Politics and Personalities

I came to an interesting realization the other day. There is a large volume of political commentary that lives in social network postings these days. On any issue, each side posts their  pictures, quotes, or brief comments and replies to advocate for a particular stance. Few of these postings are balanced, comprehensive discussions, versus one-sided / one-perspective statements of individual opinion. More significantly, they are often emotional gut reactions about a given individual. My realization was that I can usually tell in less than two seconds if someone is starting from a visceral dislike of that individual, and then working backwards to an opinion. In such cases, I have vowed to immediately press the “page down” key and skip over the comments and replies being offered. Because inevitably, there will be little offered up that will shed much light on the topic, or bring us any closer to a satisfactory resolution.

A picture of Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders appears, and within the first few words it will be obvious whether the narrative will be about the devil incarnate, an individual who has committed unspeakable past sins, a person with no ideas of value, who is most certainly out to destroy America. Ditto when the picture displayed is Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Dick Cheney, or Mitch McConnell. Or any number of other pictures and quotes. It is the individual who is the true object of disdain, and the supposed issue being referenced serves only as an excuse for expressing that disdain.

The difficult truth is that even those we call fools (or worse) sometimes have worthwhile ideas, even if not to some level of detail. Even noxious people sometimes have refreshing ideas. Even people with opinions different than our own have opinions and circumstances worthy of our consideration and respectful listening. Even if those opinions prove to be nothing of substance, engaging in a thoughtful, open discussion can sharpen the veracity of our own thinking. But when we start with a reflexively negative judgment of the person, we miss the opportunity for a greater and broader understanding of that which confronts us.

Unfortunately, our current societal discussion is almost entirely about people, not ideas. Political candidates spend time heaping slurs and judgments onto other people, none of which helps inform voters of what choices we have in our thinking, what potential actions are possible, what consequences may ensue. Yes, candidates toss out position papers, make claims about how they would deal with problems confronting us. Yet almost none of those “positions” are based upon truth or have any hope of achieving success. It has always been that way. Remember LBJ’s promise to keep us out of war? Richard Nixon’s “secret plan” for ending the Viet Nam War? St. Ronald of Reagan’s “voodoo economics” that would solve our budget deficit? George H.W. Bush’s “read my lips – no new taxes!”? Do we remember how all of those claims worked out?

Today we are treated to the same kind of extravagant claims by would-be miracle workers. A “beautiful wall” that will fully eliminate our immigration problem. A carpet bombing of ISIS “till it glows” that will end our fears of terrorism. A resetting of our direction to stop Obama –  “who knows exactly what he is doing.” A promise of single-payer universal health care for all. A target to rein in Wall Street excesses and favoritism. To those watching closely, none of these is a credible, achievable claim. To those not watching closely, one should be prepared for inevitable disappointment.

We will not have a $40B wall that will effectively stop illegal immigration, because walls do not accomplish their intended purpose (e.g. China’s Great Wall, Hadrian’s Wall, the Londonderry Wall, the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall, the current Israeli Wall). And Mexico sure as hell will not pay for building it. There will be no carpet bombing of ISIS, especially as long as they embed themselves into the civilian population. That is the difficult reality of fighting terrorism that precludes easy rhetorical solutions. There will be no undoing of Obama’s last eight years, because Obama did know what he was doing – i.e. he did what the majority of Americans who elected him wanted him to do. (By the way, in case the candidates do not realize it, Obama is not on the ballot in 2016.) There will be no single payer / universal health care under the next president. The incremental step of Obamacare towards that end is still precariously under relentless attack, and still needs to settle in further if it is to continue. And Wall Street will not be broken up, and their favored status will only be marginally reined in, because the political landscape and institutionalized favoritism are still too strongly embedded to be easily overridden. So we need to get over believing these hollow promises in order to start some substantive discussions about where we should be going and what meaningful steps towards those goals are accomplishable.

It is said that people get the government they deserve, an end result of the level of their engagement, demand for accountability, their thinking about the issues based upon quality unbiased information, and their vote. So also with our election campaigns. If we start with our dislike of a person rather than talking specifics regarding his/her ideas and track record, then we will never get any real insight into where our vote should go and why. If we engage in name-calling, reflex judgments, and demonizing and/or victimizing, we will get a campaign that emulates our own conduct. A campaign such as is now unfolding before our eyes. A campaign that will ultimately elect some individual, but an individual with no national agenda that takes us truly forward together. Instead, the next four years will be just like the last eight years of division and stalemate. I may well be tiring of the insults, disrespect, bigotry, outlandish statements, and inconsistent positions and pandering that continually come from Donald trump and Ted Cruz. But I am also tiring of these same echoes coming from citizens of all political polarities. Our desire for thoughtful, intelligent discussion from our leaders and candidates necessarily starts in our own home.

