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. 

The Anger Games – Where The Odds Are NOT in Your Favor And No One Wins

I’m trying to take what I hope is an objective look at the 2016 election, free of recrimination or accusation. I am having trouble organizing my inchoate thoughts. I apologize if this seems disjointed. And too long. I’ve edited myself as best I could, without taking more time. I want to get this written and published and then take a break. It’s too depressing. And I’m not talking about the results of the election, but rather the stereotyping and bitterness that continues to spew from both sides. We all need to remember that half the country voted for the other candidate. But what I seem to be seeing on social media (which is why I plan to take a nice long break) is a new reality show, The Anger Games. “You think you’re pissed?! Well, see how pissed I am! Take that!” And back and forth it goes.

November 8 marked the first (and last) time I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it was more about voting against than voting for. Not that I believed most of the propaganda shoveled in her path; she was flawed, certainly, but I demand more evidence than hearsay and tenuous conspiracy theories before I buy into most of the accusations against her. Did she lose the election because she was a woman? Not really, although she was clearly held to a different standard than men and subjected to more intense scrutiny than male politicians. But anyone who voted against her because she was female wouldn’t have voted for a male with her belief system, either. (President Obama faced a similar challenge; the votes he lost because of race were not votes he could have ever won.)

Had HRC presented with the same characteristics as President-elect Trump, she would have had zero chance of even getting into a primary, much less out of one. I confess I still do not understand how his obvious flaws could be overlooked, not only overlooked but often celebrated. I hope his supporters don’t have to look back and consider the adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” I doubt that will happen, of course, and I’ll address that shortly.

But the primary cause of my reluctance, both this year and in 2008 is that she is, and has been for decades, a polarizing figure. Her mere presence in the political arena generates such antipathy in our country that I saw no way she could be an effective leader, no matter what other positive attributes, and in my opinion there were many, she might possess. However, the obvious polarization manifested since the election of Mr. Trump seems to point not to any particular candidate, but the widening division in our country. I fear that the number of people on either side who have closed their minds is growing and the rift between us is becoming a gaping chasm.

Still, Mr. Trump’s victory speech said the right things, calling for healing and unity. I hope (and will give him the benefit of the doubt) that those were more than just words, that he meant what he said. I further hope his more ardent supporters (again, half the country voted for the other candidate) also take those words to heart, although I haven’t seen too much of that yet on social media; granted, the occasionally unhinged comments of those who opposed him hardly constitute an olive branch either. Winners, however, real winners, are magnanimous in victory and don’t feel the need either gloat or to respond to every perceived slight. Responding with even more anger to the bitterness of the disappointed only drives the sharp wedge of division deeper into our collective soul.

We might want to remind ourselves (as I am not finished reminding you) that an essentially equal number of citizens voted for each candidate and that we need each other if we are to become “one nation, indivisible.” If Mr. Trump can lead us (supporters and opponents alike) in that direction, that would indeed be a step toward greatness and the most important accomplishment of his presidency. That will require, however, that all of us stop pointing fingers, laying blame, matching insult for insult (“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”), but instead go about the hard work of actually listening to each other, recognizing others’ points of view, practicing empathy (just because something is not your problem does not mean there is no problem), understanding that good people of good will can, and do, see the same picture differently because their life stories are different. Not better, not worse, just different. All those stories need to be valued.

I also call on President-elect Trump’s supporters stand up to the unsavory elements of his base. I know many, many good people who supported Mr. Trump. Undoubtedly, most of them were. Contrary to some extreme thinking, voting for Mr. Trump did not make someone racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. However, I’m pretty sure that every racist, sexist and xenophobe did, in fact, vote for him, which is their right, just as it is for unsavory characters on the left. But I would challenge his supporters to call out the racists, the sexists, the xenophobes when they rear their ugly, deplorable heads. And, by that, I mean truly stand up. Tsk, tsk, head-shaking or even, “Well, that’s not me,” and the like do not constitute a sufficient response to the ugly poison of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc. That is your responsibility to the rest of us. And our responsibility to the rest of you is to also point out the same, respectfully. Just because you do not recognize or believe something to be racist (and all the other -ists) does not mean you are correct.

I also hope that his supporters will objectively assess his presidency, statements and actions, and not go into auto-defense, bunker mentality, blindly defending his every move. He will be criticized by many, (over half the country did not vote for him) because listening to and accepting criticism is part of the job of being President of the United States. I don’t see this as a great strength of Mr. Trump, so it is up to his supporters to keep those lines of communication open and not reflexively strike back at the legitimate concerns of those who disagree. If you just sit in the echo chamber, defending every action because you somehow feel that you need to be “all in” (this expression is the only valuable thing to come out of televised poker, IMO) on your support, to the point that you cannot disagree or be critical, you do neither your country nor your president any favors. That, too, is your responsibility to the rest of us. On the other side, if, like me, you did not vote for Mr. Trump, our responsibility as citizens of the United States of America is to not reflexively oppose everything or everyone on his team.

