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- 

Good-bye to the Devil We Know....

I have never been a fan of the hyper-partisan, self-dealing* Mitch McConnell, but I have always been forced to admit to some grudging respect for his ability to accumulate and use power, to manipulate the system to the benefit of his party and (while it goes without saying but makes him no different than any of his colleagues in either party) himself.

However, I won’t start celebrating his long-goodbye announcement today any time soon, but not just because he will be replaced by someone a lot like him, albeit probably less effective in the short term. No, my fear is based on the ramifications of the power vacuum he is creating. 

The Berndt Power Theory postulates that political power in any environment is (essentially) constant and that the elimination or diminishment of any one power source will be replaced, perhaps by multiple persons, but replaced nonetheless. There will undoubtedly be some temporary disintegration of his power in the resulting friction between his colleagues to claim it as their own, but eventually equilibrium will be restored.

What worries me is the frightening and very real possibility that he will be replaced by a far worse devil, some nationalist MAGA toady that, combined with the possible reinstallation of Trump as president, would further undermine the already shaky foundations of democracy in the United States.

Senator McConnell, for all his partisanship, did serve as a check on the power of the nationalist MAGA wing, albeit such a gentle hand-check that even the most vigilant referee would be hard-pressed to call a foul. McConnell, at least, wanted power for the party which he believed was best suited to lead the country, was dedicated to the democratic traditions of the Senate (no matter how undemocratic they may often have seemed), believed in the rule of law, and practiced courtesy and decorum. I wish I were more confident that his replacement would have even a modicum of his level of honor and principles. But I have none.

*self-dealing ≠ corrupt by my definiton and applies to vitually every politician on the national stage. It’s what makes “politician” such a lucrative gig that its practioners will spend million$ to win a job that pays mere thousand$.

Why I Reject Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories may be spreading faster than COVID-19, but I don’t buy them any more than I buy brussel sprouts. Maybe not for the reasons you might want to believe, however.

I view myself as a pragmatist. I don’t expect my words here to offer a blinding flash of (en)light(enment). I don’t expect to alter people’s beliefs or behaviors. Even when I do engage on social media, it’s generally to either ask a (pointed) question or to provide factual, or at least contraindicatory, research from a reliable source. My only real hope is to plant a seed that might grow into a “What if I’m wrong?” tree (or shrub). While I don’t expect many of my seeds to actually germinate, I am, at least so far, willing to keep sewing them, even as my patience wanes.

No, the main reason I don’t believe in conspiracy theories is because, if those theories are true, then what’s the point? Of much of anything.

If there really is some dark state cabal manipulating the levers of government, our pathetic little posts will have no impact. We don’t have near enough power, even if our followers are legion. Our (well, your) mini armory is no match for any forces of evil. If there is some secret cell in charge of the economy, we’re powerless against it. We’re nothing more than an expendable pawn in a 3-D chess match, and we started playing on move 42. 

You can watch Fox News or MSNBC for the rest of your life, but if there are forces at work in the shadows, they’re well-entrenched, well-funded, well-orchestrated, and inextricably woven into the fabric of our world. You’re toast, we’re all toast. 

Therefore, I refuse to believe in conspiracy theories — because if those of you who DO believe in them are correct, both you and I have zero real control over our lives, and the decisions we are permitted to make cannot, will not be allowed to, change the big picture. I’m left with where to go for dinner and what to order (when that becomes possible again). Which is the same place you are, except you can’t even enjoy that dinner, because you’re too worried about the conspiracies manipulating your world and your life — while futilely waiting for your social media memes to move the needle. 

Of what value is a life without meaning? If my life is to have any meaning, I need to believe that what I do matters, that the decisions I make matter, and not just for me. 

Decades ago I had visions of changing the world; I even accumulated a certain level of power in my small corner of that world. When I realized my pinch of power amounted to, at best, a scrap of thread in the grand tapestry of life, I refocused, desiring to change ever decreasing acreage (for the better, of course, was my hope). Eventually I realized that only those whom I could touch directly could benefit from what I brought to the party. (#mixedmetaphors!)

Which brings me to today, with my family . I will do everything in my power to make their lives better, to protect them however I can. If, along the way, I can make things better for others in my life, I’m happy and more than willing to contribute to and model living a life where that can happen.

If I’m wrong and there really are conspiratorial forces of darkness in control of our lives, then what’s the point? Because none of what I do matters. I cannot, will not, live my life like that. I’d rather be delusional than powerless.

Oh, and if you celebrate the conspiracist who mirrors your world view but dismiss inconvenient whistleblower revelations, it may be you who’s delusional.

The Mind Body Connection

Working out at the WG Rec Center this afternoon, we were joined by one of the firehouse crews who arrived in their ladder truck and ambulance, so obviously still on their shift. As I was circling the room waiting for Carolyn, who had been interrupted by a phone call, to finish, I thanked some of them. I jokingly noted to one that on TV, responder houses all have cool tricked out weight rooms. Apparently the WG house has a small one, but not enough for the whole crew to get in a workout. I realized that maintaining physical conditioning is really a job requirement for first responders. 