©   2016   Randy Bell                           www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Electorate 2016

Finally. After months of endless talk about the politicians, the barrage of up-and-down poll numbers, and glazing over at numbing TV images, we now get to hear from the really important speakers. The voters. The responsible souls who get up off their couch, sign off from Facebook, step out from the comfort of their homes and regularity of their workplaces, interrupt their normal routine, and make the trek to the polling places and caucus sites for these primary-stage elections. These are the people whose opinions actually count, because they are opinions connected to action. Their words will be important to hear. Much has been written about the “angry voter,” but more needs to be said. Because those voters, not the candidates, are the real reason that all the normal rules of campaigning have gone out the window.

Yes, the voters are angry. But that explanation is too simplistic and does them a disservice. The breadth of their anger is wide, over many soapboxes of complaint. Their anger is also deep, engendering full-blown collective anger and outright disgust. There is a complete lack of confidence in the status quo, a lack of faith in what is around the corner awaiting us, a sense of beleaguered aloneness that no one is looking out for one another anymore, a judgement of a general failure of leaders and institutions across the spectrum. “A better life” seems to have been way-laid and replaced by “a dangerous life.” Nowhere does there seem to be a pathway, a mechanism, a person to move us back into forward progress.

Today, the country is deeply divided on virtually all issues. Public opinions are typically split somewhere between 55/45%, Supreme Court decisions are regularly split 5/4, congressional votes are by straight party line, all reflecting a nation unified about next to nothing. Yet in those rare instances when the nation does come together on some idea (e.g. 90% support for expanded background checks and closing loopholes for gun purchasers), still no action is taken. The 3C’s – Consensus, Compromise, and Common ground – have disappeared. Our apparent powerlessness to control our own future has made a sizeable portion of Americans very, very angry, transcending “liberal /conservative” labels.

Whether one thinks that they were noble ventures or maddening follies, President Bush’s two expensive wars have left the country financially underwater and emotionally empty, with a sense of little to show for it and facing years of future repercussions. 15 years after 9-11, the country feels no safer from terrorists. The world’s most powerful government, economy, and military seem incapable of meeting our basic needs as things seem to spin unendingly out of control. People feel trapped by: illegal immigration; wanton murders by domestic and foreign terrorists as well as everyday kooks and criminals; income stagnation for middle-Americans versus exponential gains for the extremely wealthy; social fabric changes that are either too much/too soon or too little/too late; a dysfunctional Congress owned by corporate America and their lobbyists; political game-playing and divisiveness from our politicians in lieu of solving pressing critical problems.

What is fascinating is how upside-down/inside-out the American voting population is today. Contradictions abound; few issues are clear-cut. We have constant rhetoric about left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives, but these labels are becoming increasingly less meaningful. Some people protest government infringement on their religious rights, yet often their proposed solution is to limit the religious rights of others. Almost every American decries the increase in senseless killings of their fellow citizens, but many seek to eliminate the killing by arming citizens within a blanket of weaponry. Hard fought equality and civil rights battles thought to have been addressed and settled years ago seem to have gone back to the future, as cities and courtrooms and legislative battles imitate the difficult days of the 1960s. Both major political parties are being driven by the far ends of their ideology, with an absolutist mindset intolerant and indifferent to their political opposite.

More and more Americans are sick of the chaos in the world and being drawn into these “local” fights. Yet compassion for victims and cries to demonstrate “American leadership” keep dragging us in. America’s infrastructure is falling apart and our social safety net for the less fortunate is under constant attack. Yet our tax dollars go into a sacrosanct and growing military budget primarily driven by commitments overseas and the awarding of purchasing contracts to businesses. Americans’ sense of fairness has been substantially undermined as middle-American small businesspeople and entrepreneurs play by the market rules and pay their prescribed taxes, while large corporations and the affluent get special favors and exemptions in conducting their operations while paying only a fraction of their tax obligations. Average citizens were thrown out of their homes in bankruptcy thanks to the Wall Street-induced recession, while those same Wall Streeters were bailed out and suffered no consequences for their negligent and illegal actions. Our prison population does not reflect the real demographics of our lawbreakers.

Yet in the midst of the contradictions, surprising alignments sometimes still happen. Democrats and Libertarians unite against excessive government snooping; Evangelicals and tree-huggers align to save the planet; politicians compromise and reject the concept of “shutting down government” as a legitimate budget process.

 

“The American Way” has been split into a series of meandering roads leading to no clear endpoint. What does unite most Americans is that our political structures and politicians have simply not been working for a long time. So the usual hollow political talk that “I’m wonderful and have all the answers” is no longer believable and does not fly this year. Until now, the voices of the voters have been throttled silent. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each given voice to the respective sides of these angry Americans, albeit each speaks a very different voice. The depth of anger within the citizenry has been strong enough to marginalize traditional “establishment” candidates, with their usual campaign platforms and ads, into sidebar, irrelevant players.

