Showing posts with label unity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unity. Show all posts

Sunday, May 20, 2018

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.   




Sunday, November 6, 2016

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.