My mind drifted, as it is wont to do these days, back to a dispute that roiled the high school for a few weeks over the issue of teachers working out (by walking the track) during their conference period. The principal at the time, in what I think was more about power than principle, insisted that teachers needed to be in their rooms or the workroom during their conference hour. Granted, this was before cell phones, but it was also before classroom telephones. I can’t imagine it would have been any more difficult to get a teacher from the track than his/her classroom. That was one of the arguments we made, but this was a fight we were destined to lose; the price of winning would have been too high.

While I would never try to argue that the physical demands of teaching (only those who have never taught can believe that it’s a sedentary profession) are equivalent to those of first responders, I would maintain they are significant enough that physical activity, and its mental by-products, would have been more beneficial than sitting in a classroom, waiting for an unscheduled summons or phone call. I know that when I walk my mind is as busy as my body. And while I wasn’t much (okay, even that’s an exaggeration) into exercise then, I tried serve as an advocate for those who believed they would benefit. It is why forward-thinking companies today recognize the need for the mind-body connections that exercise brings.

Random Thoughts from an Accidental Leader

I’ve written before how much a role serendipity has played in my life (Accidental Teacher, Accidental Coach, Accidental Counselor). My life has not been planned, at least not in the big picture. In fact, I’m still not sure what that picture will look like when it’s finished.

Oh, sure, once I (accidentally) became a teacher or a coach (softball, journalism, drama, etc.) or counselor, I tried to control as much as I could, perhaps often to the point of even over-planning (as I’ve also noted previously, I will never get a Staples or Nice ‘n Easy commercial because I tend to overcomplicate things). My father’s son, long-range planning, within those specific corridors, is in my blood.

I also became an accidental leader. Accidental in that I am not a particularly ambitious person, unwilling to pay the price exacted by ambition. My first brush with leadership came at the end of my first year of teaching when I was asked to get involved in Hancock’s nascent teacher union, locked in conflict with an intransigent school board and the incompetent superintendent who was their puppet. I declined. “I’m not interested in that stuff,” I said. Within two years I became the president-elect and (he says, immodestly) and (essentially) the “union boss” for about the next two decades, with power roles locally and regionally, along with two terms (n.b., term limits) on the state board of directors.

So, add leadership to the accidents that shaped me. I eventually recognized that I tended to be a power magnet, accumulating it effortlessly and certainly without any real desire for personal gain. I never really analyzed the why or the how of leadership, I just accepted that leadership was a key piece of my identity and it was easier to just go with the flow than deal with the frustration of resistance. Yes, I suppose that probably sounds, and may be, kind of arrogant and/or egotistical, but my ongoing road to authenticity requires that kind of self-examination.

Interestingly, if you’re still reading, the intersection (collision?) of all four of those accidents has led to what I hope will become a new regular feature on my Facebook feed (joining Wednesday Wisdom & Good News Friday), starting next week, the first Monday of the new year (Happy New Year, btw), the Monday Leadership Memo, because I’m still teaching, or at least trying to, for those who care to keep an open mind and listen (never close to 100%, even in my prime). The four accidental components of teaching, counseling, coaching and leading, mindfully combined. 

“Why?” you may ask (or not, but I’m going to tell you, just like any number of classroom lessons). At the end of this season, my assistant coach and I received a thank you gift from one of our players — the book Legacy, about the All Blacks, the NZ rugby team, and how that team’s leadership values have allowed it to achieve a status that far surpasses what a team from a small nation should be able to achieve, year after year, and how that leadership culture can be applied in so many ways to life as we know it. (Her father is a well-known coach, at least in area soccer circles.)

I started reading, part of the ritual as I prepared for the fitful sleep that defines my nights now (#joysofaging) and at a chapter per evening, finished it fairly quickly. I was immediately struck by the leadership lessons that seem so obvious but which I had never really analyzed (even if I, again immodestly, unconsciously incorporated many of them into my developing character). 

As our nation approaches what may be one of its most historically important elections, a potential turning point to which chapters and undoubtedly books will be devoted, each week (or so) in the months leading up to that pivotal day, I will attempt to get my friends and formers to think (and that was always my only goal) on the fundamental question, “What characterizes true leadership?” While this isn’t a multiple choice question, and, being a “Shades of Grey” kind of guy (Billy Joel, not E. L. James), I’m pretty sure that there are multiple answers, all colored by the lenses through which we variously view life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civics 101 & The Electoral College

 The Electoral College is not going anywhere. It is part of the Constitution and, as such, would require a Constitutional amendment to change it. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of each house of Congress before even being considered for ratification. If you think small states, via their senators and representatives, are going to give up the power the Electoral College gives them, you are delusional.  Then there’s ratification, which requires three-fourths (3/4) of the state legislatures. Again, small states will not be giving up their power vested in the Electoral College any time soon.

