Random Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders & Various Other Political Stuff

• I have many friends and family who supported Senator Bernie Sanders. I respect the choice, process, beliefs, and values of these good, honest, hard-working, patriotic Americans whose reactions, right now, seem to range from denial to disappointment to despondency and despair, with End of the World (REM) as background music. Senator Sanders may have been at the bottom of my list, but I don't know of any followers supporting him out of a desire for “free stuff” for themselves. None. Zero. Not One. That’s an insulting fake news slander.

• 4 years ago, teaching American Gov’t and Politics at Lindbergh, I told my kids that Senator Sanders’ legacy would be the detoxification of the word “Socialist” for the next generations of young voters. I didn’t anticipate he’d try again, because I thought his window had closed. Turned out it had.

• However, had I known HRC would run such an abysmal, yet arrogant/entitled campaign (the arrogant/entitled parts were no surprise), I might have actually voted for Senator Sanders in the 2016 primary. Despite what some believe, I claim neither party, so I sat it out. Any palatable Republicans had been eliminated by the time of Missouri’s primary. (Bonus points – name the one I could have easily supported.) Two populists would have at least been interesting. 

• Full Disclosure: I would vote for the dish sponge we forgot to rinse out before leaving on our last trip before I’d even consider casting a ballot for the current occupant of the White House; at least the sponge could be cleaned up and made useful. And whether cleaned up or discarded, the dish sponge wouldn’t be dangerous – and maybe smarter. 

• By the time Missouri’s primary rolled around this year, all of my favored (Democrat) options had also been eliminated. So, given my choices, I went with Biden, because while a President Sanders doesn’t particularly frighten me, Candidate Sanders is, in my view, more worrisome. But who knows, maybe the Democrat Party would also turn out to be cowardly sycophants* were he to win (although I obviously didn’t like his chances of defeating President Trump; neither did Putin and the Russians, apparently).

• Why should it come as any kind of surprise that Democrat-identifying voters would want a nominee who is, you know, a bona fide Democrat and party member? 

• Didn’t Senator Sanders have four years to actually join the Democrat Party if he wanted to be its standard bearer? I respect that he was standing up for principles, but you can’t reasonably object to the cost of doing so. It’s like committing an act of civil disobedience and then complaining when you get arrested because you’re on the side of the angels. 

• Sanders supporters also might want to consider that, just because they are passionate about their candidate, maybe, just maybe, he didn’t get cheated as much as failed to stir those same feelings in enough of the voters who chose to participate in the Democrat Party nomination process. To imply otherwise is kind of insulting.

• Joe Biden is going to be the nominee of the Democrat Party. Respected non-partisan pollster Nate Silver of 538 puts his odds at >99%, followed by None and Sen. Sanders, in that order. Voters will, essentially, need to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Sanders supporters will not be the first, nor, sadly, the last, to have to hold their noses when they vote. Sitting out, writing in, protesting or choosing a third party are votes for the incumbent. If it’s a matter of principle, do what you must. Just remember, as Senator Sanders himself learned, those principled actions have consequences. Well, not in Missouri, because your vote, if it’s like mine, doesn’t really count. I’ll cast it anyway, though.

Other political observations, not always new

• True believers and ideologues make me nervous. Having spent more than a few years as a true-believer, I understand better than most how those kinds of blinders work. I like to think I was more pragmatic than most true-believers, but I also recognize that not everyone would agree. (However, as evidence, I offer one of my favorite smh compliments from a dear friend: “You’re the sanest gadfly I’ve ever known.”)

• Trump supporters who want attack perceived character flaws in Joe Biden might want to remember they live in glass houses – stained glass, not plexiglass. They forfeited that argument four years ago and I’ve seen no improvement since, except that his adulterous and lecherous proclivities have probably been more restricted lately.

• I wonder how many people who claim to be embarrassed by Trump, or excuse themselves with “I don’t like him but…” bothered to cast a protest vote for one of the other candidates in the Republican primary? (about 5% apparently) It’s not like his nomination is in doubt. Some state Republican parties even cancelled their primaries altogether. A free chance to make a statement. I no longer get his so-called surveys, so my “spitting in the wind” response days are over.

• Do partisan political memes make ANYONE feel better, besides you, maybe? Are they helpful in a time when we need to be pulling together? Do they provide real information? Can you recognize a rhetorical question?

• Finally, political parties do not exist to help people. They do not exist to help you; they do not exist to help me. That is a truth that crosses party lines, both Republican and Democrat. Their prime directive is the accumulation and consolidation of their own power. If the last four years haven’t amply demonstrated that, you’ve been distracted by the unfortunately unscripted reality show playing daily. Any benefit that comes to people, including their individual members, is merely a happy coincidence.

* The Republican Party kowtowing (oooh, irony) to seemingly every Trump whim and whine makes me wonder if the spelling should be changed to “psychophant.”

July 4 and The Importance of History

I have neither the intellectual rigor nor academic credentials to claim the label “historian,” or really even “history buff.” Still, I do know stuff, a lot of it history from teaching and preparing to teach various courses. Maybe I can claim “history dilettante,” which kind of fits my approach to so many things.