 

This is the reality of the electorate in the 2016 campaign. A reality that candidates of either party and any agenda ignore at their peril. But there is a vast swath of independent, middle-road voters that will ultimately hold the key to the final result in November. This fall they will have their own set of issues, perhaps a reverse anger at the barrage of harsh noise that has been coming at them for months. Is there a potential leader who can transmute all of this American anger into a new American promise? One who can find a middle path to unified and effective governing? It is hard to see one through the stagecraft, intellectual fog, and verbal noisemaking assaulting our eyes and ears daily. Let the primary voting begin.

 

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Trumpeting Trump

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”   (1 Corinthians 13:1, KJV)

 

In the 1970s, pop artist Andy Warhol famously predicted that in the future, everyone would have their own “15 minutes of fame.” 30 years later, the Internet, social media, 24x7 cable news and so-called reality shows, combined to provide the catalyst and forum for that prediction to come true. As a result, many people of minimal talent and of little consequence to my learning and experience have been escalated into our national headlines. We had “Joe the plumber” commenting on national politics in 2008; a minor but hateful preacher in Florida gaining international attention by burning copies of the Qur’an; another preacher in Iowa recently advocating the killing of all homosexuals, while attracting presidential candidates to his rallies; and endless “political pundit” filling air time in spite of their dubious credentials. In fact, the only credential each of them shares is outrageousness – the willingness to say or do something so out of our social norms that their very audacity is deemed worthy of our notice. They engage us as the 21^st-century version of the circus freak show attraction.

 

Into this theater of the amateur hour comes Donald Trump, Republican candidate for President of the United States of America. Trump, who is well beyond his allotted 15 minutes, generates the most controversy and incomprehension of this election season. Originally dismissed as side-show entertainment, he now stands a real chance of winning the nomination. The mood of the voters, the election calendar of which states vote when, and the rule change to “proportional delegate awarding” all work in his favor. People (domestic and world-wide) have struggled to explain the Trump phenomenon. His willingness to say anything far beyond a normal politician’s disregard for truth, the absence of any substance in what pretends for policy positions, his  unwillingness to admit error in the face of corrective facts, and his tactic of vocalizing hate and disrespect against everyone who does not resemble 1950s-America, are all frightening for a leading candidate for President. Moderate-minded people ask, how does one explain Donald Trump?

 

Actually, explaining Trump is not that mysterious. Donald Trump is first and foremost about being Donald Trump. Doing what it takes to glorify Donald Trump. All else is secondary to that overriding goal. Always has been, always will be. So we should not kid ourselves that Trump is in this race to benefit you and me. Trump lists his occupation as a real estate developer, a builder of expensive playgrounds in which the rich can indulge. But that is hardly the true case if you look at where his corporate time is actually spent. Trump’s real occupation, and the source of his billions, are from being an exceptionally successful “brander” – building economic value in a name that people are willing to pay for. We have Trump towels, Trump golf courses, and Trump hotels so that we, the public, can vicariously share in the aura of his success and wealth by drying off with his towels, putting on his golf greens, and staying in his hotel rooms that are of no better quality than many other competitors. Donald Trump is no different than Martha Stewart, Tiffany’s, and George Foreman’s BBQ grill. It is the same hucksterism. It is not about the substance. It is just all about media attention, which has to be replenished constantly. Donald Trump, a trained master of media attention, is the highly successful Kardashian of politics.

 

Today, media attention most often simply requires being outrageous. And no one does outrageous better than Trump. To do outrageous successfully, there are three component parts required. First, find a topic that resonates well with a deeply frustrated but minority audience. This is your hook and beginning audience. Second, make a statement containing three components: speak the here-to-fore unheard angry words your audience wants to say; identify an early target to blame for their anger, an unequal scapegoat that is unable to adequately defend itself; propose a simple “solution” within one easily rememberable and repeatable sentence – truthfulness and practicality deemed irrelevant. Third, no matter the criticism of your statement, stick to your guns and do not back down an inch. In fact, repeat the message over and over again until it begins to sound both true and now doable – at which time your opponents will be forced to treat it as a serious statement that requires a response. It is a classic textbook way to attract attention and appear to have substance. It is a textbook that has been read extensively by many manipulators of public opinion, particularly in pre-WWII Germany. It is a textbook Donald Trump has read carefully and practiced for 30 years.

 

2016 is the perfect storm for the time of the outrageous. The electorate, from top to bottom and left to right, are incredibly angry. At world events; at shrinking economic opportunity and the loss of fairness; at either too much or too little social change; at the threat of violence from foreign enemies or neighborhood thugs; at the unwillingness or inability of elected leaders to solve problems instead of rewarding themselves. Enter a brash billionaire financially beholden to no one, unrestricted by the rules and restraints of others, and a master of media manipulation. These are the combustible ingredients set to kindle an all-consuming fire of outrage.

 

The resulting fire has sucked the oxygen out of this election. Sucked the oxygen out of the campaigns of the other candidates of both parties as they get swept up into the Trump vortex, forced to react to or emulate his tactics. Republican Party leadership is in anguish over the potential of a Trump nomination and the potential long-term negative impact for the Party. Yet in many respects they have only themselves to blame, having spent the last eight years incessantly declaring the imminent doomsday of America. Such rhetoric helped to create much of the fear, expectations, and frustrated anger that Trump is now exploiting so successfully.

