Categories
Politics

Pee-Wee Herman Politics

During my sons’ tween-age years, Pee-Wee Herman, a character played by actor Paul Reubens, was frequently on the screen in our house; so my sons adopted Pee-Wee’s favorite retort to an insult: “I know you are, but what am I?” For example, “You’re an idiot, Pee-Wee.” Pee-Wee’s response: “I know you are, but what am I?” Mr. Reubens’ career ended after an incident that just begs for an off-color joke; but moving along, the saying remained one of our favorite humorous comebacks for quite some time.

Never could I have imagined I’d see the day when a comedian’s schtick would go to the mainstream political arena, but here we are. Donald Trump’s first notable “I know you are, but what am I?” moment came during the third presidential debate of 2016. Hillary Clinton confronted Donald Trump about the campaign help he was receiving from Russia, saying Putin would love to see Trump elected, because Putin would then have a puppet in our White House. Trump shot back, “No puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet.” No one would be surprised by that comeback in a fifth-grade classroom; but on the stage of a presidential debate, we expect more: counter-arguments supported by facts and examples.

Sadly for all of us, real arguments based on facts are now only a dim memory, replaced by Pee-Wee Herman Politics.

Our national intelligence agencies have clearly established the fact that Russia conducted coordinated, widespread efforts to influence our 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Witnesses presented compelling evidence to prove Donald Trump–in a phone call made from the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office–attempted to enlist Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s assistance in finding “dirt” on Joe Biden that could be used to discredit him with voters. All of these incidents are well documented with fact, yet they have become part of the narrative reversal that is driving the 2020 presidential race.

The list of pending litigation against Donald Trump–much of which he will be forced to face when he no longer has the shield of the presidency to protect him–is pages long. His shady business dealings, both before and during his tenure in the White House, are well known and documented. What we have seen so far of his highly classified tax returns holds enough damning evidence to insure he could die behind bars. He has never divested himself from his businesses, while he has encouraged and required that they be used by government personnel, enriching himself by misusing his office for personal gain. And that doesn’t even include the times he and his family have used their official positions to hawk everything from beans to apparel.

Current figures estimate that $141,000,000 has been spent during the last almost four years on Trump’s golf outings, yet the faithful band of supporters praise his supposed donation of his $400,000 annual salary for being president. Even if he’s telling the truth about donating his salary, it would take 352 and a half years of that salary to equal what you and I have paid for his entertainment and negligence of his duties. That doesn’t exactly earn him a halo.

The Hatch Act of 1939 “prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while they are working in an official capacity,” but that law didn’t stop Donald Trump and the R.N.C. from using the White House as a venue for parts of their 2020 convention–most notably Trump’s acceptance speech, which included the requisite dictator-style balcony scene. At any other time in our post-1939 history, such theatrics would have been nixed in the planning stage; but the current unique combination of unhinged chief executive and corrupt, complicit political party have rendered complaints against abuse of power futile.

A prime example is the way Mitch McConnell goes stone-cold deaf any time his hypocrisy is pointed out; for example, his ramrodding Senate approval of a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election after denying so much as the courtesy of an interview with a candidate nominated eight months before an election. All of the righteous rhetoric of 2016 by McConnell and accomplices simply evaporated in 2020, and none of them seemed to notice or feel any sense of shame.

In true Pee-Wee Herman fashion, however, it’s Joe Biden who is now being portrayed to voters as a criminal, a would-be dictator, a person worthy of being locked up. Pee-Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I?” is a more modern twist on the line my classmates and I used on the school playground: “I’m rubber, you’re glue. Anything you say bounces off me and sticks on you.” And the narrative reversal technique is on full display everywhere I look.

In a quick scan of some rabid Trump supporters’ Facebook pages, I found these claims about Joe Biden:

A post exclaims that both the CIA and the FBI have been covering for the Obama/Biden administration by redacting evidence against them and that because of this tweet from Donald Trump, the forementioned folks will soon be going to jail. Hashtag OctoberSurprise. The Tweet:

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

Another post excoriates Democrats for putting the country through four years of “bullshit and lies” about Trump’s Russia ties, while lo and behold, it was actually Hillary Clinton who was doing the colluding all along.

Narrative reversal: It is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton who should be investigated and prosecuted for their complicity in Russia’s interference–not Donald Trump, who was “completely exonerated” (NOT) by the Mueller report. The problem with this narrative is that it is based on no credible evidence. Robert Mueller did not absolve Donald Trump of guilt; he simply declined to pursue prosecution against a sitting president. And no credible evidence has been presented to support the claim that members of the Obama administration colluded with Russia. So this tweet amounts to nothing more than a diversion from the facts and an attempt to retain the support of those gullible enough to believe anything Trump says and dismiss any facts to the contrary.

A September 9, 2020, headline in the conservative rag National Review reads:

“Bombshell Allegation: Hillary Orchestrated Collusion to Distract from Her Emails, According to Russian Intel.”

The article goes on to state, without evidence, that Hillary Clinton “signed off on the plan.”

A Twitter user, responding to Trump’s tweet about declassifying all documents relating to Russian election interference, says gleefully:

“When all of the documents are finally declassified, and all the redactions removed from reports, the nation will see that the FBI and CIA not only knew the Russia ‘collusion’ allegations against Trump were a political dirty trick, but they were in on the trick.”

Hashtags currently trending include #BidenCrimeFamily and #BeijingBiden. If those labels sound vaguely reminiscent of claims against Donald Trump and his family, you win the Pee-Wee Herman award for identifying “I know you are, but what am I?” ruses.

Aside from being a sign of desperation as polling numbers show a wider and wider gap in favor of Biden, the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” narrative reversal undermines the truth and serves to diffuse righteous indignation which should guide voters’ choices. Making “both sides” guilty of the same “crimes,” or attributing allegations against one side to the other, serve to neutralize the issue, and facts lose all relevance. When there is no authoritative source of truth, truth becomes whatever one chooses to believe; hence, confirmation bias (believing only that which supports one’s preconceived ideas) has become common among many of all persuasions. When we as a nation can no longer agree on what is true or credible, voters are left to choose according to visceral preferences, biases, and hearsay.

The New York Times, our nation’s oldest and most respected newspaper, is now a joke among those who have bought the “failing New York Times” and the broader “enemy of the people” epithets. Snopes and other fact-checkers are similarly scoffed at as liberal-leaning and untrustworthy. When the FBI and CIA are accused of being political operatives, we’re deep into dangerous territory. These are apolitical agencies whom we have always trusted to guard our national security, yet corrupt politicians have tarnished their credibility for personal gain and power. When our Justice Department is used as the personal legal team for the president, we’re equally at risk. We’re no longer kids on the playground, using silly retorts to deflect criticism. “Rubber-glue” narrative reversals have dire real-world consequences.

During this year’s final presidential debate, when Joe Biden attempted to press Donald Trump on the 545 children still held in cages by our government while no one knows where their parents are or how to find them, Trump offered no explanation except the lie, “They’re being treated very well.” Says the man who s*&ts on gold toilets. Trump’s only comeback was “Obama built the cages,” repeated several times. For once, he was telling the truth: President Obama did build the facilities, and I’m not even going to try to completely absolve him from guilt in the larger debacle.

