Trump Disconnect Syndrome (TDS II)

    Please apply the #StinkTest. Please. Had the election outcome been different and Joe Biden was mimicking President Trump’s words and actions and his campaign was waging the same kind of war against democracy, what would be your reaction? It is inconceivable to me that ANYONE, no matter how partisan and committed, could buy into his absurdity, his ludicrous opinion that EVERYONE except his supporters is out to get him (including multiple Republicans and, wait for it, Fox News). You don't even have to try to put the shoe on the other foot -- just look at it and you have to see it doesn’t fit. It is beyond irrational. The possibility of a conspiracy that vast, involving as many people as would be required, and with no credible evidence, is absurd. That Kool-Aid would have to be laced with LSD. Speaking of acronyms....

    I previously offered my thoughts on TDS (Trump Defense Syndrome), the projection by Trump supporters that any criticism of the president is also a personal attack on them. His followers continue to be triggered by ANYTHING that remotely smacks of criticism, so nothing has changed, nor, I expect, will change. A little while back I posted an admittedly snarky shot at the president post-election. It was intended as humor, pointed humor to be sure, but it hardly rose (descended?) to the level of comments and tweets from the president himself during the last four years. His defenders complained that it (among other things I wrote) treated him unfairly. Hello, #StinkTest. Although I have no hope of changing even a single mind, and have been letting this piece percolate for a few weeks for that very reason, it is exactly this kind of triggering that has motivated me to revisit the issue of TDS. 

I have no doubt I will regret broaching this topic, but you’ll have to accept me at my word that it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and a desire to try to understand. Is it a forlorn hope that it’s a two-way street? (Sigh) Probably.

I truly cannot understand the disconnect that I see between defending the president, seemingly no matter what, while completely ignoring the UNPRECEDENTED criticism that has come, and continues to come, from those who have worked closely with him, men (there may be women, I’m just not aware of any) who were part of “the best people,” who chose to serve, if not him, at least their country in his administration. These men are not anonymous sources, but high profile persons of estimable character (okay, not Steve Bannon), generally respected across the aisle. That doesn’t even count former Republican presidents, self-identified conservative and libertarian columnists, the true-believer Republicans who founded The Lincoln Project, or less well-known members of his administration. It is astounding how many prominent Republicans endorsed his opponent. Has that EVER happened before, and why now? Nor does it count John (Buy my book) Bolton. Nor Colonel Vindman, nor…. Well, you get the picture, although that picture ought to include that their competition is Rudy Giuliani. Seriously?

Speaking of pictures, I’m including a meme (no, my negative opinion of memes has not abated) only because it presents some actual quotes all in one handy visual. 

How can Trump defenders explain the withering criticism (This from Gen. Jim Mattis is just one example) from so many of his inner circle? How can they continue to defend him when so many who worked closely with him in his administration have little, if anything, good to say about him? 

I’m sorry, but it is just not credible to think it’s ALL fake news, that EVERYBODY is wrong except him, that EVERYBODY is lying EXCEPT him, that EVERY critic is a hater or “Never-Trumper,” even if he appointed them, that ALL these people, respected people, unquestionably patriotic people, are out to get him. And even if so, why? I am therefore adding Trump Disconnect Syndrome (TDS II) to the original Trump Defense Syndrome (TDS).

I am genuinely curious how this happens. I promise not to argue answers, although I will call out deflections that don’t answer the question. I may (respectfully) ask a follow up or provide an anecdote, because that’s just who I am, but, again, I don’t expect any mind changing to emanate from this exercise. And if “Biden is worse” is all you’ve got, well, okay, then let’s not waste each other’s time, because not only does it fail to answer the question, but, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, IMO no one could possibly be worse than Despicable He: A.Bad.Man.

Oh, and add the recently fired Mike Esper to the list: “God helps us.”

Hollow Victory — No Joy in Mudville

I suppose I should feel better about the 2020 presidential election outcome than I do. I really wish I could. After all, it was Trump who struck out (probably primarily because of his tendency to lash out).

As the process unfolded, I had one, and really only one, overriding concern – defeat the incumbent, a man so despicable that I’m repulsed to be lumped in the same gender category as him. 

He was, from my perspective, the worst president of my lifetime – 72 years, so, since Truman, although I obviously don’t have any real memories of HST other than his post-presidency, but I do read and know, have even taught, our nation’s history. In my view, no previous modern occupant of the White House comes even close.