Nevertheless, on the 4^th of July, I am disturbed by the number of people willing to ignore history, the number of people willing pretend history doesn’t matter, the number of people willing to twist history to fit their world view and agenda.

This holiday in particular seems to inspire people.

Conservatives proudly wave their flags and tout their beliefs, failing to recognize that the history of conservatism is the story of people swimming against the tide. In their time, conservatives opposed declaring independence and the American Revolution (Tories), ratifying the Constitution (anti-Federalists), abolition, passage and enforcement of the Civil War Amendments, women suffrage, organizational rights for workers, social security, social integration and Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, civil rights protections for all people…. Change is scary and conservatives play an important role in making people slow down before adopting ill-conceived (even if usually well-intentioned) proposals without considering the inviolable Law of Unintended Consequences. But conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. You can’t truly own your political philosophy without also owning its historical roots.

When you don’t know your history, you adopt slogans like “America First” without knowing its provenance. The slogan was used by the Ku Klux Klan in marches as early as the 1920s and as late as David Duke in 2016.

It was also used as an argument by Woodrow Wilson to keep us out of World War I and opponents of the League of Nations after that war. It was resurrected by Nazi sympathizers, anti-Semites, and isolationists, including Charles Lindbergh, during the 1930s to try to keep us out of World War II, or from even helping our (eventual) allies, and the short-lived AFC (America First Committee), formed in opposition to FDR in 1940, but disbanded for obvious reasons after Pearl Harbor. Pat Buchanan (who notoriously called WW II “an unnecessary war”) used it in his run for office in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket. Do you know who also tried to get the Reform Party nomination in 2000? Donald Trump (who called Buchanan a “Nazi-lover”). Although his campaign style may be consistent, apparently he forgot the origins of his now favorite slogan.

   And then there’s the just plain “bad” history. Although I reject that the Civil War, at its core, was about anything other than preserving and expanding slavery, I recognize the deep roots of the “lost cause” school. I also “know” that its goal was to transform sedition into nobility, but understand why others might reject that view. Today, however, someone said slavery was incidental and the true cause was taxes. Fortunately for my self-esteem, I do not know and did not teach this person; and my goal here is not to create a lesson on the cause(s) of the Civil War. I’ll just end with what I was tempted to say, the variously (and apparently often incorrectly) attributed quote, “It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt of it.” I obviously do not always heed my own advice. 

Happy July 4, 2018.

Collusion Confusion & The Partisan Divide

President Trump repeatedly tweets and claims that he is not guilty of collusion. It may come as a surprise that I absolutely concur, although it’s neither a compliment nor an endorsement; Donald J. Trump is not capable of collusion (as far as I know, it is not even one of the many words he has misspelled).

Collusion requires listening skills; collusion requires the ability to work with others; collusion requires discretion and self-discipline; collusion requires loyalty and commitment to a common goal; collusion requires consistency. None of those attributes are hallmarks of the current president. His minions, of course, are, perhaps, another story.

Beyond that, I don’t think the Russians really cared who won the 2016 election. (If you think HRC was in their pocket but Trump is independent, or vice versa, your “stink test” detector might need a new battery.) There were advantages and disadvantages for Vladimir Putin to both candidates. No, what Putin wanted was exactly what he got, a divided nation with citizens so busy fighting amongst ourselves that Russian objectives, prime among them restoring Russia to global player and superpower status, could be achieved with a minimum of American interference. Russian trolls continue working to perpetuate those divisions.

“We have met the enemy and he is us,” said Pogo, so far back in the day that few of you reading this even get the reference.

Getting it, however, is less important than its truth. Are you part of the problem that is our toxic, tribal political atmosphere? If you’re posting or even sharing partisan memes, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re railing and ranting against either liberals or conservatives, as if one group has a monopoly on truth or virtue, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re pointing fingers (not just the middle one) or shaking fists at one group or another, religious or political or racial, if you’re generalizing and stereotyping, my answer is, “Yes.” If you believe that your team is good or that the “other” team is evil, my answer is, “Yes.” Political beliefs do not qualify their adherents as either saintly or ungodly.

Rabid partisans, almost by definition, are not prone to self-examination. Asking yourself, “What if I’m wrong?” before jumping in or sharing vitriol at least has the potential of mitigating some of the anger so prevalent on social media, the anger that continues to drive that wedge between us even deeper into our national soul. Of course, that means we have to admit such a possibility. But I’m guessing if you won’t, or can’t, admit that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong (and that an opposing point of view might have value), you probably never started reading this in the first place.   

R•E•S•P•E•C•T

Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States. Once again our country has navigated a peaceful transition of power (despite dire predictions to the contrary by some who were certain, without evidence other than their own, dislike may be too mild a word, that President Obama and his “libtard” minions would somehow try to subvert the process). Please note, I am referring only to the official transition, not the actions of anarchists.

