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.   

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. 

Uncivil War

Whichever of the two flawed candidates we elect, I fear that (s)he is incapable of healing our divided country. We may not see a “hot” civil war, but it seems to me that we are already in the middle of a “cold” civil war, with little, if any, prospect for healing the rifts that both political parties continue to exploit for their own power agendas. Our battered nation needs to heal, but, sadly, we will not be electing a leader who can bring that about.

I have zero hope that Hillary Clinton can unite the country should she win the presidency. She will want to be inclusive and talk about a united country. However, the wall between her and the citizenry, though not built by Donald Trump even if we are paying for it, is too big to scale; no matter how well she (and her speech writers) phrase it, a huge minority of the country not only won’t believe her, but will work to ensure that no one else does, either. I don’t see any way she can be an effective leader.

However, I have zero hope that Donald Trump even wants to bring the country together. He wants to rule the USA, but I’ve seen no evidence that he wants to lead it, to bring people together. (If there is any evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it; it would ease my mind – a little.) As near as I’ve been able to determine, based on his campaign, his supporters, and his statements, his goal is to bully anyone who disagrees with him into compliance. Should he win the election (a distinct possibility that terrifies me), I see only increased division and animosity as he attacks and scapegoats those who disagree with him.

I’ve probably become a broken record (“Mom, what’s a record?”); I will expect the worst and hope for the best, supporting the country and the office of the president, no matter who is in it. I’ll be curious to see if any members of the Trumpet section agree to play that tune or just continue to contribute the cacophony of division. Time will tell.

I Just "Unfriended" Donald Trump

Full disclosure: I never was friends with Donald Trump. Shocking, I know.

Not long ago I wrote about how I was going to start deleting Facebook friends if they showed disrespect by saying or implying I was stupid,or disloyal, or immoral, or whatever because I did not share their POV on aparticular candidate or cause. Because I’m not as quick as I used to be*, it took a while before I realized that is EXACTLY the MO of Mr. Trump. If you disagree with him you’re a loser, disloyal, stupid, or whatever insult pops into that incredibly coiffed head. If you run a privately held company I guess you can get away with that. But I don’t see that playing well with other countries or leaders both within and outside of our country. 

And while I have a multitude of objections to Mr. Trump and his vision of what the USA is supposed to look like, it is what I see as the potential disaster to American relations with other countries that frightens me the most. I understand that because he appears to be strong he has a certain appeal, especially among those who feel like we get played by the rest of the world or feel like they’re losing ground. It is frustrating to feel like you don’t have the control you once had. 

But like the parent of an adolescent, that control was an illusion anyway. We may be the biggest, toughest kid on the block, but there are lots of kids and they’re all saying, “You’re not the boss of me!” Trying to bully them into doing what we want, when we want, ignores that we are not, have not been for some time, self-sufficient. It also manifests an attitude of superiority that fosters resentment instead of respect and makes cooperation in solving shared problems even more difficult. Other countries have their own agendas and self-interest; those won’t change just because we want them to.

We can rail against globalism, international trade agreements, a shrinking world, but, the fact of the matter is, all of those are the new reality. Actually, they’ve been the reality for a long time; this election is not a time machine and that train left the station years ago and it’s not turning around. Our economy, your portfolio and savings if you have them, probably even your job, will suffer if we try to economically punish either our enemies OR, heaven forbid, our friends. And exactly how many friends will we have left shortly into a Trump presidency? As a candidate, Mr. Trump frightens even our long time allies and trading partners!

We are interdependent, and will continue to be. We cannot build walls, either physical or metaphorical, protecting us from the world any more than Prince Prospero could seal out the Red Death (Edgar Allan Poe reference, if you’re interested, and an apt Donald Trump analogy, IMO). It remains to be seen if we’re alone in the universe, but we sure are not alone in the world (see previous post about foreign reaction to Mr. Trump that we personally experienced, even before he secured the nomination), and no one likes a bully. We cannot, our economy cannot, afford to alienate every country that doesn’t do what we tell them, not without hurting our own interests at least as much as theirs. Probably more, because we have so much more to lose. 

Poor countries that lose 10% of their economy will remain, well, poor. But what happens if we our economy takes even a 5% hit? Think that won’t affect you? Think again, bucko. That number, to put it in Trumpeter terms? HUGE! Be careful what you wish for. I’d suggest you better make sure you have another cup from which you can drink before you throw the one you think is ugly against the wall. I just know that you and I have a much better chance of being collateral damage in an international economic collapse than Mr. Trump, because, for him personally, losing 10-20% of his wealth just makes him, well, less rich; he’ll recover if he is half the businessman he claims to be. You know who else will be okay? The other rich people. They have the resources to ride out the storm, but unless you’re among ‘em, your odds are not good, because we regular folks are the 9^th Ward in Hurricane Donald.
*Second disclosure: I’m not really THAT slow. I have been sitting on this for a while now.

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.