 

In the 1950s, when the country was consumed by the Cold War and suspected Communists hiding in every corner, Joe McCarthy, a little-known junior senator from Wisconsin, came forth. For years he terrorized innocent citizens by his outrageous lies of traitorous Communists supposedly lurking in the Federal Government. His list of suspects was never revealed; he never proved his allegations. Bus as his accusations went unproven, it required him to constantly invent new and more outrageous accusations to keep the momentum (and his headlines) going. The beast of his own making required constant feeding. Until one outrage became one too many. He was finally called out by Edward R. Murrow, the most respected journalist of the day, along with Boston attorney Joseph Welch, who – in televised hearings defending the U.S. Army against McCarthy’s latest attacks – asked McCarthy, “Senator, have you no shame?”

 

It is easy to simply give voice to anger, and to insult others as being incompetent and “stupid,” to stoke passion and divide anxious people. But that is not true leadership, and leadership is what we expect from our president. Leadership is the ability to transform anger into positive action, and to bring differing perspectives and ambitions into cooperative movement. Can we really picture Donald Trump standing in the well of Mother Emanuel Church or addressing the parents at Sandy Hook after a shooting tragedy? Speaking for America to world leaders at the United Nations? Making national life-or-death decisions about using our military troops and weaponry? Welcoming new immigrants and citizens at the Statue of Liberty? Presenting a future vision and agenda for America in a State of the Union address?

 

In the long term, it is not about Donald J. Trump. It is about us. Over time, Americans have always moved away from our fears, angers and self-centeredness, and toward our better selves, our more noble aspirations, our moral obligations, our sense of a shared community.  Will America tire of the Donald Trump show and his simplistic insults over the next ten months? Is there a journalist today of Murrow’s standing, able to ask the great showman of the outrageous, “Donald, have you no shame?”

 

“The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.”

(multiple attributions)

 

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Surveying The Terrain - Election 2016

For the duration of 2015, I purposefully chose to avoid writing about the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Not that there was any lack of something to write about. Quite the contrary, the absurdist theater we have been presented thus far invites plenty of comment, and much comment has already been made. Public interest in the individual campaigns is remarkably high this far in advance of November’s election day. But after six months of rising and falling, jousting for position, fairly inane “debates,” and histrionic attention-getting efforts, the true selection process of voting now begins to draw near. And so also begins the time for more serious observation of this year’s version of our quadrennial civic spectacle.

The Democratic nomination race has been a more typical unfolding. Five candidates started; three remain, one of whom has already overly extended his time in the minor spotlight. To the surprise of many, Bernie Sanders has made it a legitimate competition. Then again, Democrats have always loved their “knight in shining armor” underdog candidate who, in the end, inevitably loses. But Bernie has thankfully spotlighted some genuine economic issues that have needed serious discussion. In the process, he has rightly held Hillary Clinton accountable for her positions and given her campaign machine a needed test drive. In the end, Hillary is still on track to win the nomination, barring some major mishap. Unfortunately, she brings a lot of old baggage and too-canned persona with her, with a large segment of Americans preset against anything she says or does. A general election win is not a given.

The contrasting Republican campaign is in near-chaos. The party that prides itself on election discipline and early consensus has displayed neither, as the normal political rules have been annihilated. A mind-boggling 17 candidates announced for the race. Five have already left, including two former governors (Perry, Pataki), plus two sitting governors (Walker, Jindal) and a U.S. senator (Graham). The remaining twelve candidates include two former governors (Huckabee, Gilmore) and a former senator (Santorum), Huckabee and Santorum being retread candidates from 2012. All three of these should retire soon from the dimming spotlight given the public’s lack of interest in their campaigns. That would leave nine candidates remaining who still believe they can win.

Of these nine, they divide themselves into two camps: the insider “establishment” candidates, all with elected experience, trying to run more traditional campaigns; the “outsider” candidates who are willing to say any negative nonsensical thing against other people, or the government they seek to head, that will get them attention. The establishment candidates (Christy, Kasich, Bush, Rubio) are all clustered at the bottom of the opinion polls, running flat-footed against the tidal wave of the outsiders. Rand Paul, also at the bottom, goes his own quixotic way living in his own political bubble, consistently ignored and generating surprisingly little excitement. Clearly, political and governing experience is not an attraction in this election year. For the outsiders, Donald Trump has been the dominate storyline and poll getter given his willingness to say anything, insult everyone, and bully his competition.  (More on this in a future posting.) The rest of the outsider pack (Cruz, Carson, Fiorina) have shifted their poll numbers up and down and traded positions over the months. But as a group, these outsiders have consistently captured 60-70% of Republican polling. There is no denying the mood of the Republican Party rank-and-file members today. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee and many large donors sit on the sidelines scratching their heads in disbelief, frozen in place.