I have tried to be respectful, really I have. I know that I honestly do respect any number of individuals who voted for Mr. Trump because I respect their life accomplishments. I even understand, at least on an intellectual level, the frustrations that led to their decisions. Still, perhaps I did fail in that regard. Some have at least implied that. Some obviously took personally my expressed doubts about the new president and his fitness for the office he now occupies and translated that into personal disrespect. I must also admit, however, that perhaps my attempts at respect were superficial, masking my inability to understand with words, but no sincere feelings or empathy. I also admit I was often gritting my teeth as I typed and perhaps that came through.

It’s a conundrum. I respect the Office of the President of the U.S and will continue to do so. I will, I keep telling myself, give the office far more respect than so many people gave it during the Obama years. (I certainly won’t shout out “Liar” during a speech or make “ape” or other subtext racist references about the President or First Lady. I won’t criticize his appearance, his wife, or his children.) I will reserve my criticism for actions with which I disagree and not descend into personal attacks. The former is my right (and duty) as a citizen; the latter makes me no better than those who were so viciously partisan and personally despicable for the last eight years.

But I do not respect the man; I do not respect Donald J. Trump. It’s not about his beliefs (even if I could figure out what he really believes), nor is it about his plans for the country (whatever they are this week). I might disagree with those, but they don’t create any problems in terms of respect. I do not respect Donald Trump, the man, because he is not a good person. There is no evidence that he possesses any personal character traits that are admirable or that fit my core values of honesty, loyalty, integrity, respect or kindness. I have no respect for bullies. I find it ironic that the “party of personal responsibility” is being led by a man who never taken any personal responsibility for anything, who has never made a mistake, never apologized, never been at fault for any failure. I do not understand how any woman can be an ardent supporter (not the same as voting for him as the “lesser of two evils”). His demonstrated attitude toward women precludes any personal respect from me.

Nevertheless, it is now up to me to somehow navigate that narrow path between respect for the office vs. respect for the man. I am skeptical, but perhaps the office will (magically) imbue Mr. Trump with some new admirable personal traits that have been previously camouflaged or suppressed. I would love for that to be true and will try to stay alert to the possibility (however remote) that he will grow in office. I am more inclined, however, to adapt a golf adage, “The office doesn’t grow character, it reveals it.” But maybe I’ll be wrong and, if so, I am hopeful that I’ll be honest enough with myself to admit it if it happens. I truly do hope so.

Good luck President Trump. We will see what the future holds. May you truly inspire greatness for all our citizens.

Please note. My concerns are not for myself, not personal. They are for the country. As an affluent white male, I have no personal worries. In fact, I am more likely to personally benefit economically than so many who actually voted for him. Unless the entire country goes to hell (Trump haters’ concerns that we’re there already are overstated in my view), my family and I will be fine, no matter what kind of president he turns out to be. 

Star Wars -- Celebrity Reality Edition

Meryl Streep had the stage at the Golden Globes and chose to use it to criticize PEOTUS DJ Trump, causing outrage in the Trumpet Section. You know what? I don’t care. I don’t care that she spoke out (she has that right under the First Amendment) and I don’t care that people are angry with her and speaking out against her (they have that right under the First Amendment). None of that will have any influence on whether or not I go to see a film. I can’t actually remember what the last film I saw from this fine actress. (Her expression of opinion makes her outspoken, but neither over- nor underrated.)

During Ms. Streep’s speech it appears that Mel Gibson sat there stone-faced (kind of like when he's acting). You know what? I don’t care. His opinion of the president-elect and his critics and supporters make zero difference to me. Should he ever make another movie I want to see, I’ll possibly overlook his drunken anti-Semitic rants and go see it (although that’s a higher bar because it was a behavior, not an expression of an opinion).

Any number of celebrities have declined the opportunity to perform at Mr. Trump’s inauguration. You know what? I don’t care. Their opinion of the PEOTUS has no impact on me. They didn’t influence my vote in November and they won’t influence how I evaluate the man's actions as President of the United States. And if they influence yours, one way or the other, you might want to start thinking for yourself. 

Country singer Toby Keith is going to perform at the inauguration. You know what? Of course you do, by now. I don't care. The decision is his to make and will have no influence on whether or not I choose to attend a concert, buy a song or album, or eat mediocre and overpriced food served by scantily clad waitresses (#familyvalues!) in his Las Vegas restaurant.

Some celebrities (on both sides) are intelligent people, and we should always try to listen to intelligent people before making up our own minds. But, all things being equal (and I concede that they are not always, and that some celebrities actually do have experience in the areas where they opine) their opinion, no matter how big their audience, has no more value than yours or mine. The size of an audience carries no more weight as to the value of an opinion than the decibels of the shouter. In other words, to paraphrase another celebrity, “They don’t impress me much.”

Steve Harvey is apparently going to consult with Dr. Ben Carson in his role as head of HUD, which has some people upset with him and others rushing to his defense (usually depending on whether they are celebrating or bemoaning the election results). I don’t care. Steve Harvey seems to be a bright guy and certainly can be no more ignorant about the secretary job than Dr. Carson (also a bright, if bizarre, guy, but misplaced in this position it seems to me). If he wants to listen to Mr. Harvey, it’s his time and it can’t hurt. 

If which celebrity is saying or doing what gets you wound up, well, that, too, is your time and your energy to spend. Me, (all together now), I DON’T CARE!