What I do want to focus on is the way this narrative reversal enabled Trump to skirt the issue and deflect blame. President Obama built the facilities for a different reason, one that was relevant at the time; but he did not kidnap the 545 children in question, and he did not place the children in those cages, while making no attempt to keep track of their parents. Donald Trump alone is responsible for the kidnapping and imprisoning of these children, and no amount of narrative reversal can change the fact. And what has he done to end those children’s suffering? Sent his wife to visit, wearing a jacket that essentially said F you.

Even if Obama had placed them there (and he did not), Donald Trump has had almost four years in which to undo the damage, four years to show a glimmer of humanity and release those children either to their own parents or to caring people who would give them loving homes with beds in place of concrete floors; soft, warm, cozy blankets in place of mylar covers; a yard and fresh air in place of confinement; and a loving embrace to help ease the pain in which they have lived for three years. But what has he done about it? Nothing. Except blame Obama.

Possibly the most damaging effect of Pee-Wee Herman politics is that many voters seem confused about who is the incumbent in this election. Donald Trump has made it popular to counter every claim and campaign promise Joe Biden makes with the comeback, “You’ve had 47 years. Why haven’t you done this already?” Such an inane question doesn’t really deserve a response, but for those in the back row, Joe Biden has served as a senator and as a vice president. Neither of those offices is endowed with the same power or allows the same opportunities for unilateral action that the presidency does. One senator or vice president can effect change within the scope of their own office, but that scope is limited. Although Biden’s positions on issues can be discerned from his record in other offices, what he would accomplish in the office of president cannot be.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, should be called to account for what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish during the almost four years he has been president–something he has deftly avoided by employing Pee-Wee Herman Politics and flipping the narrative. Trump has for four years, five including his campaign, been promising a wonderful, beautiful health care plan that we’re all going to love. His efforts to strike down the ACA, now in the middle of an out-of-control pandemic, have been based on the promise of a better system. But where is it? He’s had four years. Why are 545 children still imprisoned, with no clue to their parents’ whereabouts? Why is he still “going to” make America great again? He’s had four years. Why does his campaign use images of this year’s civil unrest to show what life would be like during a Biden administration? This is what life has been like during a Trump administration. He’s had four years to be the “law and order” president. What has he done to make us safer?

In a typical election, the incumbent has the advantage of being able to point to achievements of his/her first term, on which he/she would like to build if given the chance for a second term. Who’s the incumbent here? Joe Biden is being held accountable for 47 years as a senator and vice president, but Donald Trump is not held accountable for four years as president. Does anyone else think that’s backward?

Pee-Wee Herman Politics trivializes a process that has life-and-death consequences; presidential elections are not child’s play. I close with an excerpt from a powerful speech by Senator Chuck Schumer, delivered on the eve of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, but I think perfectly applicable to the Republican Party’s last four years as a whole: the nomination of a reality-TV star for our highest office, the continued enabling of that “president’s” reign of chaos and his degradation of the office, allowing and repeating his lies, blocking his well-deserved impeachment, doing nothing to stop foreign interference in our elections, and allowing more than 230,000 people to die while they told us things are getting better and will magically go away at any moment.

“I want to be very clear with my Republican colleagues. You may win this vote.  . . . But you will never, never get your credibility back.  . . . You may win this vote. But in the process you will speed the precipitous decline of faith in our institutions, our politics, the Senate and the Supreme Court. You will give an already divided and angry nation a fresh outrage, and open a wound in this chamber that may never heal.

You walk a perilous road.

I know you think that this will eventually blow over. But you are wrong. The American people will never forget this blatant act of bad faith. They will never forget your complete disregard for their voices, for the people standing in line right now voting their choice, not your choice.

They will never forget the lack of consistency, honor, decency, fairness and principle.”

You know what to do: Vote like your life depends on it. When my grandchildren are older and living the results of our choices, I want to be able to tell them I stood on the right side of history. Your vote will have consequences far beyond your lifetime. Vote like your children’s and grandchildren’s lives depend on it. They do.

Categories
Politics

What’s So Bad about Donald Trump?

I’ve been forced to ask myself this question in recent months because what I have assumed should be too glaringly obvious to require explanation is clearly not obvious to about 42 percent of my fellow citizens. That’s the percentage who, according to this week’s polls, plan to vote for Trump’s re-election. Because there’s such a close margin between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, we could easily be facing the dire prospect of Trump’s remaining in office for an undetermined number of years, as he suggested during his acceptance speech at the RNC, when he cajoled the faithful into chanting “12 more years!”

When Barack Obama’s supporters have suggested in jest that they’d like to have him in the White House for another four years, he has immediately flashed his big, warm smile and responded that he couldn’t consider such an idea for two reasons: “The constitution and Michelle Obama.” His lighthearted reference to his wife’s distaste for politics is an aside to the real reason: the constitution limits the number of years one person can serve as president, and Barack Obama respects and honors our founding document. Donald Trump possesses no such qualms or integrity, and it’s doubtful he’s ever read the constitution.

Trump’s continued support is insured by those who really would vote for him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue as he famously bragged; but for those willing to see fact and reason, it’s important to sort out just what it is about this man that makes him different from the other 43 men who have held the office of President of the United States. (Remember, Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the number 45 because he served two non-consecutive terms.)

The other 43 men trusted with our highest office were not exactly saints, and they even share a few characteristics with the current POTUS. Trump’s unfitness for office has nothing to do with his odd orange skin tone, his ridiculous-looking combover, his obesity, or his taste for fast food. And many of us have probably spent too much time criticizing his appearance, which is a convenient if unintentional distraction from his real disqualifiers.

The problem with Trump is not even the fact that he’s been divorced and remarried. Ronald Reagan was also divorced and shared the White House with his second wife. The problem with Trump is not that he has had children with more than one wife. The highly revered Thomas Jefferson had six children with his wife Martha Wayles Jefferson and six with his slave Sally Hemings.

What makes Trump different from other presidents is not even his womanizing and genital grabbing. I’m not saying those are admirable or presidential characteristics, just that he’s not the only president of whom those things can be truthfully said. Bill Clinton and John Kennedy were the two most promiscuous, at least so far as we know, members of the presidential hall of shame. However, they were not alone in having wandering eyes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, most often elected president in history, in addition to his long-time mistress Lucy Mercer, is rumored to have had at least four other mistresses. George Washington, the “Father of Our Country,” is also alleged to be the father of a few children born to his slave named Venus. Historical records suggest at least ten other presidents had sex scandals, so we’ll have to look beyond philandering to define what makes Donald Trump unique among presidents.

Twelve of the 44 men who have served in the office of POTUS were slave owners during their lifetimes, eight of those twelve held slaves during their tenure in office, and four of the twelve are alleged to have had sexual relationships with at least one of their slaves. Not exactly moral high ground.

The problem with Trump is also not Melania’s accent, the slightly creepy look in her eyes, her strange/offensive wardrobe choices, whether his son was high when giving his convention speech, whether he has an inappropriate relationship with his daughter, what his toilets are made of, how long his ties are, the shape of his mouth, or even his misspellings.