While I think Trump was a bad president (again, the worst in my lifetime), he was a worse person, one who brought out the worst instincts in both his supporters and opponents, who enabled and encouraged white supremacists, who made even our friends abroad ask, “What the hell, America?” It will take a long time to rehabilitate our reputation abroad, to restore the trust and leadership that once was ours, to, pardon the expression, Make America Great Again. You can discount the opinions of your enemies, your rivals, but when friends and allies roll their eyes (Hello, Lincoln Project), you might want to rethink your choice. 

Donald.Trump.Is.A.Bad.Man.

Being anti-abortion doesn’t change that; he stands behind cruelty. Not that his supporters will likely believe them, but the revelations that will flow from the toxic waste dump that was his administration will probably surprise even me. To be clear, I don’t want to see him charged with any crimes (there’s little doubt in my mind that there are multiple legitimate possibilities). But then I also supported President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. Because Ford put healing the country ahead of politics, he may have cost himself the election of 1976. I hope President-elect Biden pushes all the tempting revenge scenarios to the bottom of his (necessarily lengthy, thanks to his predecessor) agenda, and encourages states’ attorneys general and governors to do the same.

Nor does the failure of the mythical “Blue Wave” to materialize discourage me, although I would have welcomed it. And I have little hope that Mitch McConnell will be anything other than what he’s been for the past 10 years, a Machiavellian politician with a private agenda to recreate a 1950s America (which was probably pretty good for a straight, middle class, white male, considerably less so for most everyone else). So I am resigned to a miserable stretch of at least two years, maybe longer if the 2022 elections follow recent patterns,  but I’ve managed to survive charting new depths of despair for the past four years....

So what disturbs me most about this election? The one thing it absolutely proves is that 2016 wasn’t an aberration. I had hoped, a false hope it is now obvious, that 2016 was a visceral reaction to frustration with the state of the country, to feeling ignored and invisible, to feeling like a pawn to be sacrificed. I conjured up various explanations, based on my own observations, based on what I thought I knew about those who voted for him. You know, “fine people on both sides.” I worked to understand why some of those people, people I knew to be decent and honorable, voted for Despicable He. I excused, rationalized, tried to defend their decision. Most of the people I knew weren’t 5th Avenue Trumpists; they may have been fooled once, or were so antagonistic toward his opponent that they voted AGAINST her, but these were good people who would come to their senses after witnessing the bullying, lying, and aggressive ignorance that consistently characterized our 45th president.

2020 has made it obvious that, once again, I’m a hopeless optimist not grounded in reality. 2016 is who we are, because in 2020, HALF of the American voters wanted to return this not very bright, incompetent, vulgarian bully to the White House. The most (and, quite frankly, only) charitable explanation that I can come up with (but recognizing my own blinders) is partisan blindness, a belief that only one political party cares about the future (and only their vision of that future) of the country. Trump’s rejection by a majority of the voters is a small relief, but that so many wanted the opposite, that so many continue to defend him, does not make me hopeful in the slightest about the future USA in which my daughter and granddaughter will live.

What can I do? My first action: abandon any hope that maintaining even FB relationships with those outside my belief system might open their minds. That was a fruitless and frustrating 4-year endeavor. So I will leave them to their hyper-partisan echo chambers, their Fox News, PJ Media, Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Breitbart, InfoWars, etc., etc. If that’s where they choose to live, so be it, but I don’t have to visit or even walk past their house, because my presence clearly changes nothing except to make me feel worse. 2020 has been bad enough – I don’t need to get burned by adding fuel to a dumpster fire.

Even if I think I know, I will not ask about your vote. I am not actively looking to shed connections, but if you insist of posting stupid, insulting, political memes, repeating absurd conspiracy theories, or echoing Doomsday/End of the World prophecies, sheepling (bleating) the words of others instead of your own, well, I have better ways to waste my time and fill up my feed. Bye, Felicia.

What Does Your Doctor Say?

I recently shared an Axios story (click for link) — only one of every three Americans believe the published death statistics for the current pandemic. To my way of thinking, that in itself is concerning – trust is clearly in short supply. It is even more concerning to me that our distrust is fueled and magnified by our political beliefs. In short, lefties think the numbers are too low while righties think they’re inflated. 

An expanded reply to a response re: that article follows. Because I think the reply has some merit on its own, I edited it and gave it its own blog entry. As I mentioned in the original post, the article ought to give anyone pause, although not necessarily hope. 