By the same token, disappointed, or even angry, Clinton supporters must also recognize that good, decent people, millions and millions of them, voted for President-elect Trump, about the same number that voted for HRC. Although their votes may seem like a personal attack on your values (in much the same way that your vote for any other candidate might seem like a rejection of everything they hold dear), it was not. Their vote was not about you any more than your vote was about them. We all have our own perspectives, and until we start listening, truly listening to those perspectives, working to understand those perspectives, our divisions will not only remain open sores but will fester and the infection that plagues us and threatens our democratic republic will spread. It is all of our responsibility to treat those wounds, deep as they may be, gently, with respect, and work to heal them.

I do not minimize the difficulty of these responsibilities. I hope you do not minimize their importance. United we stand; divided, we will, inevitably, fall, and our once great nation will fail and truly no longer be great. And it won’t make a damn bit of difference which side is in power when that happens.

DT vs. BC

A lot of people are trying to defend Donald Trump by comparing him to Bill Clinton. I would suggest that if the best defense you can muster is to claim that someone else is as bad or worse, that is a pretty hollow strategy. However, in that I wouldn’t want any woman I cared about near either one of them, they do share at least that commonality. I think they are (were? – can people change? And if you argue that Mr. Trump can change, can Mr. Clinton? Can criminals?) both sexual predators, but in very different, and important, ways. Thus, I would suggest there is a significant difference between the two. I admit that this is based on only partial evidence, the recent release of the hot-mic tape.

Some want to excuse Mr. Trump’s offensive language by suggesting that “all guys talk like this when they’re alone [occasionally implying, at least, if they’re real men].” I am not claiming “real man” status for myself (because, IMO, if you have to claim it, like being cool, there is already cause for doubt], but I know too many real men who don’t, would never, talk like that to or about women.

And while I did not serve in the military, I did live in a frat house at an all-male college. Of course I heard talk like this, but not from anything like all or even a majority of my reprobate fraternity brothers. In fact, that all-male atmosphere was one reason why that fine institution (named for Alexander Hamilton while he was still alive and before he was cool) was not a good fit for me.

You see, I like women. I enjoy their company. Many are my friends. My first thought is never, has never been, of them as potential sex objects. No, I, and many men like me, think of them as people first. I never referred to (or even thought about) women as p***y, or piece of ***, and have never used the c-word to refer to any woman. If you cannot make that same claim, then you might want to consider that you just might have at least some part of your brain that is sexist.

And I think that may be the difference between Clinton and Trump. (Now I have no inside information about how Clinton talked or talks around his buddies, but this is America, and like Matt Drudge I don’t need real facts to back up my opinions, on either candidates or hurricanes.) Mr. Trump revealed himself in that tape. I think Clinton fits more into the category explored in the Tom Petty song, “The Man Who Loves Women.”

It seems to me that Clinton probably had, and may still have, for all I know, the sexual loyalty of a dog in heat. Because he was more than happy to take advantage of and manipulate the women upon whom he cast his perpetually roving eye, he opened himself up to legitimate accusations. And he certainly knows how to manipulate language and the legal system, as well, if we are to give credence to old allegations of sexual assault. But I don’t think he sank to the level of Mr. Trump’s crudity. I don’t see him as sexist or misogynistic.

Am I seeing what I want? Maybe. Selective perception isn’t confined to any group or person. However, I would suggest that Secretary Clinton is not to blame for whatever transgressions he might have been guilty of, just because she wanted to believe what worked best for her and her family. That, perhaps more than anything else about her, makes her like most of the rest of us.

Wrong Side of History

I am posting this on both my blogs, because it has obvious Hancock roots and memories as well as the more obvious general application. (Slight) apologies to the Hancock Place Hancock Place followers if this has more political overtones than you are generally accustomed to seeing (t)here.

I noticed a FaceBook meme last week, pointing out that amidst all the celebration over American Olympic medals, there was little if any credit given to Title IX.

Talking to my softball girls the other day after practice, I noted that when I started teaching, there was only the GAA, a club for the “sporty” girls, but no interscholastic sports. The same was true when Carolyn attended Centralia HS – no Orphan Annies had she wished to play. Girls were limited to May Fete, a kind of dancing thing in white dresses around a May Pole. 

When forced indoors, my Tigers practiced in the “Girls Gym” (the one with the warped floor and no locker rooms and bleachers right next to the sidelines). One year I got permission to order new uniforms for the girls; the local sporting goods store ordered men’s slow pitch sleeveless uniforms. The huge (really huge, gigantic, biggest ever) arm slots were embarrassing. We rejected them and reordered from a company that specialized in women’s sports and equipment. 