The occasional scandal, unpopular decision, misjudgment–none of those is unique to any one president. Presidents are human beings first, chief executives second; so they have all erred more than once. Why, then, is it that we can more or less forgive past presidents for their human frailty but see the prospect of Donald Trump’s re-election as the apocalypse of democracy and life in this country as we know it?

I’ve boiled down what’s really wrong with Donald Trump to five factors which I think we’d all do well to focus on instead of his orange color, his weird hairdo, his untoned body, and his sexual promiscuity. Donald Trump’s utter unfitness for the presidency is based on his lack of preparation, his lack of personal integrity, his infantile deportment, his malignant narcissism,  and his cult following. On those five criteria, he has no parallel in our country’s history and I pray not in our country’s future.

The constitution’s skimpy job description for the highest office is either a misdemeanor on the part of our founders or evidence that they perhaps gave future generations far too much credit for using good judgment. Their brief statement includes a mere three qualifications: at least 35 years old, natural-born citizen, and in residence for at least 14 years. There’s no other job in the world for which the requirements are so broad or so low. Every job posting, from street sweeper to CEO, includes specific education, skills, and experience, without which no one need apply. Until 2016, however, in spite of our constitution’s lack of specifics, United States citizens had done a fairly decent job of making up the description as we went along–some years better than others.

Then came 2016, when a failed businessman with six bankruptcies within 18 years, a reality-TV star, and a New York tabloid sensation, with no government or military experience, announced he’d like to be president. Immediately, one of our major political parties chose to sponsor him and the fans started going wild. Donald Trump possesses not one of the assumed job qualifications for the office of POTUS, yet not only did the GOP choose to back him as their party’s candidate once but they have fiercely defended him through almost four years of scandals, mismanagement, and general ineptitude; and they are enthusiastically allowing him to carry their banner a second time.

Hiring a person so devoid of qualification to be the leader of our country and the free world is tantamount to hiring me to teach mathematics, and trust me, no one would do that–even though I am well qualified to teach English, as I did for 40+ years. We all have a skill set; and being a uniter, representing our country well on the world stage, making careful judgments, listening to skilled advisers (or picking the skilled advisers in the first place), caring for all people, keeping peace and order, and working cooperatively with the other two branches of government are simply not in Trump’s golf bag.

His inability and reluctance to read are a direct threat to our national security and standing in the world. Michelle Obama wrote in her book Becoming that her husband would stay up late after the family had gone to bed, poring through his classified briefings. Trump doesn’t read his briefings at all but spends hours every day watching Fox News and making decisions based on what he hears and the advice he receives through phone calls with his favorite anchors. Even if he chose a more reliable news outlet, that’s still not the way presidents should get the information on which they govern our country. His illiteracy endangers us all. He has access to the most highly classified intelligence in the world, but he doesn’t want to read it. He’d rather check our what Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Doocy are saying on Fox.

In addition to Trump’s own lack of qualifications for the job, he has filled government posts with people just as unprepared and unqualified as he is. Looking at you, Jared and Ivanka. Beyond his nepotistic appointment of inept family members, though, his cabinet is filled with the likes of Ben Carson and Mike Pompeo, who have no previous knowledge or experience to recommend them for the posts they fill. Since the sole criterion for appointment is loyalty to Trump, he has surrounded himself with unknowledgeable sycophants and has left many government agencies permanently in the hands of “acting” directors.

Second among the five attributes that set Trump apart from his 43 predecessors is his lack of integrity. As of July 13, 2020, the Washington Post lie counter had him at 20,000 easily disprovable statements. Imagine what the pandemic period and the RNC have added to that number! Bill Clinton was impeached for telling just one lie, and that about a highly personal matter which did not directly affect our national security. When confronted with Trump’s average of 12 lies every day, his party’s response is either “Meh” or “fake news.”

Although a number of other presidents are known to have had extra-marital affairs, I believe Trump is the only one we know of who paid his lovers to keep silent so as not to hurt his chances for election. He has consistently refused to release pertinent financial information, though doing so has been the precedent for several decades, and his secrecy raises legitimate questions about what he’s hiding. His record of business dealings reveals deep ethics issues, and his failure to fully divest himself from his businesses and his use of the presidency to enhance his business interests are out-in-the-open ethics violations which have been condoned by his party.

His known associates raise further questions about his personal ethics; to date, eight Trump associates have been found guilty of crimes and some are serving prison terms. I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of even one felon in my personal circle of friends and close associates. Would you be friends with someone who has close ties to eight felons, plus a number of others under investigation? I know of no other president who had such questionable characters in his contact book.

Trump’s unfitness and childishness have so diminished our country’s standing in the world that we are now the laughing stock or object of pity among many who have published their sentiments. In fact, we no longer hold the distinction “Leader of the Free World.” That title currently goes to Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor.

The third characteristic that places Trump in a category of one, when compared with past presidents, is his infantile deportment, examples of which would fill an encyclopedia. His name calling, his childish attacks on reporters, and his puerile tweets have turned this country into an object of ridicule. No other president has publicly made a statement like this one about Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler: “The big backlash going on in Portland cannot be unexpected after 95 days of watching and incompetent Mayor admit that he has no idea what he is doing. The people of Portland won’t put up with no safety any longer. The Mayor is a FOOL. Bring in the National Guard!” Ignoring the fact that he misspelled the simple word “an,” he is the only president I’ve ever known to publicly attack a city’s leader in such immature fashion.

Any of our real presidents would have met with advisers, determined the best course of action, and then implemented that plan. When a city has been embroiled in civil unrest for months on end, the last thing the mayor needs is the president’s attacking him and calling him names. He needs support from the federal government and should be able to rely on the government’s back-up. If Trump had done nothing else wrong during his tenure in office, this alone should raise questions about his fitness; and it certainly makes him unique among the 44.

Add to that the fact he is the only president in our history to wage war on the free press, and it’s clear how he gets away with much of his malfeasance. Every president has gotten bad press; it goes with the job. But no other president has so relentlessly attacked the press and cast doubt on the legitimacy of respectable news outlets and investigative journalists. He is a master of few things, but gaslighting is one technique at which he excels. Delegitimizing the public’s only source of information about what goes on in our government causes everyone to wonder what is real and what’s not and whether our own perceptions and observations can be trusted.

Democracy cannot survive without a free press. Yes, opinion and bias are far too prevalent in modern news reports; and yes, news is often sensationalized. But that makes all the more urgent our responsibility to hold the media to account and to demand fair and accurate reporting, not to discredit all journalists and portray them as public enemies. Attacks on “the media” are unfair, because as in every other field, there are good sources and bad sources. We know how to tell a good doctor from a bad one or a good minister from a bad one or a good restaurant from a bad one, and we use our knowledge to make informed choices. We should do the same with our news sources, instead of painting them all with one big brush stroke. As the Washington Post motto says, “Democracy dies in darkness.” We must respect, support, and seek out good journalism, because it’s our only way of knowing what happens inside the halls of power.

