The MAGA Lie: America IS a GREAT Country

You have been told, are being told, and will continue to be told, how bad our country is, how dark is our future. It’s a lie. It was a lie 8 years ago, it was a lie 4 years ago, it’s a lie now, and it will continue to be a lie until it not longer serves the purpose of the liars.

In the 10+ years since I retired, I’ve been to all four corners of our great nation, the Northwest  (including Alaska), the South and Southeast, the Southwest, and New England. And then, of course, I live in the middle (MO). From stunning vistas, happy people, and a humming economy, I’ve been privileged to witness a great country, of which I’m proud to be a citizen. 

But if you believe everything you hear, we are a nation in decline, no longer great, no longer successful, no longer strong, and faced with a dark, dismal future, unless you hand over power (lots of power) to people who can only see that darkness.

America IS a great country. MAGA is built on a lie, because its foundation is that once (AGAIN doesn’t imply, it clearly states) we were great, but we are no longer. Let me remind you, that was the slogan in 2016, as well. Let me also ask, when was that period of greatness that no longer exists?

I’ve travelled (literally) around the world, including South America, Australia and the South Pacific, and Europe), and there is no other country that can compare, no other country in which I’d prefer to live or be a citizen. I challenge you to name one. What other nation do we wish to serve as our model for greatness? With all due respect to the citizens of other nations who think theirs is also great, we are the Muhammad Ali of countries on our planet, “the greatest.”

Any politician who tells you otherwise, who tells you….

“We are a failing nation….”

“We are a nation that is hostile to liberty, freedom, and faith….”

“We are a nation whose economy has collapsed….’

“We are a nation where free speech is no longer allowed….”

“We are a nation that [has] lost its confidence, willpower, and strength….”

That politician is lying to you. Again.

When I hear parroting politicians try to sell the idea of a country that once was, but no longer is, great, I question not only their truthfulness but their motivation. My witness tells me they’re lying, because that is not what I’ve seen and continue to see, daily.  Sewing discord and discontent is simply their pathway and payoff to personal power and wealth. 

Selling fear and unhappiness is not a new political marketing strategy (the KKK used it with great success in the 1920’s; Hitler used it to great effect in Germany in the 1930’s). If they can convince you to be unhappy, they can also convince you that they, and they alone, can reverse that and make you happy again, protect you from mythical enemies who want to personally do you harm (who have YOUR failure as THEIR objective). 

But first the parrots must convince you to ignore everything that is good, beautiful, and great about our country, to look past all the so many positives that make us the envy of the world, and, instead, focus on our (undeniable) problems (great ≠ perfect or problem free) that remain to be, if not solved, at least improved.

If you can choose, and you can, “Choose Happy.” Only you can make that choice. Choose wisely.

P.S. Note well, please, that just because something is not YOUR problem does not mean it’s not A problem.                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                           -30- 

Random Reminders On Civil Disobedience

No, this is not an analysis of Thoreau’s essay in Walden. Just some quick random thoughts on that venerable protest strategy.

• Thoreau went to jail.

• Mahatma Gandhi went to jail (and worse).

• Rosa Parks went to jail.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. went to jail. 

If you want to join that admirable group and practice civil disobedience, you have my respect and I support your right to do so, whether or not I agree with your POV or stance. You are joining in an honorable tradition – but only if you don’t whine if/when you face the consequences of your actions.

You don’t get to claim civil disobedience AND immunity from the ramifications of your actions. The above-named historical heroes all believed they were on the side of the angels, but, and this is key, they were willing to pay the price of standing (or sitting, in the case of Parks) on the “wrong” side of authority in order to challenge the injustice they saw around them. These masters of civil disobedience actually invited arrest to bring their cause front and center, rather than use cowardly intimidation tactics to avoid any consequence.

You want to grab your gun and march, that is your right. I don’t care what name you want to give your cause or your actions, but you can’t claim civil disobedience. That phrase is reserved for the courageous men and women who stand up for their beliefs without trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.

While it shouldn’t be necessary, let me point out that Thoreau, Gandhi, Parks, & King were non-violent protesters, not gun-toting rowdies. Armed protest threatening violence isn’t civil disobedience, it’s rebellion and insurrection and carries the potential of far more severe repercussions than jail. We had one civil war; it didn’t work out so well for the instigators – and, sadly, the defenders of the country and Constitution who shared the horror of that conflict also paid a steep price. Ironic that so many of the participants are waving flags of history’s losers (Swastikas, Stars & Bars) as they protest.

Spirit of '76

There are some advantages to growing older (not the least of which is it beats the alternative), assuming you can remember them.

Remembering the past, for example. I’ve been involuntarily reminded recently (and frequently) of an attitude that prevailed for a while in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s as the nation was roiled by protests over the ill-fated Vietnam War and civil rights. Car bumper stickers sprouted like modern-day memes. “America, Love it or Leave it” is the one that comes to mind in light of modern day events. That ugly assumption, that if you have the temerity to criticize your country you must hate it, is making a resurgence. News commentators, social media posts and more are implying, if not outright yelling, that POV.

Why must everything be a zero-sum game, an all or nothing proposal, with both poles screeching at their opposites, and, worst of all, dismissing any valid points that get lost in the halitosis of the shouting? And what is MORE American, especially on the day celebrating our independence, than protesting? Tea Party anyone?

On this 4^thof July, before getting into snark, meme posting, or finger pointing, let’s apply the stink test to our thinking. Would I react the same way if the action or opinion came from my “team?” 

I saw a great t-shirt at the Pride Parade in St. Louis Sunday: “Be careful who you hate; it might be someone you love.” I think that applies on multiple levels.

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. 