Media coverage has been an unsurprising disappointment yet again. In this age of the 24x7 cable news beast that must be fed, TV executives are happy to present anything that keeps viewers tuning in and their networks in business. Hence politics and election contests have become full-blown entertainment packages. For instance, political debates of highly mixed quality and professionalism are presented as sporting events complete with their own dramatic titles and theme music – “who will win / who won?” Poll standings 18 months before the election are used to make hard decisions about candidate exposure and media share. Hence campaign strategy focuses little on substantive discussion in favor of what outrageous or combative statement can be made that will top the next news cycle. The job of our free press is supposed to be to present the candidates fairly to us so that we can learn about them and their perspectives, and then to hold them accountable for the loose talk they inevitably say. Instead, the media’s singular focus on the “horse race” has turned them into deciders, not informers. We are the worse off for that.

Concurrently, not-so-social media will be in full bloom during this campaign. Twitter, Facebook and the like will be primary direct mail venues versus traditional mailings and even TV ads. In addition, unofficial armies of opinionated citizens will do their own surrogate campaigning on behalf of their favorites. All of these digital bytes will rain down personal opinions and share candidate “mistakes” in viral nanoseconds. However, it is all likely to be for naught, as most social media sharing is from the “likeminded already convinced” to the “closed mind already made up.” Social media makes many frustrated commentators feel better in the moment, but it changes very few minds.

The truth is, our problem is not with our candidates, as divisive and lacking as they may often be. Our problem is that we have lost a shared consensus about what America is or should be. And without such consensus, politicians will continue to simply pander to our divisions while offering no real unifying ideas for the future. The real question before us is, what does being a citizen of America truly mean? Do we have any agreement about our core values; our commitments to, and expectations of, each other; our willingness to leave each other alone when warranted; or our appropriate role in world events? Instead of talking about any one candidate or another, we need to be answering these most substantive and fundamental questions facing America that our sloganeering candidates are avoiding.

Actions and decisions flow out of principles. We need fresh, open and thoughtful discussions about our principles rather than continuing to yell back and forth about such things as building walls, whom to bomb, whom to limit guns to, whom to let enter the country, who’s funding to cut, who’s taxes to raise, and what our governments should or should not be doing. Future posts planned for this blog will hopefully encourage and inform such discussions.

©  2016   Randy Bell                www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

American Unexceptionalism

America has a remarkable story to tell, from its very beginning to our recent past. It is one of the few countries that was created almost entirely by colonization, drawing diverse multi-cultural immigrants from all over Old Europe (even though many Americans erroneously think we were begat only by colonists from England). It created the model of directly-elected representative democracy in a time where there was no precedence for it; such a concept was an extreme threat to the existing world royal power structures. America broke the back of economic status being restricted by privilege of birth, and expanded opportunity to those with the creativity and vision and work ethic to achieve their potential. It sanctified each person’s right to speak freely, and to privately practice their religious beliefs, without persecution or hindrance – regardless of how that speech and religion might differ – an exception to the cultural homogeneity of European nations. It opened the door to invention and entrepreneurism and rewarded handsomely those who turned ideas into mass-marketing success, creating legions of individual success stories.

Stealing from this meaningful story, some self-serving politicians have created empty buzz word – “American Exceptionalism” – in another attempt to reduce serious political discussion into meaningless demagoguery. (Just as they did with the American flag lapel pin by making it into an obligatory ornament by which to measure one’s patriotism.) To wit, if one is said to not believe and espouse American Exceptionalism, then one is inherently anti-American and out of step with true Americans and our heritage. It is all good fodder for a political ad and a TV commentator’s soapbox, but a worthless basis for moving America forward.

By definition, being “exceptional” is to be different from the normal state of things. Certainly America has gone against the prevailing grain and been exceptional in many ways over its four centuries. Yet it has not always been committed to consistency or universality as it developed, often taking one step backward between its two steps forward.

Historically, America uniquely created a government defined by a written Constitution, an exception to governments then in existence (even as we have grappled ever since with conflicting opinions about what that Constitution says). Our Founders declared that all men are created equal, a revolutionary exception to governmental thinking of the day. Nevertheless, they refused to give equal rights and privileges in that Constitution to all men; women were ignored almost entirely. It was an exception to the civilized world in retaining the bondage of slavery long after other countries ended it – even fighting our most deadly war (in both real numbers and percentage of the population) in a futile effort to keep slavery going. In the early 20^th century, the promise of economic opportunity for everyone was smothered and redirected to a small group of mega-rich monopolists who made themselves exceptions from the rules of free-market systems (not that different from today.) A country that was built on a foundation of diverse immigrants made future groups exceptions to our open door. Even for those lucky enough to get in, they were relegated to the bottom of the economic heap, thereby made exceptions to the promise of the Opportunity of America.