Fourth, among the few positive outcomes of the Trump “presidency” is that more Americans have now heard the word “narcissism” and know how to define, pronounce, and spell it than ever before. So as you already know, “narcissism” is defined as “excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s physical appearance.” Psychology sources further define the word as “selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.” “Sense of entitlement”: Trump’s assumption that he is the rightful owner of the office of president and his disdain for anyone who would think otherwise or have the audacity to challenge him for it. “Lack of empathy”: Puerto Rico, Gold Star families, victims of gun violence, victims of natural disasters, historically oppressed people groups, people with disabilities, victims of police brutality, families who have lost members to the coronavirus, and anyone else who doesn’t serve his purposes. “Need for admiration”: Do I need to elaborate?

It is said that everyone has a touch of narcissism, especially successful leaders. An article in the Harvard Business Review lists Napoléon Bonaparte, Mahatma Gandhi, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford as narcissists. We can conclude, then, that within a certain range, narcissism is simply supreme confidence in one’s abilities and drive to use one’s knowledge and skills to benefit oneself and the world. Trump’s brand of narcissism, however, is most often branded “malignant narcissism,” which is defined as a “psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism.”

Malignant narcissists are sociopathic and cruel. They are sadistic, enjoy the pain and suffering they cause others, and love creating chaos. Although Trump supporters like to paint him as a person who loves his country and is motivated by the desire to serve others, the facts simply don’t corroborate that image. He has promoted violence, praised and/or refused to condemn people who perform acts of violence, mocked a handicapped reporter, ridiculed war heroes, told law enforcement officers to stop being “too nice” to those they are apprehending, and taken children from their parents who were desperate enough to cross our border to escape untenable situations in their home countries and held those children in unthinkable conditions–and those are only the ones he’s done right out in public view. Insider reports of more private acts are too numerous to list.

Any one of these deeds would have been enough to disqualify a previous president or presidential candidate, because for anyone we’ve ever witnessed in the past, just one of these actions would have stood out as an isolated incident. Therefore, it would have been easy to examine on its own merits and to say, “No, this is not acceptable behavior for a president.” One of the ways Trump has gotten away with such outrageous deeds is by doing them every day in plain view, so that people begin questioning their own sanity instead of questioning his. When evil becomes the norm, it no longer has the same shock value or triggers the same repulsion. It’s impossible to single out the one or two things that make him unacceptable; we find ourselves wading through a dark jungle of intertwining lies, cruel acts, violations of laws and precedents, vile tweets, and behaviors unbecoming any functioning adult much less a President of the United States. Where do we begin building a coherent case?

Fifth and last, Donald Trump is the only president in our country’s history to have inspired the kind of cult following he has. Every president has had people who love him and people who hate him; or as I used to say about my position as college prof: “There are some students who think I walk on water, some who wouldn’t care if I died tomorrow, and some who are praying I will.” I think that’s pretty typical of anyone in a position of leadership. All presidents inspire citizens to join their campaigns, to display a bumper sticker or yard sign, to be loyal to them during their tenure in office, and often to support their re-election.

I, however, have never witnessed the level of cult behavior I have seen among Trump supporters. Within the last two weeks, hundreds of trucks formed a parade that drove through Portland, Oregon, and hundreds of boats paraded on a Texas waterway. All of the vehicles were heavily adorned with American flags, Confederate flags, and an abundance of Trump memorabilia. Speaking of memorabilia, I can’t recall ever having a president who inspired whole lines of fan shirts, hats, and other gear. And have you ever heard of a president who continues holding campaign rallies after he’s elected? I’d call them cult meetings.

What’s wrong with a little enthusiasm for your candidate? There’s a difference between enthusiasm and fanaticism. I enthusiastically supported President Obama, but my mind is not closed to his shortcomings. I respect what Bill Clinton accomplished during his presidency while being disgusted by his inability to keep his zipper up for eight years, which I don’t think is too much to ask of the person to whom we entrust our national welfare.

Fanatics, on the other hand, are unable to see or admit any fault in their object of adoration. They show him the same blind loyalty other cult members showed their leaders. From murder to mass suicide to imprisonment, followers of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles, and David Koresh were loyal to their leaders without regard for their own lives or the consequences of the evil in which they participated. The presidency should not be a fan club or cult of worshipers.

The worst part of a president’s having a cult following is its effect on his judgment and ability to act in the best interests of the whole country. The U. S. tradition of peaceful transfer of power has always gone something like this: two people (or more) vie for the office of POTUS, and lots of people support and vote for each candidate; then an election is held. The candidate who wins fewer votes calls the candidate who wins more votes and offers a gracious concession and congratulations. Then an approximately two-and-half-month period of transition begins, during which the outgoing president welcomes the incoming president (even when the outgoing was the incumbent candidate in the election). The old president and family show the new president and family around their future living quarters, and the two presidents confer about whatever it is that presidents confer about. On inauguration day, the outgoing president and spouse invite the incoming president and spouse for tea/breakfast. They go to the inauguration, then shake hands and say their polite goodbyes, and then the helicopter flies the outgoing president and spouse off to their new home.

Then all of the people who voted for the guy who lost the election come together and support the guy who won, although sometimes reluctantly, at least at the beginning. And the guy who won promises to respect and govern all of the people, even those who didn’t vote for him.

That’s how it usually happens. In no predicted scenario is that how this year’s election will play out. Even Richard Nixon left peacefully and early when it became obvious his staying would further damage the country. Al Gore, more than a month after the hotly contested 2000 election, conceded reluctantly “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy.” Donald Trump stirs division, not unity; he acts only in his own interest and to keep the loyalty of his cult members, never for the whole of our population.

He has made no effort during his almost four years in office to win over or to find common ground with those who did not vote for him but has consistently pandered to his cult and further alienated everyone else with his attacks, including Democrats in congress. He is the only president who has made enemies of over half our country’s citizens and has refused to consider them in his decisions. He has, in fact, chosen to punish cities and states with Democratic leaders. He is the only president ever to make cult loyalty the criterion for receiving needed and deserved support from the federal government to whom we all pay our taxes and pledge our allegiance.

For four years, Democrats have been called “sore losers” for our refusal to accept a reality TV star as a legitimate president. “We put up with Obama for eight years, now you can put up with Trump.” If by “put up with,” you mean calling our president and his family every known racial slur, plus a few I had never heard before, applauding and supporting Mitch McConnell and others who declared in 2008 that their number-one priority was to make Barack Obama a one-term president, and approving McConnell and others’ blocking of Obama’s judicial nominees and legislation, that doesn’t really set the bar very high for “putting up with Trump.” Yet those who make that claim seem to have short memories, especially when they support the cult narrative that Trump is the most persecuted president in history.

Faulty memories aside, though, the fact Trump cult members refuse to see is that Donald Trump’s presidency is so far from normal that there is no precedent. Yes, in a more conventional contest, those on the losing team should shake hands, congratulate the winners, and then get behind the will of the majority and work for the common good. This is not one of those normal times.

