former President can use his fame, status, connections and talent to make the world a better place.”

During President Kennedy’s brief time in office, the narrative of the Pope’s influence was dispelled; but after his death, we learned a new narrative which was not public information during his time in office because the media had not yet taken up round-the-clock stalking and the 24-hour news cycle was still a thing of the future. The new narrative about President Kennedy revolves around his dalliances with many women, and his relationship with Marilyn Monroe seems at times to have eclipsed his accomplishments as president.

President Johnson went on to sign the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts and is also credited with a long list of other significant domestic accomplishments, including overseeing the first manned flight to the moon and appointing the first African-American justice, Thurgood Marshall, to the Supreme Court. People pretty much forgot about the conspiracy theory narratives and replaced them with narratives recognizing his accomplishments.

Narratives can change, but change is usually slow, and many people resist change, a fact most graphically demonstrated in today’s refusal to believe any facts which don’t fit the narratives about our presidential candidates. Judd Legum, Editor-in-Chief of Think Progress, cites statistics from PPP (Public Policy Polling) showing that 65% of voters favoring Trump believe that President Obama is a Muslim. All facts, including his many personal expressions of his Christian faith, are wasted on those people, because when the facts don’t fit the narrative, the facts are discarded—not the narrative. According to that same article, 59% of Trump supporters believe—regardless of the overwhelming facts to the contrary—that our president was not born in the United States. When there’s a controversy, narratives win over facts far, far too often.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you just read an article about a woman named Gertrude McClintock. This article speaks of Gertrude’s brilliance and accomplishment. She began as a teenager, when many young people are interested only in partying and having fun, to take an active part in political activities and was inspired by Martin Luther King to enter a life of public service. She graduated with honors from Wellesley College, having served as senior class president, and went on to earn a law degree from Yale University.

During her summers as a college student, Gertrude continued her activity in politics. She served as staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund and a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. She cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, in alliance with the Children’s Defense Fund. She went on the serve as a very active First Lady of the United States, a U. S. Senator, and U. S. Secretary of State. The rest of the article is filled with enough other credentials and accomplishments to make your head spin. You’d probably think, “Wow! This Gertrude is amazing! How could one woman do all of that? I wonder if she’d ever consider running for president?”

Then we change the name from Gertrude McClintock to Hillary Clinton, and the narratives of Crooked Hillary, Lying Hillary, HilLIARy, eclipse ALL of the facts; the facts become meaningless because they don’t fit the narrative. It’s impossible for some to think of her as simply a clueless Baby Boomer who’s a little slow picking up on technology because their narrative says she’s crooked and evil, and she was intentionally subversive in her use of the wrong kind of email server. Even the testimony of the FBI Director is suspect for those blinded by the old narrative; instead of accepting his word for her innocence, they conclude that he obviously can’t be trusted either because his conclusion doesn’t fit their predetermined belief. No matter what she does, it is interpreted through the assumption of criminality.

Now imagine that every day for over a year, you’ve heard about the outrageous antics of Elmer Jones. Elmer has insulted every group of people in existence, he has criminal suits pending against him for fraud and child rape, he owns a lot of companies which send jobs overseas, he has a long history of stiffing the people who work for him on his big buildings and has ruined many small businesses, he even stiffed some little girls who sang at his convention, the only person who has benefited from his “charitable” foundation is himself, he is proven by Politifact to lie 71% of the time, he’s had four bankruptcies and three wives, he’s cheated on at least two of his three wives, he’s boasted publicly of his sexual exploits, he has discussed the size of his penis on national TV, and he has committed about a hundred or so other egregious acts. Elmer would rightfully earn your and everyone else’s disdain, he would never so much as be considered for public office, and he would quite possibly be in jail.

But change that name to Donald Trump, and those facts suddenly become meaningless, because the narrative is that he’s the consummate businessman who is worth ten billion dollars and therefore obviously knows what he’s doing. Also, his lack of political correctness and his reckless speech mean he is honest; so Politifact is clearly just a left-wing propaganda machine trying to discredit this good person. Of course, he is doing his part to see that the narratives don’t change by refusing to release the evidence of his fraud: his tax returns.

The most dangerous false narrative is that Clinton and Trump are equivalent choices, as would be the case in most presidential elections. Even a quick look at the facts would belie this narrative, but we’ve already seen that narratives supersede facts most of the time. This narrative is the one, however, that we must let go of. There is no equivalence between these two candidates, and treating them as equal but different is what has led us to the scary place where we are now.

The Republican Party narrative has also contributed to the problem. It is the party of family values and conservatism, although neither of these labels is supported by the current facts. Yet the power of the narrative compels party-line voters to believe it is their duty to support a con man in order to preserve the alleged values of their party.