We arrive at our modern period of exceptionalism when we compare ourselves to other “developed” nations across the globe. For example, we are exceptional at spending more money on our military than the next ten countries combined. Most of that money is spent on defending other people overseas, not on Americans themselves. Not a bad deal for them when countries can get Americans to provide their military defense for them, especially when they do not have to be concerned whether America can actually afford to spend 50% of its budget on that military.

We have more people in our prisons than any country in the world. Yet we claim to be revolted by repressive and/or violent regimes that attack and imprison their own citizens.

For the country that created electoral democracy, in 2014 only around 40% of our eligible voters turned out to fulfill their most fundamental obligation of citizenship. So much for world leadership by example in demonstrating democratic principles.

In test after test of educational achievement, America – the earliest provider of free universal education – consistently ranks between 20^th to 30^th in world rankings. Approximately 25% of our children fail to get a high school diploma; approximately 25% of adults have a college degree. College debt weighs down graduates for years, many with no guarantee of getting the high-quality job and lifestyle that was promised from that expensive education.

In America, access to fundamental medical care is predominately a privilege of income and employment, not a benefit of citizenship – an exception to all other developed countries. Even the price of such care is shrouded in secrecy beyond the control, much less restraint, of a dependent patient base. Medical care in America is a market-based commodity, but health care corporations have made themselves exceptions to the rules of the free market.

The list goes on. As the supposed leader of the free world, we are woefully mediocre in some important areas, and an unquestioned leader in some very questionable areas.

All of this is not to demean or diminish the very real greatness of America. The gifts of America continue to flow, and will hopefully do so for some time to come. We still do some amazing things, even as we also do some exceptionally stupid things. The first step in solving our difficult problems is to acknowledge truthfully our shortcomings, without being deluded by or trapped in past glories. It is only in grounded clarity and honest self-reflection that we can properly address the needs and unfulfilled potential that we have, whether as an individual or a collective society. The determination to confront our challenges by working together on pragmatic solutions used to be the essence of “the Americans.” That ability has been lost in the myopia of political infighting that now paralyzes us into inaction.

It is this gap between what we believe we once were and what we are now, and what has thereby been lost, that troubles many Americans today – even if our perspectives and preferred actions differ greatly among us. A willingness to confront, and an ability to solve, our problems was once America’s true exceptionalism. Today, being drawn into false slogans about American Exceptionalism takes us away from the hard work that we need to do. Such slogans seek to insulate us from acknowledging our shortcomings, and from being humble enough to listen to and learn from each other. We should be inspired by our past to keep America moving forward. But we should create our actions influenced by coldly objective truths, not empty slogans designed to deceive and distract us.

©  2015  Randy Bell                 www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Fearing Fear

“And argue not with the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with which of them as do wrong, and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is one, and unto Him we surrender.”   Qur’an, 29:46

Fear. It is our most potent and driving emotion, from which comes much of our most destructive behavior. We fear most that over which we have minimal control, and that includes a great deal of Life itself. Fear is also a marketable commodity. Fear buys votes for politicians, generates dollars for fundraisers, and sends sufferers to the pharmacy for pain-numbing drugs. Fear is also the fundamental basis for terrorism.

Terrorism is a war of a different sort. Conventional war is all about maximizing overwhelming power in order to take things – territory, riches, resources or people. The terrorist does not pretend to have the sheer numbers of his enemy. Rather, terrorists optimize their small numbers by the disproportionate power of their impact. They strike the most vulnerable and innocent targets close to their enemy’s home, thereby destabilizing the confidence and security of everyday life. Eight terrorists kill 120 and injure hundreds in Paris as they come together to eat and play. 20 terrorists kill 3000 people in New York’s Twin Towers. The few overwhelm the many, with the hope of winning by creating panic in the masses. A panic that will then demand a retreat from the terrorists’ insidious war of attrition.

Modern urban terrorism is not a new phenomenon. It was given birth by the Irish Republican Army a century ago as a tool to gain Irish independence from hundreds of years of subjugation by mighty England. It succeeded for most of Ireland in the 1920s, but was continued by minority Catholics in the Protestant bastion of Northern Ireland into the 1990s. Thereby, it spawned a legion of imitators the world over, the equalizer between the powerless against the powerful.

In the wake of the Paris slaughter, am I now prone to fear? Yes, but not in fear of my life, even though I am as vulnerable to a terrorist killing as much as any other American. Statistically, I am far more apt to be killed by a drunken driver careening into my car, or some hate-filled or drug-crazed individual going on a shooting spree for attention or revenge. No, my fear is that terrorism – whether internal or abroad – will succeed in creating enough fear in America that we will lose ourselves, and our very meaning as a nation, to our irrational fears. That the terrorists will succeed in getting America to turn on itself and allow the worst of our emotions, thoughts and actions to emerge and dominate our character and our decisions.