Yes, the E.C. has racist roots, designed to protect the power of the Southern (i.e., slave) states. Yes, it gives disproportionate power to less populous areas of the country. So yes, it's antiquated and unfair. It’s still part of the Constitution and likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. So sign your petitions, rail and wail on Facebook, debate the value, knock yourself out. Or maybe spend your time trying to change something that will actually make a difference.

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.

A Skeptic's Definition of Politics

Or is it a cynic’s definition? Or a realist’s? Or maybe just a pragmatist’s?

“Politics is like sausage. The more you know what goes into it, the less you want to eat it.” That is an old, old adage, (and included as one of the shocking, big revelations from a Wikileaked speech by Hillary Clinton to the Wall Street crowd) but one that has certainly retained, if not enhanced, its credibility as the years roll (roil?) on.

Instead of that analogy, however, allow me to offer a skeptic’s definition of politics: Politics is the art (and science) of using power and self-interest to reward friends, punish enemies, ideally with the goal of benefitting your constituents by solving their problems (too often even if they don’t know or think it’s a problem, or at least their problem). However, it cannot be denied that power will always be intrinsically linked to money. To think that electing any candidate to any office anywhere will magically effect a sea change ignores mountains of evidence going back millennia and represents little more than a delusional pipe dream.

We can debate how big the self-interest piece is, and where it fits in both the big and small picture, but it is naïve to fail to recognize its importance. The day of the selfless public servant is long gone, if it ever existed after the Founders (and not even all of them, either). To think anyone works or acts against their own self-interest borders on the absurd. No one who runs for president (of anything) will pursue courses of action that damage his/her personal, economic, or social standing, no matter how much of an outsider or reformer s(he) claims to be.

Please note, this definition fits more than the government sphere; it applies to the workplace, social groups, schools, even families (although good parents at least try to sublimate their interests to those of their children). [See the Berndt Power Theory for more on this.]

I would suggest that the manufactured outrage to those actions (by others) is either politically opportunistic, hypocritical (and hypocrisy in the political arena is a bi-partisan beast with centuries-old roots), disingenuous or even downright dishonest, or any, all of the above, or more. While I am not trying to excuse it, politics is practiced by human beings programmed to protect their self-interests. I don’t see how that system (and it's as true under Putin as it would be under Trump or Clinton) can or will change as long as it’s other human beings trying to make those changes.

If that fits your definition of corrupt, I cannot and will not argue with you. But I will argue that corruption is often in the eye of the beholder and that no candidate or office holder is immune from that charge. Although I have no argument that we deserve better, should demand better, my realistic view of human nature suggests we are unlikely to get better. While your/our agreement or disagreement with the political positions of any office (power) holder does not make him or her either more or less corrupt, it does reinforce the perception you/we already have of that person.

Have the Clinton and Trump Foundations used their wealth and connections to power to benefit themselves and the causes they favor? Have they used their power and influence to attract supporters to their foundations? Have they used their power to attract donors and money and thereby increase their own influence (in other words, more power; should Donald Trump be the next president do you really expect the influence of his foundation to  diminish–or grow)? Of course, because power unused is like a muscle – it atrophies and, perhaps more importantly to its political practitioners, ebbs from the vacuum to someone else who will use it for their own benefit. Power begets power as money begets money. Move along, nothing new here, nothing to see, no surprises.

I would ask that we all recognize that the perception of corruption is directly tied to our perception of a candidate, up to a point, of course. (Dennis Hastert leaps to mind, as does William Jefferson.) Two things to consider. The first thing is the “stink test.” If the same accusations were leveled at someone we liked and supported, would our outrage reach the same level? Not an easy answer, because it’s often hypothetical, so it is easy to emphatically say “Absolutely!” Second, consider the source, always. What does the accuser (or spreader of accusations) have to gain? It is unlikely that gain is solely “justice” or honesty. Like politicians, we act in our own self-interest, and that self-interest colors our perception. That applies to politics of every stripe and on every level.

Did the Clintons use their political influence to build their wealth and power? Of course. Is that corrupt, or just politics the way we practice it in the United States? Are they any different than Rex Sinquefield, the Koch brothers, the Bush family, George Soros, the Kennedys…. It’s a long, long list. What do you think will happen to the IRS audits of Donald Trump should he be elected president? Is the fact that a large percentage of the so-called personal money he has “donated” to his campaign has been used to pay bills submitted by companies that he owns in whole or in part, companies that serviced his campaign, corrupt? Or, if you’re a Trumpeter, just smart business? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do I wish our system was more honorable? Do I wish our office holders were as self-sacrificing as George Washington (while noting that he was possibly one of the richest, if not the richest man in the country by the time his political career ended)? Of course almost all of us want that. But even if the president himself (or herself) is completely “honest” in the strictest sense of the word (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barak Obama were all personally honest as far as we know, IMO), how many of those past presidents have been used or sabotaged by people they trusted? Because, as long as money is flowing, there will be people using their positions to ensure it flows their direction. And that, my friends, like it or not, is the American political system. Whoever wins on November 8 will change that not one iota.