Never before have citizens been expected to get behind a president who is a bully, who has criminal ties, who has alienated our allies and cozied up to our adversaries, who has expressed admiration for dictators, who has openly profited from the office of president, and who has refused to say a single negative word about Vladimir Putin even when credible reports say he paid bounties on American troops and even though it’s well known that Trump never hesitates to make negative statements about American citizens and members of our military. Choosing to back this “president” simply because he won an election (but lost the popular vote)–with the help of his good friend Vladimir Putin–would require ignoring our own consciences and abdicating our responsibility as citizens to help protect our country from enemies “both foreign and domestic.” Donald Trump is a clear and present danger, not just your average president.

Joe Biden recently said, “The job of the president is to lower the temperature. As the convention demonstrated, all Trump wants to do is raise it.” On his watch, our country has lost its standing in the world, our streets are filled with violence, thousands more have died from a deadly virus than would have died under responsible leadership, service members and their families have suffered attacks by their commander-in-chief, racial equality has been set back 100 years, we have seen the people’s house desecrated for a political pageant, and the respected office of president has been degraded to a daily reality-TV show starring a lying con man.

Yet even more tragic than all of those things is that 42% of the country’s voters think this is all good and will vote to extend the demolition of our democracy another four years–or more, if they can manage during this next term to completely annul our constitution. This is an unprecedented time, and the stakes have never been higher in any election. They’re even willing to ignore all of the credible evidence of foreign interference, Trump’s failure to condemn that interference and take action to prevent its reoccurrence, and his deliberately tampering with our mail service to limit voting in this November’s election.

I’ll close with a quotation from a social media post written by a man who serves on a casket team: a group of military personnel who greet planes returning fallen soldiers and who carry the flag-wrapped aluminum transfer cases to vehicles which will take them to the place of final preparation and placement in real caskets. In reference to Donald Trump’s reported disgraceful remarks about fallen soldiers, this soldier writes:

“I suppose the one thing we all took for granted is that dignity would always be affirmed by all our civilian leaders to those service members who gave everything. I never would have predicted any official, let alone a sitting president, would insult fallen service members.

I cannot adequately describe my anger at Donald Trump for being so willing to send service members halfway around the world to die on his own behalf and then call them ‘losers’ for doing so. This coward is unfit for his office and the power it holds. He needs to go.”

Amen.

Categories
Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics

Bread Crumbs, Q Drops, and Code 17

Many years ago, home alone on a Saturday morning and in search of entertainment, I  came across a movie called Capricorn One, about an elaborate hoax to fake a Mars landing. Kidnapped flight crew, secret sound stages, special effects, and a desperate escape through the desert–it has all the makings of a thriller. This movie was my Intro to Conspiracy Theories/Conspiracy Theories 101 class. Because it had never before occurred to me that perpetrating such a grand hoax could be possible–let alone that anyone would have reason to do such a thing–I admit I was intrigued for weeks. It raised questions about the moon landing and everything else I had ever read about NASA, space exploration, and the integrity of our government and its agencies.

To be clear, when I say “intrigued,” I do not mean I ever believed the notion of grand hoaxes perpetrated by NASA or questioned the legitimacy of our country’s advances into space travel. I mean I was intellectually curious: curious to know why anyone would propose such an idea, curious to understand what kind of mind questions verifiable scientific fact, curious to know whether such a hoax could be pulled off.

That film was produced in 1977, so obviously conspiracy theories are not a 21st-century phenomenon, and they were not even a 20th-century phenomenon. It does seem, however, that conspiracy theories have proliferated and gained traction more in the last decade than in all the other decades of my life.

Q Anon is one of the hot groups right now chasing some wild theories about the inner workings of our government. Recently, after hearing the name mentioned so often, I realized I didn’t have a clear understanding of who or what this group is, beyond the obvious, that it’s pretty crazy. So I found some articles in reputable publications (I refuse to visit Q Anon sites) and educated myself. If, like me, you’re not quite sure what Q Anon is or whether you should rush out to sign up, here’s a little of what I learned.

The core belief of those who identify as Q Anon followers is that the United States is governed by a “deep state” made up of Satan-worshiping pedophiles. Although that would certainly explain a lot about what’s happening right now, we’ve advanced from Conspiracy Theories 101 into the post-doctoral courses: Conspiracy Theory Meets Twilight Zone. An August 20 New York Times article adds, “Members of this group [also] kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood.” So for the sake of brevity, let’s call them the SWPCs (Satan-worshiping pedophilic cannibals).

It’s pretty hard to imagine such far-fetched stuff going mainstream, but it has done just that. The same NYT article says social media platforms have been flooded with misinformation propagated by this umbrella “for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.” It’s also known as a “big-tent” conspiracy theory, so it’s an equal-opportunity clearing house for all types of wackos.

And that brings us to the least shocking fact of all: Donald Trump is at the center of this madness. In fact, Donald Trump is the hero they are trying to rescue from the grips of the deep-state SWPCs; or, as ABC News puts it, he is their “crusading savior.”

Most of the people I hang out with, when Q Anon is mentioned, will respond with either a furrowed brow and a “Huh??” or an eye roll and a “Pffft.” The scary thing, however, is that since I’m rather selective, as I imagine you are, about the people I hang out with, my circle is probably not an accurate sampling of the population at large. The list believed to be part of the SWPC Clique include, but is not limited to, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres, Pope Francis, and the Dalai Lama (New York Times 8/20).

Various sources estimate the number of Q Anon followers–that is, the ones who actually believe Tom Hanks and Barack Obama worship Satan and eat children–in the hundreds of thousands to the millions. So while your immediate circle of friends may not include any QAnon types, that person behind you in the grocery store checkout line, the person ringing up your groceries, that sweet old couple next-door, your hair stylist, your dentist (I’ve always suspected they’re aliens), the people in the house down the street that you tell your kids to stay away from, or even the slightly odd person sitting on the pew beside you (pre-COVID of course) scrolling on their phone during the minister’s sermon. If the estimates are accurate, we’re all sure to encounter a few.

So what is it that these followers are following? “Q” is allegedly a high-ranking intelligence officer who has infiltrated the deep state in order to expose and destroy it. The person first started posting on an Internet message board in October 2017 under the name Q Clearance Patriot, later shortened to just “Q.” Q is the Department of Energy’s designation for Top Secret Restricted Data, National Security Information, and Secret Restricted Data–meant to suggest that this person has access to all of the most highly classified information possessed by the United States intelligence community.

No one knows who this person is (that’s the Anon part), but he or she sends out coded information as marching orders to the faithful. Q posts these coded messages on Internet boards; the posts are called “bread crumbs” or “Q drops.” There are even Q drop apps which collect all of the crumbs and notify the user when a new one arrives, for the highly organized wacko. The number 17 is important, because Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet and also one DT has used several times, which makes it an obvious choice for use in coded messages. Are you with me so far? Am I with me so far? This is deeply disturbing territory we’re in here.

It’s not certain whether Q is a single individual, a group, or an identity that morphs over time; but all who follow believe they are engaged in a global war against an evil cabal, which will “soon culminate in ‘The Storm’ — an appointed time when Mr. Trump would finally unmask the cabal, punish its members for their crimes and restore America to greatness” (New York Times 8/20). Hmm, does this mean MAGA is also code?