We have been here before, when fear, along with its partner anger, have taken the helm. The fear of slave rebellion drove the legal and social code of the American South for 200 hundred years, and the anger at the loss of that code generated another 100 years of violence and oppression against African-Americans. The Ku Klux Klan, our own homegrown Protestant terrorist group, used violence and intimidation against Blacks, Catholics, and Jews to try to preserve a way of life not worth preserving. Following Pearl Harbor, hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens were stripped of their homes and legal rights, and arbitrarily sent to “relocation camps” for the duration of World War II. In the 1950s, fear of Communism and “the bomb” caused Americans to turn on their neighbors and gave rise to Joe McCarthy and Congressional inquisition. Today, more Joe McCarthys continue to lurk in our shadows.

Our fear today is directed towards all those who seem intent on destroying “traditional America,” be it the violence of the armed terrorist or the evil forces of social change. We have a Christian preacher in Iowa hosting a “religious gathering” in which he called for the killing of all homosexuals “as the Bible demands.” Three presidential candidates elected to attend that gathering, implicitly endorsing the event and its message. Facebook is replete with pictures and words stating that Islam is an evil religion out to kill Americans and install sharia law. Yet it is highly doubtful that even one in 1000 of the people creating or “liking” these postings has ever read the Qur’an, talked with a Moslem, or has any idea what sharia law even is. (Has anyone read all of the Old Testament laws in their entirety lately?) Advocates of the view of Islam as an intolerant and warring religion, based upon the history of oppression and conquest by many of its leaders, fail to look at the similar history of many leaders claiming to be of the Christian faith. The mirror we choose to look into often fails to send back a true reflection.

We post pictures of ourselves overlaid by the French tricolors and claim solidarity with the citizens of Paris. But we post no such solidarity when 43 people are killed by terrorists in Beirut, or 200,000 Syrians are systematically annihilated, or 224 people are killed in the bombing of a Russian airplane. Are Lebanese or Russian or Syrian peoples somehow unworthy of our similar concern? We freak out when 10,000 Middle Eastern refugees are invited to America, even as Germany is accepting 800,000 such refugees. The land of immigrants closes its borders, and over 20 state governors vow to slam their doors shut, all because of fears of a chance that a few terrorists will hide in the mix. Fear of a potential of 10 terrorists trumps the moral challenge to us of the 9,990 who are themselves victims of terrorists.

Our enemy is not Islam. Islam clearly instructs its followers to have no quarrel with the faithful of non-Islamic religions, an instruction ignored by today’s terrorists. Moslems who follow the true practices and spirit of Islam are themselves victims of terrorism, by terrorists who violate the fundamental teachings of Islam. Our true enemy is hopelessness. When people lose hope (as many Middle Easterners have over this past century), when people believe they have lost the power to direct the results and security of their life and their family, that is when all people are at their most dangerous. Without hope, consumed in fear, desperate people are capable of doing the worst things – including resorting to terrorism as a last resort. Bombs and prudent and appropriate security measures are certainly necessary in the short-term. But bombs and bullets alone will never solve our terrorist problem, as 14 years of unending war against terrorism have shown. Until we alleviate disrespect and hopelessness caused by the historical subjugation and exploitation of the Middle East, our problem with terrorism will be our continuing future.

For their crimes against humanity, terrorists must be defeated in all nations for the benefit of all peoples, because as ISIS and their likes have shown, terrorism is no longer place bound. But in choosing our actions we need to act out of thoughtful decisions of what will be truly effective in the long term, rather than following misguided reactions driven by ill-informed fears.

This is the real fear I have for America. A fear of our looming descent into ethical chaos, as many who complain about their supposed inability to practice their own religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simultaneously seek to deny adherents of a different religion their guaranteed freedom of practice. A fear of our growing tendency to judge people by labeling them as a group instead of meeting them as individuals. Reactions like these are occurring too frequently in America. From fear, we are turning our back on the very promise and idea of America. Our fear needs to stop. We must be the ones to stop it.

©  2015   Randy Bell                www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Labels And Name-calling

The internet is a wonderful thing.  That is important to remember as we also note that the internet is one of the worst things that has happened to serious thinking and conversation.  Its ability to shrink the world into near-instantaneous communication across the globe, to make the most remote places on earth our virtual next-door neighbors, is almost impossible to comprehend.  Yet the problem comes in what we are frequently saying to our neighbors.  The world of “social media” is all-too-often anything but social.

In the 140 character limit that is a Twitter tweet, or the typical five sentences or less than make up a Facebook post, or the captioned photo or illustration that passes for visual sharing, there is simply no way that any real information of any depth can be communicated.  No existing belief will be changed, no new perspective will be embraced, no understanding of the breadth of multiple factors involved in any issue will surface.  Within these snippets of word fragments, we simply see confirmation of our preexisting beliefs, or are enraged by someone’s contrary opinion.  We are then reduced to “voting” our approval of what we already believe, or aggressively firing back verbally at the transgressor’s contrariness.  Share; Comment; Reply All; Forward.  In a split second, our opinion has digitally circumnavigated the globe.

