The USA Needs You (And who is "You"?)

I had an exchange with one of my right-leaning (well, in his case, it’s clearly more proudly living than leaning) formers on Facebook.  He is a self-described Constitutionalist who could not abide Obama’s politics or Clinton’s character (I’m sure her political positions didn’t help, either). He was and is, a stand-up member of the brass division, although not the Trumpet section, even if he did vote for him, with at least some misgivings, it seemed.

Instead of adding on to our conversational thread after we had found some common ground, I thought I’d generalize the challenge I thought about leaving with him, in the hopes there are enough more like him to make a difference. Just call me Pollyanna. Here’s what I wanted to add:

We (the Clinton voters and/or liberals), but more importantly, the country, need you to stand up for us and challenge President Trump when he (as he will) tries to blatantly ignore the Constitution. We need you to challenge him when he makes up facts (like the recent Boeing kerfuffle) or reinforces his reputation as the “Fastest Tweet in the West.” We need you to ask thoughtful questions when he makes head-scratching appointments to his cabinet or other federal positions.

We can’t do it (try as we might, and some are trying mightily) because as soon as someone like me opines anything critical of the president-elect, the Trumpet section blares into a cacophonic crescendo of defensiveness. But Pollyanna here does have some (slim) hopes that the true-believing Trumpet section perhaps just might listen to someone who actually voted for the man.

Stand up and be counted. Please. Your country needs you. Patriotism is not just flag waving. It is looking past partisan politics to the long-term good, the morality if you will, of your country. I like to think I am a patriot. Are you?

Can the Center Hold?

Beliefs caveat:

       • Liberal ≠ Democrat

       • Conservative ≠ Republican

       • Both camps have members who are:

              ° mean-spirited

              ° racist, prejudiced, or bigoted

              ° self-centered or selfish

              ° just plain dumb        

                  ° all of the above and more

Each pole is flawed. Each side has its own conceit and each side spits out the opposing label like a foul epithet. Mean-spirited and unfair memes exacerbate the problem. Conservatives often seem likely to think that if something is not their problem, it’s not really a problem at all and, therefore, doesn’t need a solution, or at least not one that shouldn’t be supplied by the individuals for whom there actually IS a problem. Liberals, on the other (left?) hand, seem to tend to believe that EVERY problem everywhere is not only a crisis that must, MUST I tell you, be solved (with an overarching grand(iose?) program), and right this minute, no matter how long that problem has been in the making, failing to realize that problems of long standing are never solved quickly or simply.

Simplistic Metaphors: The conservative safety net is an old rope with a sign at the bottom: “Climb on up, you can do it. Others have,” followed by a pious sermon on self-reliance. The liberal safety net is a hydraulic memory foam mattress. “You know you have a problem, right? Good news, we have the solution! Let us make you comfy and fix everything for you. No, really, just relax, we’ve got this,” followed by a soothing talk about how nothing is your fault. 

Those selfish conservatives like to think everyone ought to be able to better themselves (many, it seems to me, operate under the illusion that they, and they alone, are responsible for their whatever status or success they have and see every playing field as level); if one can’t find a path to success, it’s their own fault or weakness. No better are the busy-body liberals, who seem to think no one can better themselves without the help of an extensive (usually expensive) program, implemented by an overburdened, and some would argue (with at least occasional legitimacy) overreaching, and, too often, incompetent, government.

All of the above are exaggerations, of course, pushing stereotypical perceptions to the extreme, although I have, in fact, actually seen essentially those descriptions as the “other side” is being vilified or decried, all too common in our world today. And what I am seeing even more often today is a seemingly ingrained belief that those who do not think like we do are evil or stupid, not even entitled to basic respect. Contrary beliefs, legitimate criticism of ideas or philosophy, are not only rejected out of hand, but vilified as, at best, the ravings of a lunatic fringe not worthy of even cursory consideration.