Narratives can be changed, but it’s hard work; and lots of forces are at work to prevent changes in our thinking. Fear of rejection by one’s tribe wields a powerful influence. I know since I could list at least half a dozen topics which are avoided among various members of my own family because maintaining the family relationships is more important than being “right” about those topics. But we have to do better than we’re doing now. Facts matter. Say it with me: FACTS. MATTER.

 

Categories
Politics

A Tisket, a Tasket, What’s inside Your Basket?

Hillary Clinton said Donald Trump’s supporters can be placed into two baskets: the “deplorables” and the people who are “desperate for change.” I’ve taken the liberty of creating my own categories: The Deplorables, the Government Haters, the Party Liners, the Trump Book Club, and the Hillary Haters. Not all of these people are bad, of course; but their votes will all contribute to an unprecedented disaster in our government, our national security, and the status of the United States of America on the world stage.

Let’s go ahead and talk about the “deplorables” first since they are the scariest ones. I applaud Mrs. Clinton for calling them what they are, and I believe she should neither recant nor apologize for her statement. Trump’s most rabid supporters are angry white men, many of whom are racists who identify themselves with the alt-right, a group that promotes white supremacy and who are—according to NPR—against “multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and, above all, political correctness.”

Sound familiar? Those are the very pillars on which Donald Trump has built his preposterous “presidential campaign.” Flying in the face of political correctness was his rallying cry, and these alt-right supporters, according to Nicole Hemmer, see political correctness “as the greatest threat to their liberty” (quoted by NPR). Ms. Hemmer goes on to say, “They believe saying racist or anti-Semitic things . . . is not an act of hate, but an act of freedom.”

As if having alt-right people and David Duke sympathizers as followers were not enough, Trump hired the man who gave this fledgling group a platform—Steve Bannon—to be the CEO of his then floundering campaign.

Those who cheer for Trump’s racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic rants, who chant “Lock her up!” whenever he mentions Hillary Clinton’s name, who believe every bit of vomit that spews from his mouth and stand ready to use violence if necessary to support him are indeed deplorable and a menace to our society.

Not all of Trump’s supporters, however, fall into this category, or to use Hillary Clinton’s word, “basket.” The other groups I have mentioned are not deplorable; in fact, some are pitiable, but they are no less a threat. The deplorables won’t change; they have dark, menacing ideas, and Trump has given them credibility and a safe place to vent their bile and venom. The other groups of Trump supporters are not dangerous in themselves; but ballot counters don’t count motive, so they are just as hazardous as the alt-right people.

Most pitiable of all Trump supporters are the Government Haters. These people are so unhappy with their lot in life that they grasp every delusional word Trump says as if it were a lifeboat that would take them to a better place. In the greatest and richest country on earth, millions of people feel so angry, so betrayed, so powerless, so disenfranchised, so cheated, and so dehumanized by their government and their politicians that the rantings of a crazy man sound like words of hope and promise!

Hillary Clinton describes them this way:

people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

I’ve often said that Trump is the effect, not the cause. Anti-intellectualism, failing schools, failing churches, hatred, prejudice of all sorts, political polarization—these are our real problems. Trump simply played on people’s vulnerability, the spineless Republican Party allowed him to take over, and the even more spineless media gave him the free air time to do so. The Government Haters are correct in much of what they say but sadly misguided in what they see as the solution. Their messiah is using them to achieve his goal but would do little for them if elected.

Then there are the Party Line Republicans. They’d vote for a hamster if the Republican Party nominated it. In all fairness, some Democrats would do the same for their party; and party loyalty is not all bad. It becomes problematic, however, when loyalty to party supersedes loyalty to country. President Obama is credited with the statement that we are not red states and blue states; we are the United States. When either party loses its mind and nominates a menace to our democracy as its presidential candidate, every citizen—regardless of party affiliation—should unite to extinguish that threat and keep our country united and safe. The Party Liners are not deplorable, just naïve and misguided.

Certain members of the Party Liners, however, are deplorable: the high-ranking Republicans such as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and the snake in the grass Reince Preibus, who don’t agree with a word Trump says but urge voters to support the party candidate. With leadership like that, the party as we know it is in danger of extinction. But that won’t affect Trump since–even though he’s riding on the wave of party loyalty–he himself has no loyalty to any party. Now that he’s built his mob of supporters who are loyal to him alone, he doesn’t need the support of any party; and he would certainly not work with any party if elected. A demagogue’s power comes from his exploitation of crowd passions, not from checks and balances or due process.