“My takeaway from this article is that it had absolutely nothing to do with which side is right or wrong, because it’s irrelevant (to the article). My takeaway is that perception is trumping reality and what people believe is based, for two-thirds of the populace, on 1) where they sit on the political spectrum and 2) where they get their news, offering conclusive evidence that people don’t believe what they hear and/or see, rather they see/hear what they believe.

As for me, I’m trusting the advice of MY doctor (if I don’t trust him, I need a new doctor), to whom I pay a lot of money, not some “expert” on cable news or You Tube or Facebook. I wonder how many of the people sharing memes, supporting protests, posting articles or videos, have actually consulted THEIR DOCTORS?

I think that’s going to be my standard response: What does your doctor say?

My doctor says it’s too soon to know anything for sure, because this crisis is unlike anything we’ve experienced before. He says it’s too soon to stop being careful and smart; neither is it wise to stop trusting science. Yes, I talked to him directly, personally, after he responded to my email with a phone call and 15-minute conversation. Additionally, he suggested that the CDC, Dr. Fauci, and even Gov. Cuomo are worth listening to; that letting other people be the guinea pigs who test the safety of dine-in restaurants is probably a smart strategy;* and that he felt safe in agreeing that cancelling our cruise this summer was the right call, although other travel this summer might be considered, given new safety protocols.

“You can’t eliminate all risk, you can’t shut the country down for the next 18 months; you can use common sense.”

We also concurred that while common sense, like trust, is, and has been, in short supply for quite some time, far too many people who think they have it, don’t.

* Carry-out to support your favorite eateries is very low risk, however. That is what we're doing to keep our favorites alive until the time when WE feel it's safe to start dining out again. That will be OUR call (after consulting OUR doctor), no matter the decision of any politicians to open up the economy based on some arbitrary, but politically motivated, date.

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.”

A Facebook Caveat Emptor -- True Story

A friend of mine supports Senator Sanders. Actually, more than one, but one in particular inspires this cautionary tale. (Because it’s irrelevant I’m going to obscure the friend’s gender by using the {newly accepted} “they” as I relate this to you.)

On their feed was posted a(n alleged) link to a Washington Examiner story claiming polls showed that only Bernie Sanders could defeat President Trump. My simple response, “You know the Examiner is a right wing source, yes?” In other words, like their hero, President Trump, the Examiner would prefer to have Senator Sanders as the opposition, and their polling source might have its own agenda. However, I don’t even know if the link was bona fide because I didn’t open it.

My friend responded later with a text, with these exact words: “Don’t know where that article came from, I don’t remember sharing it. Thanks for pointing it out!!!” Wow! You can’t even trust Facebook! (sarcasm, btw)

Those of you who actually vet or fact check your sources (and don’t just share memes and links that fit your world view) probably don’t need this warning, even if you are horrified by the anecdote, but be skeptical of EVERYTHING on Facebook. The poster may not even know what’s being published under their name – especially if it’s shared content from a third party, or a meme, or a link to or from a biased source.  Not only may it be untrue, it may not even come from the person who seemingly posted it. That there are bad actors out there spreading misinformation cannot be denied.

Random notes & observations inspired by the above:

• I don’t know a single Sanders supporter who wants free stuff. Not.a.single.one.

• Political parties care about one thing, and one thing only: power for the political party. Neither (none) holds the keys to either heaven or prosperity.

• While there was no perfect candidate, none of my top 3-4 choices on the Democrat side were probably ever really viable candidates, but….

• I would vote for the dish sponge we forgot to rinse out prior to our trip before the incumbent president, because with some effort, the dish sponge could be cleaned up, salvaged and made useful.

• It’s honestly difficult for this ex-English teacher to do the “they” thing, but I understand the rationale.

• Speaking of ex-English teachers, I know one who tried to teach his students that the adverb “very” was the product of a weak vocabulary or a lazy mind, and exemplified poor writing. Oh, wait, that was me (probably among others).

• Speaking of lazy, political memes are for those too lazy to express their own thoughts and ideas. Memes are, by definition, simplistic and misleading. Just.Stop.

The Why Not The What

The why is more important than the what, motivation > outcome, process > result. When teaching history, what happened interested me far less than the why and how; in English, reasoning always eclipsed the actual conclusion.

As the tribes dig their trenches ever deeper and their siege mentality fossilizes, I struggle mightily, with ever increasing fatigue, to listen to, if not agree with, those who see politics (and society) as what more and more seems to resemble a war. I get that people view life through different lenses. So I don’t really care what people think nearly as much as I care why they think as they do.