This Storm thing reminds me of “The Rapture,” something I was taught as a child in church, not exactly a conspiracy theory, but with some similarities. The story goes that Jesus will some day, when least expected, sneak up on us and beam up all of his favorites, then rain down death and destruction on all the poor saps left behind.

But back to the SWPCs and those faithful soldiers helping Donald Trump win the war against them, this is stuff that Rod Serling and Stephen King might be proud to have written; but as real-life politics, one must wonder just who the hell believes it. And more importantly, why? What does anyone gain by accepting weird fiction as reality?

In elementary school, I read the tall tales of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. Throughout my school years, we read about the deities of various countries, most notably Greece and Rome. There was a whole horde of gods and goddesses in each of the mythologies, created by pre-scientific people as explanations for natural phenomena for which there were so far no more sophisticated explanations. Those myths survived science to become literature that captures our imaginations with epic tales of intrigue, personal rivalries, sex, and war.

After President Kennedy was assassinated, conspiracy theories abounded, because humans always crave explanations when tragedy strikes; we need something that makes sense of a senseless act. According to some theories, he was still alive but gravely wounded. I met someone who told me she had heard first-hand from a family member that the wing of the Dallas hospital in which Kennedy had “allegedly” died was closed for months afterward, suggesting he was still there. I even heard that Jackie married Aristotle Onassis only because he owned a private island where she could keep her invalid husband. And then of course, there was the whole string of theories about who really shot him and why.

The thing that makes tall tales, epic stories of mythology, a faked Mars landing, and a dead president who wasn’t really dead relatively harmless is that they are either clearly fiction or they’re isolated theories confined to small groups or to individuals. What Donald Trump and the modern Republican Party have done for conspiracy theories is to take them mainstream. The number of followers is huge and growing daily.

Just this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Georgia primary for a seat in Congress; and most pundits think she has a strong chance at winning in the general election. So Q Anon goes to Congress. It doesn’t get much more mainstream than that. These people will make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Second on the not-at-all-shocking list is that Donald Trump likes these people because they like him. When asked at a White House briefing what he thinks of them, he responded, “I’ve heard these are people that love our country. So I don’t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.” Well, then, they’re okay. DT’s sole criterion for a person or group’s legitimacy is how much they like him. His buddy Vlad calls him frequently, Kim Jong Un writes him beautiful letters, and Q Anon peeps like him. What else is there to know? Meanwhile, he spins his own conspiracies that Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are not natural citizens and–this morning’s gem–that Joe Biden was not born in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

There is just one word of caution which I think should be mentioned here. Like the term “fake news,” which was coined to name a specific type of information of which all should be wary but now is the aspersion cast at anything unfavorable to our own biases, “conspiracy theory” can also lose its meaning if used indiscriminately.

There’s a difference between an alternate theory and a conspiracy theory. Alternate theories are often breakthroughs that lead us to “think outside the box,” to open our minds to possibilities. Conspiracy theories have no redeeming value. When a thinking person questions the accuracy or legitimacy of a mainstream opinion and decides to challenge it, that person does some research and presents their alternate theory grounded in the factual evidence which led to the theory. That theorist will make a logical argument to explain and defend the validity of their conclusion. A conspiracy theorist can make no such argument because conspiracy theories are never based on fact.

By definition, a conspiracy theory can’t have factual evidence to support it. Brittanica.com defines the term as “an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.” Such theories, then, seem to be the concoctions of suspicious minds, not the conclusions of rational thought.

In science, a theory is

“a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. . . . A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn’t, the theory is refined or rejected.” (American Museum of Natural History website)

Conspiracy theories are closer to paranoia–“suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification”–than to scientific theory (definition from online dictionary). Isn’t it interesting that many of the same people who call wearing a mask to prevent the spread of disease “living in fear” see watching message boards for coded messages about Satan-worshiping pedophilic cannibals perfectly reasonable. They ain’t afraid of nothin’.

My favorite Friday night TV show in the early 1960s was The Twilight Zone, though I often slept lightly after watching it. At the beginning of each episode, Rod Serling, the writer of the series, looked into the camera and laid the premise for what was to come. His introduction changed slightly over the years, but this is one version which seems eerily relevant today:

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into… the Twilight Zone.”

Most days over the last four years, and most intensely since January of this year, I’ve felt we crossed that line and are deep into the Zone. I don’t recall Rod Serling telling viewers how to get out of the Twilight Zone; but I fervently hope we can find the map, because I’ve had enough of living in a world where everything feels surreal, where I don’t even recognize my native country, where citizens are divided into warring tribes, and where we have a president who fans the flames of division. Enough.

Vote on November 3 like your life depends on it. (It does.)

Categories
Politics

Today I Mourn

The long battle has ended, and the forces of darkness have won. None of us can even imagine the devastation that lies ahead during the next four years, and right now I don’t even want to try. I don’t want to tell myself that we’ll survive the way Americans always have, I don’t want to give myself a pep talk about how everything will be okay, and I don’t want to see any more ignorant social media posts from Trump voters gloating because their side won. None of us won. We all lost. Yes, we’re going to somehow get through the next four years, but today all I can do is cry. Tomorrow I’ll make a plan for going forward, but today I mourn.

As the shock set in during the wee hours of November 9, I finally had to turn off the TV, and then I had a few moments of inconsolable weeping. I’ve been on the losing side of presidential elections before; and everybody knows from the outset that one side is going to win, one side is going to lose, and we may or may not be lucky enough to be on the winning side. Those are givens. This election, however, was not the same; this election was not about which qualified candidate was better qualified to lead. This election was a referendum on the American way of life, on our collective American values, and those things lost. The worst thing that happened this election was and is trying to treat it like a normal election. It’s not just the Democrats who lost Tuesday night. We all lost. We lost our country and our self-respect, and we can’t even begin to comprehend at this moment the far-reaching consequences of our fellow citizens’ actions. I’m heartbroken not because my side lost but because my country lost.

I mourn today for my country. The America that elected Donald Trump as president is not the America I thought I lived in, and it’s not the America I want to live in. The America that listened to an emotional and intellectual toddler insult women, minorities, Muslims, the handicapped, veterans, heroes, heroes’ families, immigrants, people of color, and anyone else who got under his very thin skin and decided he’d be perfect for the job of the presidency is not the America I thought I lived in. The America that sold out our country to the most vulgar person ever to apply for the job of being president is not the America I thought I lived in. By vulgar, I don’t mean just his language; I mean his coarseness, his lack of class, his lack of dignity.

The America that heard him talk about building a giant wall and deporting millions of people who are living peaceably among us and thought those were good ideas is not the America I thought I lived in. The America that sold out our country’s values and their own values because they wanted someone who professed to share their views on abortion to make the next several Supreme Court appointments and were too conned by the con man to realize that this person lacks the judgment or self-control to make wise choices, and lacks the honesty even to make the choices he promised them he’d make, for our high court is not the America I thought I lived in. The America that listened to a presidential candidate stand on a debate stage with the whole world as witnesses and threaten to jail his opponent and who led chants at his rallies to “Lock her up” is definitely not the America I thought I lived in. My America is not a banana republic!