In 1994 when it came time to select the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Scholar Athlete, there were two eminently worthy, 3-sport choices, ranked one and two in the class (only a B in one class separated them). Originally the coaching staff and administration picked the male candidate. “Obviously it’s --------------.” I dissented (not an uncommon position for me), despite the respect I had for the male candidate. “Ummm, [the female candidate] has a D-I scholarship offer and also played three sports, all at an exceptional level. This award is for an exceptional athlete who is also a (and in this case, also exceptional) scholar. Had the male had this resume, then it would be obvious. To my view, the choice is clear.” To the credit of the Athletic Director and others on the coaching staff, we rethought our choice and Hancock nominated the (IMO) most worthy candidate (of two almost equally worthy students).

Note, we had had previous female scholar athletes, so this is not intended as any kind of criticism of the coaching staff, administration, or process. In this case, however, the seeming tie at first went to the male, “obviously.”

My real point is this. Women’s sports did not progress because of the generosity of their male counterparts or because they recognized the long-standing inequality or sexism. Women’s sports and athletes progressed because people, mostly women, recognized their importance and worked and fought to create tools to elevate that status. When you were cheering the incredible accomplishments of the female athletes in Rio, you were also, like it or not, cheering for Title IX. Yes, that same Title IX that was decried, derided and disrespected by conservatives.

Those same conservatives also opposed (in their time, of course) declaring independence in 1775-76, the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, abolition in the mid 1800s, women’s suffrage in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, integration of the armed forces in the 1940s and 50s, civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, women’s rights (including Title IX) in the 70s and 80s, gay rights at the end of the 20^th century and beginning of the 21^st.... 

I understand that change is scary, that people want to keep the things the way they were. And conservatives play a vital role, forcing those who would rush, without sufficient thought, into change, because, The.Law.Of.Unintended.Consequences.  But (and I’ve never had anyone offer any kind of counterpoint, coherent or otherwise) conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for centuries. [Addendum: to be fair – I hate that – conservatives probably DO get credit for the Bill of Rights, but that was before compromise was a dirty word.] I’ve noted my disinclination and skepticism about labels, so I’m not claiming any particular one for myself, but I could never be a conservative (unless we’re talking about the environment, which I definitely want to conserve, and, ironically, some so-called conservatives seem to discount).

Trying to Teach Pigs to Sing

OR Why I Haven’t Been Writing

Regular readers and followers have probably noticed that I’ve been on an extended hiatus from this blog, as well as my others. 

The softball blog will actually pick up as we start to move into that season (really it’s already begun), but that’s a specialized project for a limited audience. I may also revisit my Hancock blog from time to time, but I need to generate more positive feelings for even that to happen.

You might wonder why. Or you might not care, but I’m going to share my reasons anyway. Actually, that’s not completely true. I have started several pieces, all of which sit as drafts, awaiting motivation to polish and publish. Others are percolating in my brain, as it drifts from one dark cloud to the next.

The fact is, that for some time now I have been consistently too depressed about the state of political and world affairs to add my thoughts to the increasing cacophony of certitude pervading social media. Maybe I should just give up Facebook, where people actually cheered the entrance of Donald Trump into the presidential race. That is just one of the thread topics I don’t add on to, because it wouldn’t do any good. I mean, if you take that bombastic buffoon seriously, what could I possibly say that would make you think (differently).

Now we have the posts about Charleston. Apparently there were insufficient victims victims to make some people consider that this tragedy is symptomatic of a problem worth solving, or worth at least discussing solutions. Even worse, many of those same people so resistant to recognizing that there IS a problem and that we need to actively search for a solution have also regularly offered posts suggesting that we have solved the problem of racism in this country, that racism is no more than an excuse for a lack of success.

I refuse to swim in those threads either. What would be the point? People with that mindset truly have set minds. Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their mind cannot change anything. — George Bernard Shaw

I remember a button we peddled back in the day to raise money for political candidates; of course, that was before we had solved sexism and sex discrimination, like we’ve solved racism. The button read: Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Sales were brisk, but back in those younger, still idealistic days, I confess that I nevertheless DID keep trying to teach pigs to sing. Today, as I read the proud displays of ignorance on Facebook and elsewhere, I realize that I also did, indeed, waste my time and (probably) annoy the pigs.

For any number of reasons, I have narrowed my focus. The most important reason? I have a granddaughter (thus the Fathers Day hook for this piece) for whom I would throw myself in front of a train. She is my focus now. Because she will need her family and would be negatively impacted by the loss of any of those people who are, and will continue to be, her safety net, I will do whatever I can for them, as well. Not that this represents any sacrifice on my part, because I also love them.

But I’m done trying to teach pigs to sing, so don’t expect a whole lot of new content from this space, at least until I become less disheartened. I don’t know when that will be. I may be sporadically and randomly inspired to throw in a thought or two, but only if it doesn’t take away from the (increasingly limited) energy that I’m saving for one little girl.