I know good people who voted for the current president; I respect, even I don’t completely understand, their reasons. That I could never have come to that same conclusion does not negate their process or value as fellow inhabitants on this planet. I have been clear from long before the election that I had no respect for Donald Trump as a person, that I found him a despicable being, based on his own words and actions, not on what others said about him. 

I do have to give him credit for subsequently pushing his stock lower than even I could have imagined during his tenure; he has revealed himself to be an even worse being than I could have possibly anticipated. Understand, I’m talking personal traits (the word qualities seems so inappropriate), not political positions. Again, based on his own words and actions, not the opinions of others. 

Still, I get that at least many, if not most, of his supporters don’t think character matters; as long as that remains a consistent metric for future candidates with opposing POVs, I won’t argue. Some are so invested in the Republican Party (which is no longer resembles anything like the party of Eisenhower or Reagan or even Bush (43), but never mind) that their support is unwavering. Others are so anti-Democrat, frightened or disgusted by their vision of that party, that nothing else matters. Okay, I get that, too. I may view those positions as mistaken or wrong, but valid at least through their own lenses. The why, not the what.

Believe me, it takes a lot of effort for me to ignore everything to arrive at that point, but I can generally, grudgingly, manage. For so many people committed to their tribe, whichever tribe it is, it’s a black and white world.

But what truly frustrates me is that as hard as I work to give/find credit, to respect those who hold opposing views, to understand the why if not the what, I find little evidence that there is any attempt to understand MY why. Instead, I see memes and snarky reposts that too frequently border on personal (if not specifically addressed to me) attacks. For those defending the current president, if I can try to understand the why of your position, is reciprocity, the respect for one who disagrees with you, too much to ask? 

That is what is wearing me out and down. That is what makes me want to completely disengage. But my gift this holiday season is to persist. If you would like to reciprocate, may I suggest resisting the temptation to share that meme or post which demonizes, denigrates, or discounts those who don’t see the world through your lens, but their own, a lens they value. Think about their why.

No matter the tribe to which you pledge allegiance, mindlessly posting memes about the other just expands and mines a “No Man’s Land,” shredding the fabric of our nation, building a wall that keeps our country apart — and weak. 

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.

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.   

Beware of They!

Although I suppose it would be easier (read, simpler) in many ways, we do not live in a black and white world.

Them! They! Certainly not US!

Originally written 9/21/2017, updated & edited today.

Do you ever wonder who “they” are?

I was perusing FaceBook, something I admittedly probably spend too much time on, and I stumbled across a post about them, which was to say not the poster, wanting to do something that seemed snowflakey. Snowflakes and triggers come in both red and blue, incidentally. Then I ran across another post about how they were hateful.

And I began, as I often do, to wonder, “Who is this they?” If you consider yourself a conservative, “they” is probably liberals. If you consider yourself a liberal, “they” is probably conservatives. If you’re a (true) libertarian, you get to alternate “theys” between both the liberals AND conservatives! Lucky you!

But I would ask you, before sharing, reposting, tweeting or retweeting, that meme or article, to ask yourself who that they is to whom you’re referring.

Because the fact of the matter is, unless you’re talking about a very specific (and generally small) group of people, there really is no “they.” Of course there are Nazis; of course there are anarchists (who, almost by definition, are a less than cohesive group); of course there are Kluckers; of course there are, well, you get the picture. And yes, there are true-believer Republicans and Democrats, and while frequently those who have been elected by their party will follow the party-line, it is often as much out of a desire to stay in office than any real commitment to a particular bill or even philosophy. Even those who do claim a philosophical affiliation with one party or the other (or some other) will often be loyal only to a point. Only the wonks actually know or follow the platform of their party, and even then selectively. (Note that the GOP didn’t even bother with a platform in 2020.)

But all generalizations, like all stereotypes, will seldom be accurate when describing any individual.

I’ve been called a liberal, a socialist, even a communist (that was a long time ago). I’ve previously expressed my scorn for labels, because labels are too simplistic. I lean left, no doubt, so in the eyes of a staunch conservative (including my own family), that makes me a liberal. Even if true, guess what? We don’t have meetings to decide what we believe, because there is no consensus.

