Our Obligation To Each Other

What is our obligation to each other? If there is one, what is our level of commitment to meeting that obligation? And what is the most effective manner for us – individually or collectively – to fulfill that commitment? If we have no such obligation, what should then be done with those unable to adequately fend for themselves?

These are some of the most fundamental questions being asked of us today, demanding answers from us that we so studiously seek to avoid, the WHAT questions that should precede the HOW arguments. Is our only obligation to our one sole life, or do we share some measure of responsibility for the well-being of others? On a national level, what does being “an American” really mean?

For instance, does every child in America deserve to be fully fed, clothed and safely sheltered each and every day? If not, then what should we do with a hungry, unclothed or unsheltered child? Is every child responsible for him/her self regardless of their capability to do so?

We can ask a similar question about our older Americans. They have typically lived a productive lifetime, and have supported us in often intangible ways far distant and long invisible to us. Now they find their skills unwanted, their bodies insufficient, and their resources inadequate to their needs. What obligations do each of us have to each of these?

In a land which has the most advanced medical science capabilities in the world, to whom should this science be made available? Should all of those capabilities be available to all people, or all capabilities to only some of us, or should some portion of those capabilities be available to all? What level of safety of life and limb should be inherently available to an American?

The Founding Fathers strongly believed in the necessity of an educated public in order for the country to successfully progress and succeed as a free and prosperous democracy. Over the course of the mid-1800s through early 1900s, America committed to the universal education of all children, regardless of their ability to pay. Yet the quality of that education has never been universal due to issues of discrimination and varying economic support. Is our commitment only to the appearance of educating, or is it access to real quality of instruction regardless of one’s circumstances? And does this include education beyond the basics of adolescence?

We are bedeviled with similar questions around a host of other topics. But instead of answering fundamental questions about our shared obligations, we instead argue about individual self-responsibility, government welfare programs, tax liabilities and national debt, the proper roles for religions and charities, economic theories, and “the 1%.”

In the 1607 Jamestown settlement, founded in pursuit of individual economic success, “earn your own keep” and “work to provide for yourself or be left on your own,” became the social contract. That experience bequeathed to future generations a heritage of American rugged individualism and the expectation of economic success from one’s own hard work. Self-reliance was the foundation.

Conversely, the 1620 Puritan settlement of Plymouth was founded on pursuit of religious freedom to nurture the spirit, built upon a collective (communist) system of economic sharing. All members of the community shared in the collective bounty based upon one’s mutual obligation to each other. That experience bequeathed to future generations a heritage of looking out for one’s neighbor and sharing the wealth, particularly in times of personal disruption and crisis.

These two heritages have left Americans with an ongoing tension between self-responsibility and helping one’s neighbor. We have been inordinately successful economically by our creativity, inventiveness, and “can do” work ethic for 400 years. We have also been extraordinarily generous in our charitable work, giving and sacrificing for others not only locally but across the globe. It is a generosity recognized and rightfully appreciated by people of all backgrounds the world over.

Yet the tensions between self-responsibility and helping others remain, and is a growing divide today. Protecting our economic viability and strength is certainly necessary to be able to be generous. Every major religion – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism – challenges us to be compassionate to, and accept a measure of responsibility for, the well-being of others, especially the “poor, the widows, and the orphans.” Billions of religious people routinely attend their respective houses or worship and attest their acceptance to these moral obligations. But as they end their ritual service and leave their gatherings, what then happens to that profession of obligation? How does it become realized or lost in the everyday business of daily living?

Perhaps as Americans there is no obligation between us, even though each of our lives, and our successes, has been made possible by the enabling actions of many others – often unseen and unknown to us. Perhaps we all make our own way, and create or lose our own reward. Perhaps our religious teachings only apply selectively, and only to those who we deem deserving of our favor. But instead of endless debates about what government should or should not be doing, and what programs should exist and which should be cut, perhaps we should change the discussion altogether. As a collective society with a national border, we have both the right and the ability to decide what our national obligations to each other will be, and how we will choose to execute those obligations. Whether it is every individual for his/her self, or whether all share together, or perhaps something in between.

But in such a discussion, let us first leave behind for the moment the safe protection of unengaged intellectual argument, mathematical economic theory, and abstract principles of governance that we pontificate in the privacy of our living rooms and social media forums. Let us instead encounter the very stark reality of “If not this, then what?” When the social program is cut, what then happens to the individual? If it is not me, then who will feed the hungry child?

©  2016   Randy Bell                www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

HB2

My adopted state of North Carolina has been quite prominent of late in the national news. Unfortunately, all that attention is due to a less-than-admirable controversial reason. In a special session, our state legislature recently passed a bill – “HB2” – that has a significant impact on both individual human rights as well as county/city governance. The content of this bill, and the process by which it was adopted, may be specific to North Carolina. However, the underlying principles involved are worthy of attention across the country.