Rather than meaningfully listening to and exchanging divergent views, we more typically stick labels onto the opinion, or engage in name-calling using words that would likely never be said in face-to-face dialog.  The anonymity of the digital page creates a safe space for us to threaten  others’ sense of personal safety.  Especially on issues of politics, government, religious conviction, and personal lifestyle.

The most common dismissive labels are, of course, “Republican” and “Democrat,” along with the good old standbys, “liberal” and “conservative.”  Each of these terms is used disparagingly to inherently invalidate a particular point of view (“typical liberal stance” or “those Republicans hate people”) without ever bothering to really consider that point of view.  We do not distinguish between institutional Republicans or Democrats – the professional elected politicians and Party operatives – versus their rank and file registered voters with whom they may or may not be in sync.  Or the many party “wings” that branch off the central platform: the Dixiecrats of the 1940s; the “Blue Dog” Democrats of the 2000s; the “silk stocking” moderate-liberal Republicans of the 1950/1960s, and the current “Freedom Caucus” in the House.  Does Peter King (R-NY) really inhabit the same political planet as Louie Gohmert (R-TX)?

Hence the rise of the “independent” who currently has no place to call home.  The socially progressive person who also believes that excess government debt is not a healthy position.  The person who feels that government should be a last resort for action, but also believes we share a mutual responsibility to take care of one another and ensure our equal opportunity.  The person who acknowledges that owning a gun is a protected legal right, but, like all other rights, is limited by demonstrating responsibility.  The person that admires economic success and reward in our free market system, but also recognizes that greed is a human frailty that requires regulation and oversight to keep that market truly free.  The person that believes in limited government, but that government is still required, especially as a counterbalance in a time when mega-sized and mega-rich organizations dominate the decision-making for their individual personal gain.

Growing up, a political “conservative” used to refer to someone with a preference for limiting government intrusion into our personal lives, and resisting any mandate that everyone live and think the same way.  Today, many of those who call themselves conservative are the very ones advocating adherence to a single point of view, a single religious basis for our country, a single set of personal values and life-styles .  All while allowing “the government” to be able to snoop into our privacy in the name of “national defense” with minimal constitutional oversight.  It has now been turned upside down with “liberals” aligned with “libertarians” leading the fight to resist this intervention into the law and interference into the social fabric.  How did such a fascinating role reversal come about with so little acknowledgement of it?

In our digital world, we skip over the effort of discussion and simply (re-)broadcast the billboards of our opinions.  Hence someone against the recent nuclear treaty with Iran grandly pronounces that “John Kerry is the worst Secretary of State in history.”  Reading that, I could not help but wonder whether that writer could even name six Secretaries of State prior to 1945, or how he would evaluate John Foster Dulles or Henry Kissinger.  Similarly, Barack Obama’s presidency is pilloried as “a disaster,” yet more than a few past presidents would love to have achieved his factual economic percentages.  Bernie Sanders is dismissed as anti-American because if his “socialist” beliefs, while many of those detractors could not define what socialism is and why it matters.  Is Social Security/Medicare socialism, or the U.S. Postal Service, or the laws shoring up and protecting the antiquated oil/gas/coal industries?  Donald Trump is dismissed as a “carnival barker and clown,” but in doing so do we simultaneously cavalierly dismiss the fears of millions of Americans who resonate with his declarations?

Some people think we should reduce government spending and debt, but it is always someone else’s government check that they want to reduce.  People receiving food stamps are labeled as “takers” and “welfare loafers who should get a job,” skipping over that a substantial number of recipients are retirees who already worked all their life, and military families and the working poor paid too little to afford the American economy.  One writer accused a U.S. Senator of being a hypocrite because of her supposed inconsistency in being “pro-choice” (i.e. the killing of fetuses) while supporting gun safety laws to protect school children – the writer not acknowledging that killing comes in many forms (war, death penalty, right-to-die, self-defense, etc.), each drawing us to separate moral judgments about the different ways we kill.

The issues we live with in human life are many, and they are complex.  Trying to stake out a position, a solution, in 140 characters is like trying to stop a tsunami wave with a single sandbag.  It cannot be done.  All issues we face have many inputs, many considerations, many constituencies.  Each must be considered and interwoven into the solutions we need.  All the verbal grenades we throw at each other bring us nowhere closer to shared resolution, but only harden our separation.

We who self-servingly rail against the partisanship and polarizing so evident in America today need to first look inward.  Then take an extra second before we speak – or press Share or Forward.  We may make fun of speaking in politically correct-ese, but is not most political correctness simply speaking in kindness and being considerate of others?  If we truly want to end the rancor, stop the polarization, and find genuine solutions, it all starts within each of us.  We have to take down our soapbox banners, stop speaking in meaningless generalities, spend time listening to other perspectives, adjust our opinions, and rein in our belief of being 100% right.  Then we can choose to turn away from those who are more invested in our division rather than our resolution.  We can choose to hang around with listening people who like to think.  Even if they think differently,

©   2015   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com