My brothers lean right. But they don’t, at least as far as I know, meet up for lunch to define the weekly positions for a true-believer conservative. Or at least they didn’t invite me when you could still do lunch. Nor do any other conservatives, or liberals. Those terms are only marginally useful because there is no organized group. But if you want to rile people up, get them excited about fake issues (like removing statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson), feel free to talk about how they are doing whatever.

Don't Put Me In Coach; I'm Not Ready to Play

Ain’t no point in talkin’ when there’s nobody listenin’ so I’ll just stand aside  (apologies to Rod Stewart, Young Turks”)

I have avoided posting or sharing anything critical of President Trump for some time now. I do continue to read and react (mostly privately) to information I encounter in the media, both social and traditional (yes, I read magazines, newspapers, listen to the radio, even watch the occasional television news). After researching sources, I have also posted, and will continue to post, counterpoints to the simplistic memes and blatantly prejudiced and one-sided pieces that violate “the stink test,” as well as those that are either factually inaccurate or conveniently selective in the facts presented.

Nevertheless, I am refraining from joining the chorus of critics on social media. It’s not because I have any confidence in the President, or that I believe he has suddenly become a better person (see R•E•S•P•E•C•T); I do not. However, it’s not a fine line between singing in the choir or just waiting and watching, and until I can bring something to party other than other people’s chips and dip (tweets and shares), I am satisfied to not RSVP. When I do show up to the party (and it’s almost a dead certainty that I will, at some point), it likely will be with a dish (blog post) of my own creation, not something I found in the aisles of the internet.

The anti-Trump choir already has plenty of members; it doesn’t need another monotone to amplify the volume. I respect those who feel the need to speak out, to march, to protest in any number of ways. It is not just their right, but their duty. Perhaps I am even shirking that duty and abrogating my rights by sitting quietly (well, relatively quietly) on the sidelines, at least for the time being. Perhaps the voices are making a difference. If you believe the polls, Mr. Trump has the lowest approval rating in history, or at least since Abraham Lincoln. Therein lies the problem, however.

Mr. Trump’s supporters don’t believe the polls. They justify that stance by (correctly) pointing out that the polls also predicted an election day defeat, and, yet, here he is, the duly elected, 45th president of the United States. I could argue that the biggest positive to come out of this election is a healthy skepticism of polls. I might further argue that reliance on those polls might have cost Secretary Clinton the election. Next time people might actually think it important to vote, like Mr. Trump’s supporters (or Mrs. Clinton’s haters) did.

I am also striving, mightily and some would no doubt say with limited success, to be better than those who never gave President Obama a fair chance, including virtually every Republican in Congress, plus all sorts of people, apparently using Mr. Trump as a role model, who are revising their personal history and now claiming they wanted Mr. Obama to succeed; I remember your posts and memes, even if you don’t. I also remember the steady stream of vitriole from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Fair chance? Fat chance!

On our recent cruise with the 1%-ers my standard line was, “It’s premature to judge whether or not Trump will be a good president, but he is NOT a good person.” Having received but one (bizarre, IMO, but it came out of Facebook, so the standards are not particularly high {“He won, so he must be good,” while simultaneously telling me how awful Bill Clinton was.}) defense of his character, clearly that does not seem to matter to his supporters. And if that doesn’t matter, what is the point, because any judgment of the political ramifications of his presidency is pure speculation at this point in history.

For now, at least, I will continue to sit on the sidelines, not because I have any confidence whatsoever in this presidency, but because every time the choir sings, Mr. Trump’s supporters go into their bunkers, dig in their heels, and either fire back a defensive fusillade or put on their noise-cancelling headphones and listen to their own music. I think the chorus is self-defeating at this point; the Trumpet section, playing their own tune equally loudly, is going to have to come to the conclusion that this was not a good choice on their own. That won’t happen quickly, and, obviously, for some, not at all, ever, because clearly our tastes in music differ.

As difficult as it is for people like me to accept, there is absolutely nothing I can say, no facts I can share, no logic I can use that will make a difference. So here I sit. My only concern: Is my passive patience feeding the delusion of not just his supporters but the president himself that I have no worries about what the future holds? That is manifestly untrue (not even an alternate fact), but I also wonder, did the silent “good Germans” enable Adolph Hitler* and his consolidation of power? Although my strategy is not really as passive as it might appear, I do ask myself, “Am I now part of the problem by not being part of the solution?”  As always, I have more questions than answers.

*Am I equating Trump to Hitler? No, at least not yet. But there are parallels which I think supporters ignore at their, and our, peril.