Next up are the Trump Book Club. Book? Oh, that’s right, Trump doesn’t read; and neither do these followers. They’re not bad people; they’re just used to trusting the process to the “experts” and showing up on voting day to follow their leaders’ recommendations. Many in this group pride themselves on “doing their own research,” but that usually means seeking and following the opinions of sources who lean the same direction they do and scoffing at anything which challenges their personal biases. They’re not deplorable, but they are a threat because they’re not informed enough to know what they don’t know.

For me, the most disturbing group in this election cycle is the Hillary Haters. I’m not saying Mrs. Clinton is above criticism or that all of the criticisms against her are unjustified. She has spent her entire life in public service, so she has made mistakes along the way. Ever make a mistake on your job? I made my share of them. Anyone who’s doing anything is going to screw up periodically, and the more a person is doing the more opportunities there are for screw-ups.

What’s disturbing to me about the Hillary Haters is that most of them have bought the false narratives spread by her enemies and have closed their minds to any information that contradicts those narratives. This weekend, I read an excellent article called “Media Narratives Imprison Clinton, Trump—and Voters,” by Neal Gabler (published on Moyers and Company). Mr. Gabler’s premise is that narratives drive election coverage and largely contribute to elections’ outcomes. He explains:

Narratives are the stories and characteristics that the media attach to candidates, so the election turns into a “movie” pitting one protagonist’s qualities against another’s. In this election, we all know the narrative constructs because the media hammer at them day after day after day: Hillary Clinton is a cold, secretive, defensive liar who is nevertheless competent; Donald Trump is a loose cannon who is nevertheless plain-spoken and says exactly what’s on his mind. The media never deviate from these ideas. Indeed, they are high-security prisons from which the candidates cannot escape.

Applied to Mrs. Clinton, this means that

No matter what Clinton says or does, it will always be filtered through the pre-existing scrim. If she talks policy, she is cold. If she insists — rightfully, to my mind — that the email brouhaha is a molehill turned into not just any mountain but Everest, she is defensive. If she meets, as every politician does, with friends and favor-seekers, she is corrupt, whether she has doled out favors or not. These are the traits the media have assigned to her.

Gabler goes on to comment on the Trump narratives and then makes this comparison:

But you may have noticed something. Even the negative attributes the media have slapped on Trump . . . are better than the ones they have put on Clinton. Her actions can all be chalked up to duplicity; Trump’s, on the other hand, to his politically incorrect honesty. Never mind that Trump may be, if you follow PolitiFact, the single most mendacious [For the Trump Book Club people, that means lying] candidate in the history of presidential politics.

In another article, Neal Gabler says:

The bigger point is this: whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didn’t create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals. The media just kept hunting for those scandals as confirmation of what they had already determined. That is how so many in the MSM work — backwards from presumption to incident. It also happens to be the surest path to career advancement for journalistic opportunists. (“The Media Have a Hillary Story and They’re Sticking to It,” Moyers and Company)

The obvious problem here is that voters have been so conditioned by these narratives that no amount of information about Trump’s criminal activity or his sleazy lifestyle can overcome the narrative that he’s just a straight shooter who wants to help the underdogs. And the much-publicized lists of bankruptcies, failed businesses, and frauds can’t tarnish the narrative that he’s the consummate businessman who will apply the skills that have made him a multi-billionaire (although we will never know his actual net worth) to the national budget and make the country financially great again.

As for Hillary Clinton, the press has never cared much for her or her husband, so it’s unlikely she’ll ever get a break. Press treatment of them is similar to the biblical literalists’ making up a doctrine or taking a position and then going through the scriptures in search of “proof” for their preexisting belief.

If she has a case of walking pneumonia, instead of giving her credit for being tough enough to work through it, they’ll dedicate the next several days’ news cycles to showing how this proves that she really is dishonest and deceptive because she didn’t make a public announcement the minute she was diagnosed. And they’ll demand that she release even more medical records to prove she isn’t hiding anything else. Never mind that her opponent has released a tiny fraction of what she has.

The Hillary Haters are not exactly deplorable, but they’re misguided, and they can be appallingly nasty. Like the media’s, their narrative is embedded, and anything she does will be viewed through that lens. Even when Politifact calls her the most honest candidate they’ve fact checked, her haters call Politifact a phony liberal organization that supports her evil agenda.

Washington Post writer Robert Kagan offers this astute summary:

What Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up. (“This Is How Fascism Comes to America,” 18 May 2016)

The prospect of a Trump presidency is deplorable. The groups who vote for him have different backgrounds and reasons for their choice, but a vote is a vote; and every one of them is contributing to the apocalypse that will befall if this know-nothing is elected. Time to wake up!

 

 

 

 

 

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 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.