I mourn today because I no longer know my country, because the values I’ve been taught during my decades as an American citizen have all been reversed, because the people who are my neighbors, friends, family, co-workers voted that they don’t respect those values any more. They voted to erase 240 years of progress in the “great experiment” and to say to the whole world that our “city on a hill” is a sham, that we are really just a bunch of ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic cretins who can’t even pick an intelligent leader for ourselves much less for the rest of the free world.

I mourn for my black friends, my Latino friends, my LGBT friends who now fear for their lives and livelihoods. I lived through the ‘60s and all of the years since then when my country made remarkable strides to reverse the sins of our past and to make life safer and more fair for all the people. We were still working on it; we hadn’t gotten it just right, but we had come a long way from the America of my childhood. Now millions of my fellow citizens have voted to reverse those decades of progress and return to an America even more bigoted than the period when I was growing up.

I mourn for my grandchildren who will read about this dark moment in their history books and will try to make sense of what their parents’ and grandparents’ generation did to the world they were born into. Their teachers will tell them how America used to be, and they’ll wonder why anyone would have interrupted that progress and would have been ignorant enough to elect a fascist demagogue to change their world into something dark and scary. I held my 7-month-old firstborn son on my lap and cried as I listened to Richard Nixon’s resignation speech, unable to believe what I was hearing. Presidents don’t resign; presidents don’t commit crimes. What kind of world were my son and his siblings yet unborn going to grow up in? Now I weep for the world in which my 11-, 8-, 5-, and 3-year-old grandchildren will grow up. My only consolation, and it sounds hollow right now, is that I’ll be able to look each one of them in the eye and say “Your Mimi did her best.”

I mourn for my faith, that anchor that has grounded and sustained me throughout my life, which I see now turned into a political weapon not in any way reflective of the humble teachings of Jesus. Jesus’ love has been replaced by hate—hate for the “other,” whoever that may be at any given time—Jesus’ compassion has been replaced by disgust and cruelty, Jesus’ “cup of cold water” has been replaced by a cup of bitter gall. Donald Trump would not be our president-elect today were it not for the evangelical vote. I’m not an evangelical, but I’m a Christian, and today I’m ashamed of those with whom I share that name.

I mourn for President Obama who has given us eight years of an intelligent, moral, scandal-free presidency; who has led with warmth, love, and compassion; who has made errors in judgment but not in character. Now he must graciously receive his polar opposite and hand the baton to the vulgarian who will shred his legacy without thought or discretion and will implement and validate everything the Do-Nothing Congress has done to him for the last eight years. He doesn’t deserve this.

I mourn for Hillary Clinton, a woman who has given her entire life to public service and without whose service and spirit the world would be poorer. With all of her flaws and errors in judgment, she did not deserve to be subjected to the mean-spirited campaign she has just endured. She did not deserve to stand on a debate stage and go through the motions of having an intellectual debate with a person so much her intellectual inferior. I wept again watching her graciously concede defeat to a person not qualified to iron her pantsuits. Nobody feels good when your team loses; but if you know you got outplayed by a team with superior skill and strategy, at least you know you lost “fair and square.” What really hurts down deep is losing to a lousy team because you had an off day, the weather was bad, the field was wet, or the officials made unfair calls. Hillary Clinton did not deserve the humiliation of losing to a loud-mouthed, vulgar ignoramus.

I know I will find the spirit to accept the reality of this nightmare and to live through the next four years with all the energy, grace, and strength I can muster. I know I will use my white privilege to support my friends who will be affected in ways I can’t imagine. I know the sun will rise every day for the next four years and I will still have love and friendship and faith, but I’m not ready to think of those things yet. Today all I can do is mourn.

Categories
Politics

Open the Eyes of Our Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Categories
Politics

Sex and Politics

The only thing more shocking than Donald Trump’s lewd dialogue with Billy Bush in the now-infamous hot-mic tape is the number of people who have defended him and shrugged off his comments as “boy talk.” At the same time, many of us have struggled to understand how anyone—especially a woman—could be undisturbed by such vile attitudes and the implied admission of sexual assault against multiple women.

Michelle Obama’s emotional statement that these revelations have shaken her to her core are juxtaposed against memes showing Julie Andrews joyfully dancing atop the mountain with the caption “This is me not caring what Donald Trump said about women.” Dozens, if not thousands, of women have taken to social media to write impassioned defenses of Trump and to state their continued enthusiastic endorsement of him and their intention to vote for him to serve as president of our country.

Baffled by such unreasonable and unthinkable responses, I’ve struggled to get inside the thinking of women who can support a blatant misogynist and evangelical Christians who can support a person who so flagrantly violates their own stated beliefs.

To be able to have a discussion with anyone, I have to understand the other person’s argument: not just the conclusion but the claim, evidence, and reasoning which led to the conclusion. A couple of weeks ago, I was in a group discussing the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. With such clear evidence that the Israelis are responsible for gross human rights violations against the Palestinians, the question I needed to have answered is “What is the argument for many people’s one-sided support of Israel?” By what thought process do so many people justify Israel’s actions and place all of the responsibility for wrongdoing on the Palestinians?

When my daughter told me that my son-in-law adamantly opposed her plan to buy all white towels for their new home, I asked “What is his argument?” What is the thought process which leads to the conclusion that having all white towels is bad? What did white towels ever do to him?

Likewise, I have tried to understand the reasoning which could lead a woman or an extreme right-wing Christian to want to elect a president who has so outspokenly violated everything they hold dear. I don’t know, but here’s one conclusion I’ve drawn: If you were delusional enough to think Donald Trump was fit to serve as President of the United States of America before the hot-mic tape was released, nothing in that tape would change your mind. That tape was not the wake-up call; it was the confirmation of a thousand wake-up calls we’d received long before the tape was released. Those who were still not awake simply can’t be wakened.

Americans have accepted sexual improprieties in our presidents throughout our history as a nation: Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, to name the most familiar. Presidents, presidential hopefuls, and scores of others in high office have been brought down by sex scandals; and many of them have survived the ordeals, their reputations tarnished but their heroic status intact. Here’s a link to a list of 25 of our most admired and influential leaders who have embroiled themselves in scandalous behavior: http://www.gq.com/gallery/the-twenty-five-greatest-philanderers-in-american-political-history#26. I make the distinction between scandal and scandal-worthy behavior because before the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, many of these facts were not widely known; if those people lived today, however, their every move would be followed and reported.

Groping, skirt-chasing, lusting—none of these are new to us in the lives of our national leaders. Thomas Jefferson, in addition to his well-documented long-term relationship with his half-black slave Sally Hemings, is rumored to have had affairs with at least two other women. When Bill Clinton was impeached, it was his lying, not his philandering, that most people were unable to accept and for which they believed he should be prosecuted. In case anyone is wondering when we might have our first gay president, some believe we already have, in the person of James Buchanan.

And if consent is the thing that separates the acceptable from the unthinkable, I don’t believe Jefferson’s relationship with Hemings can be strictly defined as consensual, given the vast distance between them in terms of power and status. It seems most of Bill Clinton’s dalliances were classified as consensual, although he has also been accused of using his power and position to take advantage of women.