Amendment 6: Voter ID

We live in a complex world, an increasingly complex world. That will not change any time soon. Or at least we should hope not, because if life becomes simple, then that means that life as we know it has changed dramatically, probably irreversibly, and all those hallmarks of civilization that we take for granted are no longer available.

Constitutional Amendment 6 on the (Missouri) November ballot will almost surely pass, despite opposition from the non-partisan League of Women voters and a lonely group working against it. Amendment 6 is the Voter Identification one. Seems simple. Ah, but there’s the rub. Simple in a complex world is anything but.

I was probably leaning toward voting for it myself. Getting a photo ID to vote didn’t strike me as such an onerous a task, and if (when) the amendment passes, groups will arise to ease the process. In fact, the Law of Unintended Consequences may kick in, as it always seems to, and those groups may actually end up registering more people because that’s what true believers do. And, ironically, it may create more of the problem than the one it purports to correct: voter identification fraud. Because the cheaters (and there is virtually zero evidence of this type of fraud) will now have a checklist if they want to try to game the system. There will be less oversight, not more of the increased applications that will follow its passage. Remember, most of those espousing this so-called reform also oppose any new government spending.

But the reason I plan to vote against Amendment 6 is because of my mother-in-law. I should point out that she’s my late mother-in-law who lived in Illinois and won’t be voting any time soon. (Conspiracy theorists may insert their snarky if delusional comment here.) But this law would have probably disenfranchised her. You see, she never had a birth certificate. And Amendment 6 requires that as one of the few types of acceptable forms of identification.

We don’t know where she was born, we don’t know who either of her birth parents are. Her “adoptive” (extra-legal) mother just disappeared one day and showed up a few days later with a baby and refused, even on her death bed, to give any information. My MIL surrendered her driver’s license (just in time, says a grateful community) and, as a non-driver lacked that ID, as well. Could she have jumped through the hoops needed to get a voter ID? Of course. Would we have helped her? Of course. But why, after years of voting, paying taxes, being a productive citizen, should we, the state, place this burden on her? To solve a problem (Voter ID fraud) that is virtually non-existent? While it’s a moot point because she died almost 8 years ago, she’s not alone and would not deserve to be disenfranchised. Oh, and as a denizen of Southern Illinois, would likely have voted Republican.

Lose-Lose

In just over two weeks we will cast our ballots for the next President of the United States (if you haven’t done so already). At least one national nightmare (Campaign 2016) will end, but at least 40% of the country will contend that a new one has begun. If that is, or will be your stance, I humbly beg you to please reconsider.
Back in the day….

I had an activity that I picked up doing my MAT at Webster (when it was still “just” a college) called Win as Much as You Can. Some of my formers may remember me running it in some class or another (or even staff at an in-service, because it didn’t matter how old you were, the point/lesson was still appropriate). The upshot was that no one “wins” if your victory must come at someone else’s expense, makes a “loser” out of someone else. In other words, if someone must lose in order for you to win, then the win is at least diminished, if not negated. Win as Much as You Can advocates Win-Win outcomes.

While this obviously doesn’t apply in the sports arena very well (although I might argue that respectful competition improves everyone’s game and that disrespecting and/or destroying the opposition makes you a loser, not a winner), it works as a model for most other aspects of life. You could even make a case for it in business. If you destroy all your competition you will not only run afoul of the government but consumers will resent you. Sooner or later someone will find a way to beat you at your own game; and destroying competition also damages innovation.

But this is about politics and the toxic competition that has become the norm in our country. Sadly, it is no longer enough to try to defeat the opposition with ideas, you must also make sure that even should they win, their status and reputation are so damaged or destroyed with a significant percentage of the population that they can get nothing done. The concept of loyal opposition seemingly, sadly, no longer exists. Instead we have the new normal: “If I can’t win, I’ll make sure you don’t either.” That attitude is not appropriate for the USA (United States of America), but the DSA (Disunited States of America, or perhaps Dismantled States of America), and assumes that our country isn’t one team. If that is our attitude, our once great nation may actually realize Donald Trump’s self-fulfilling prophecy and we truly will no longer be great. That results in ALL of us losing, because here is the problem with poisoning the well.

In political contests when even the winners lose, we ALL end up having to drink that water until the next election — after which the water is still poisoned. Thus, we all lose. Both sides justify this scorched earth policy by pointing fingers at the opposition; and both sides are equally correct, and equally guilty, IMO. “They started it” sounds more like elementary and middle school than adult behavior. It does not matter, in this respect, whether the next president is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; each will ascend (descend?) into office carrying the poison of this campaign, some of it self-inflicted, some of it injected by the opposition, but all of it with a radioactive half-life that ensures years of damage beyond his/her term(s) – to all of us.

What can we do about this? In some ways, as individuals, very little. But this I pledge (again!), as a citizen of the United States of America: My next president (or senator, or governor, or….)  gets the benefit of the doubt, my trust that (s)he is acting in what (s)he truly believes is the best interests of the country, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those actions, because (s)he won the election.* He (or she) gets to start with a clean slate. You cannot claim to love your country while simultaneously working to destroy it or undermine the successful candidate because the election didn’t go your way.

Rush Limbaugh’s attitude from Day 1 of the Obama presidency (“I want him to fail”) was un-American, unpatriotic, selfish and self-centered, bordering, in my opinion, on treason. Although that attitude is easy to rationalize, it is only that, rationalization; I rejected that approach then and ask you to do the same now, whether it’s for President Trump or President Clinton. That’s a little thing each of us can all do if we choose to. Because the next president won’t be yours or mine, the next president of our country will, in fact, be ours.

* I would suggest this a true pledge of allegiance and is far more significant than whether I stand for the national anthem or wear a flag lapel pin or manifest any other symbolic gesture.