It is an ongoing and familiar theme of mine, but we live in a complex society that continues to evolve in increasingly complex ways. Nothing is that simple, neither the problems nor the solutions. If a solution can fit on a bumper sticker or be reduced to a slogan or 30-second commercial, it’s a fraud, and a simplistic fraud at that. Back when I used to teach American politics, one of the things I tried to emphasize was that the solution to every problem creates a new problem or even set of problems that then seem to require new solutions, in a never-ending cycle. However, I stressed, that does NOT mean that we, as a society, should just ignore problems and hope they’ll go away. They will not. Like sores, they will fester and eventually demand immediate attention. Is it not better to anticipate problems and be proactive than to be forced into a panicked reaction?

As polarization expands and strengthens its depressingly vise-like grip on our society and culture, I perceive a serious danger and threat to our future. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are trying to exploit that polarization for their own benefit and power. Instead of encouraging respect for those with a different perspective and a different life journey, they instead discount and demonize. However, even as a left-leaner, while I personally do not think we need a new government agency (Committee to Reduce American Polarization?) to deal with it, neither do I think we can just pretend this increasing polarization is not really a problem.

Here’s a truly radical notion; we could communicate with each other, respecting and giving each other credit for being people of good will, to find a solution that can, if not fully solve the problem, at least ameliorate it and allow us to find other areas where we can continue to work together (which involves that dirty word, “compromise,” of course) for the good of all. There is room in the middle of the poles, but we must be willing to take the first step in that direction and not wait for the other side to go first. Let it start with me – and you.  Kumbaya!

IFOL (Ironic Fact of Life) -- Quick Take

The industries and companies that take shortcuts, play the system, shortchange their customers, disregard environmental impact, etc., all in the name of profits above all else, are frequently the loudest complainants about the regulations that their actions provoke in response, trying to generate sympathy for both the long-term and short-term consequences of their own unethical actions.

If we all just played fair and did the right thing, we wouldn’t need the admittedly often over-regulated society we have. But regulations have never arisen out of a vacuum; rather, they result from some (and usually more than some) industries, businesses or people feeling entitled to put their own welfare (read, wealth) ahead of ethical behavior, failing to realize, or just not caring, that their selfishness has a long-term cost to them, their business or industry, and us, their clients or customers.

Anger Management, Part II

Two weeks later it seems to me that not only has the 2016 election not solved anything, it has made things worse. That is not the result of who won (at least not directly), because in a country so evenly divided, some were going to be either pleased or relieved and the other half not so much.

I understand that those who either voted for Secretary Clinton (or against Mr. Trump) are disappointed, perhaps even angry, afraid or bitter. That is the way of elections when your side does not win. What has me confused, however, is the anger that continues to emanate from the winning side (although, to his credit, the candidate himself did manage to go a whole week before an outburst of thin-skinned indignation). Nevertheless, judging by the comments on social media and numerous reported incidents in the news, the trumpet section is still angry and bitter themselves. Apparently it was not enough just to win; the losers must also be discounted, degraded, and even eviscerated.

I would suggest that there almost seems to be a revenge element in play here, a desire (need?) to rub salt in the wounds (and I remind once again, as I will continue to do for as long as necessary) of the equal number of people who supported someone else; neither candidate had a majority. Why continue to froth and foam instead of taking the win and moving on? Why is that not enough? I have seen multiple instances of the election-losers being told, “Let it go!” Why can't the winners take that advice, as well? A substantial number of citizens have at least given lip service to taking a wait and see attitude, hoping (in my case, desperately, against hope) that a Trump presidency will succeed for the good of the country. That, plus his supporters, definitely does constitute a majority of the electorate. But that majority will disappear if the trumpet section continues to blare, insisting on not only having all the solos in the piece, but that everyone else play that instrument as well. We need a symphony, not a bugle corps!

It should come as no surprise that there are many people who are expressing concern about the future of the country under Mr. Trump's leadership. However, expressing such concern about the Trump presidency is not a personal attack on those who voted for him. Neither is it a criticism of those voters and their valid reasons for voting the way they did. But if you do not recognize that at least some of those concerns are also legitimate and valid, if perhaps occasionally overwrought, well, I’m not sure why you're reading this, unless you have run out of things to be angry about today. I’ve already written about the futility of teaching pigs to sing, but if you want to continue to worship at Our Lady of the Perpetually Pissed, let me assure you, from personal experience, it is a demanding church that will, eventually, exhaust you.