Other rumors from this source, http://www.salon.com/2015/02/08/the_7_biggest_presidential_sex_scandals_in_history_partner/, would have us believe that Andrew Jackson may have been married to a bigamist, since he married her before she was divorced from her previous husband; Republican saint Ronald Reagan was accused of rape in 1952 and the devoted Nancy allegedly had a fling with Frank Sinatra; Bush 41 and 43 have both been accused of extra-marital affairs, and 43 was accused of rape by a woman who later died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Regardless of how much is true and how much is rumor, sex scandals are nothing new to us; and some of them have barely diminished our admiration for the perpetrators. I think it helps that we didn’t find out about Jefferson until a couple of centuries after his death, and we didn’t even know about Kennedy when he was in office. People’s private lives, even when they held high office or aspired to hold high office, were considered private. They did their jobs and established their reputations without the distraction of having their most private moments blasted out on TV and Internet every minute of every day. By the time we knew, we had learned to love and value them for their service and could forgive, though not condone, their private sins.

Those whose scandals have been made public during the age of the blow-by-blow news cycle have often, however, had their political careers dashed by their private sins; remember Gary Hart and John Edwards. And even those whose sex lives have remained either private or unremarkable have other unthinkable acts on their records, such as FDR’s executive order authorizing the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese descent, including both American citizens and non-citizens (in addition to his sexual dalliances). Abraham Lincoln, freer of the slaves, did not hold 21st-century ideals regarding equality between blacks and whites or the possibility of our living together in harmony.

As Americans, we are obviously not accustomed to being governed by saints. How then do we defend our outrage and revulsion over the contents of Donald Trump’s hot-mic tape? I would argue that the tape is less remarkable for what it reveals about him than for its confirmation of what we already knew. This is concrete evidence which, for those of us who already found him abominable, confirmed and strengthened our conclusions. On the other hand, those who saw him as the American messiah were understandably not swayed in that opinion because they’ve seen it all before. Please don’t misunderstand: I am as appalled as ever by what we heard on that tape, but I’ve come to understand why others are not. The fact is it’s not those appalling statements that make Trump unfit for the presidency; those statements simply confirm why we already knew he was unfit.

These are the things we already knew about Donald Trump before October 9, 2016, which make him unfit to serve as our president, even IF he were a model of marital fidelity.

Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president because he knows nothing about our Constitution or how our government works. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar who wrote our Declaration of Independence, one of the most brilliantly composed documents ever published. Although he was out of the country serving as Minister to France during the time the Constitution was being drafted, his other writings fill volumes, and excerpts from them line the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. Bill Clinton is best known for 115 consecutive months of economic expansion, the longest such period in American history, along with major contributions to providing jobs, advancing education, and lowering unemployment.

Jefferson and Clinton were not models of purity or piety, but our country is indebted to them for their brilliant minds and lasting imprint on our government and culture. Trump, on the other hand, is a demagogue whose only claim to excellence is that he will fix everything he perceives to be wrong with our country—even though 16 months into his campaign, he has yet to tell us how he would keep any of those promises. He is the most ignorant person ever to seek the presidency; and even IF his accusers’ claims were to be proven false, which I’m sure they will NOT be, he would still be unfit.

Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president because he has no respect for most of the people he would be “serving.” He has insulted and alienated women, veterans and their families, blacks, Latinos, immigrants, and almost every other major group except angry white men. His so-called campaign rallies consist of attacks on the latest person who has gotten under his very thin skin. His persistent attacks on the Khan family should have eliminated him from the race long before the mic-on-the-bus tape was released. Bill Clinton showed more class during his impeachment than Trump has shown toward Alec Baldwin for his unflattering portrayal on SNL.

Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president because he is the most immature person ever to appear on a presidential campaign platform. From the constant ax grinding to his habit of turning everything his opponent says about him back onto her, he’s the equivalent of an emotional toddler and a functional fifth grader. When Hillary Clinton says he’s not presidential, he says she’s not presidential; when she calls him temperamentally unfit, he says she has a “terrible temperament.” This is reminiscent of the Pee Wee Herman line, “I know you are, but what am I?” Cute for a comedian, unbelievably childish for a presidential candidate.

And just this week his former ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, estimated Trump’s vocabulary at about 200 words. For perspective, child development experts say that a 2 1/2-year-old should know approximately 300 words. No wonder he can’t express complex ideas and when he’s reading prepared comments, he sounds as if he’s seeing them for the first time.

Contrast Trump’s juvenile rants with the eloquent speeches of FDR, which my stepfather still plays on his computer because they bring back memories of a revered president and wartime leader. Contrast Trump’s toddler tantrums to the lofty rhetoric of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton; all three of them are known for their sex scandals, but two of them are also known as brilliant leaders with a vast knowledge of and love for our constitution and our country.

Trump is unfit to serve as president because of the people he associates with or with whom he hints at associations. When his campaign was about to implode, he replaced his campaign manager with Steve Bannon, a person best known for his white supremacist attitudes and for creating an online haven for a diverse group now known as the alt-right. Trump has also been often accused of a bromance with Vladimir Putin, known for human rights abuses in Russia. As further demonstration of his childish thinking, he has defended his support of Putin with the line, “He says nice things about me, so I’ll say nice things about him.”

Oh, and have I mentioned that Trump is unfit to serve as president because of his utter lack of knowledge about other countries’ governments and our relationships abroad? From his fascination with nuclear weapons to his casual mention of destroying international alliances, he is a threat to our safety and security as a nation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt led our country through all but four months of World War II; under his leadership, we rebounded from the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor and had nearly achieved victory by the time of his sudden death. His masterful leadership during the most globally threatening event in history overshadows our knowledge of his private transgressions. Donald Trump, with his ignorance and immaturity, would more likely be the cause of than the solution to international conflicts.

Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president because he has a proven record of lying. Not only do his lies confirm that he cannot be trusted, they also insult our intelligence. He denies saying and doing things which are recorded on tapes readily available to thousands of media personnel and can be replayed by the push of a button. According to Politifact, 70% of all the statements they have checked are mostly false (19%), false (34%), or pants on fire (17%). And in true Trump fashion, he has turned this truth about himself onto his opponent, who, according to Politifact, lies less than any other politician they’ve fact checked.

His lies have contributed to his incitement of fear among his followers, fear that causes them to believe his messianic claims and remain loyal to him no matter how disgusting he becomes. FDR, in his first inaugural address, famously said this about fear: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Every time Bill Clinton speaks, he eloquently reminds us what a great country we live in, not a country which is on the brink of disaster and can be made great again only by electing an ignorant demagogue.

When it comes to sex in politics, Americans are not virgins. Even claims of rape and predatory behavior are not new. What this election has brought us for the first time is an ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic xenophobe who is a threat to our existence as a republic. Sex won’t destroy us, and rape can be litigated in our courts. Ignorance and bigotry are the real threats, and we simply can’t stand by in silence as our fellow Americans vote to send an ignorant, bigoted demagogue to the sanctuary of the Oval Office. We can’t let that happen.

 

 

 

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

We Don’t Need No Stinking Pivot!

Photo: James Devaney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the attraction of Donald Trump?

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

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

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

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

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

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

I imagine the process at your work place is similar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m with her.