HB2 has been called “the bathroom bill,” as it was triggered in response to the passing of a city ordinance in Charlotte to allow transgender people to utilize the public male/female restroom that they “identify with.” It was understandably a controversial decision in Charlotte, but was passed in a well-intended attempt to be supportive to one of the many difficulties faced by transgender people. Whether it was an appropriate response to those needs relative to the concerns of the non-transgender public is not the focus of this blog posting. Rather, this posting is about the extreme over-reaction to that ordinance by an hysterical legislature and governor.

If the legislation was genuinely concerned with transgender “men” using “women’s” restrooms (and vice versa), a specific law could have been passed overriding the Charlotte ordinance. The state constitution grants legislative law preemptive authority over county/city governments. Instead, the Legislature used the Charlotte ordinance as a cover story to go far beyond the specific and localized “transgender bathrooms in Charlotte” headline to also effectively prohibit counties and cities statewide from adopting any discrimination or economic rules beyond the minimalistic statutes in place at the state level.

Under the cover of some negative public reaction to sharing bathrooms with transgender persons, the Legislature restricted shared bathrooms in public facilities (e.g. government offices and public schools) to one’s biological sex as stated on the birth certificate. In addition, the statute included four broader restrictions:

1. prohibits locally passed non-discrimination policies that protect the rights of LBGT people;

2. bans local governments from setting wage or working conditions with its vendors;

3. prohibits local governments from establishing their own anti-discrimination policies – based upon race, natural origin, age, disability, gender or religion – beyond state standards;

4. prohibits citizens who believed they have been discriminated against from suing in state court. It also neutered the state Human Relations Commission to only “using its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the complaints of discrimination.”

 

While LGBT persons are never overtly mentioned in the bill’s language, the law represents yet another rear-guard battleground against that community in the aftermath of the gay marriage decision. It also adds yet another homage to some in the business community of North Carolina by incorporating completely unrelated restrictions on employment and wages – neither of which have much to do with restrooms. These add-on items affect everyone within all current “protected groups.” These hidden onerous provisions of HB2 are the larger issue of this controversial law.

 

The specifics of the bill are distasteful on their face. But the process of the bill’s passage creates yet another case for strenuously opposing this law. The bill was introduced in the House on March 23^rd in a special legislative session called for this topic. There was little advance notice and no legitimate public comment. It passed that morning and went to the Senate, which passed it in the afternoon. The Governor then signed it into law during the evening. One day and done, in record time. Voting House and Senate Republicans supported the bill unanimously as a block; the Republican governor – a former mayor of Charlotte – signed it with no reservations about content or process.

 

It was all a show of political domination done in virtual secrecy at warp speed, obliterating the usual snail’s pace decision process inherently built into state governance. But this was also a continuation of reactive government pandering and sledgehammer politics. In 2012, a similar legislature passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage that followed a similar process of legislative deception and arrogance. Ultimately it was all for naught when a U.S. circuit judge ruled the amendment unconstitutional two years later, a decision subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A lot of time, money, and good faith was wasted in that false pursuit. A similar waste is likely to follow with HB2.

 

HB2 is simply yet another battlefront in the continuing dead-end war over acceptance of the LGBT population within our larger community. It follows Indiana and Georgia’s attempts under a “religious freedom” heading to condone discrimination in the public place, a tactic now under active consideration in Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan and Tennessee. Indiana and Georgia got shot down in their efforts by a surprisingly forceful stand from a wide swath of corporate America, using economic and/or job pressure to reverse this exercise before it even made it into the inevitable court lawsuits. A similar economic counterattack against HB2 is now occurring against a North Carolina state government that has claimed jobs and economic growth as its central priority. It is currently unclear whether corporate and public efforts will succeed in a similar reversal.

 

The transgender bathroom is a difficult issue for many citizens on both sides of this issue, and may be an issue that is too far a stretch at this particular moment in our society’s continual development. In a less polarized and politicized environment some better alternative or transitional solutions could have been developed by thoughtful people not rushing into action. HB2 is by no means any such thoughtful conclusion. And by going far beyond the restroom issue into the broader arena of overall human rights and workplace conditions, the Legislature showed its true colors and invalidated its whole involvement in the original subject.

 

The national Republican Party has long claimed to be the party for limited government intrusion into our lives. This Republican-dominated  legislature has consistently repudiated that claim by its micromanagement of local governments and individual citizens in instances far too numerous to itemize here. If these politicians had truly wanted to deal with transgender restroom issues, it could have opted to do so directly. If it wanted to protect businesses from discrimination lawsuits, and prevent local governments from managing their own affairs and making their own social and economic decisions, it could have been courageous and honest enough to do so separately and openly. Instead, they have displayed a glaring hypocrisy within a shadowy secrecy and a rejection of an open democratic process. North Carolina’s government deserves the national scorn and resistance that it is receiving.

 

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Let The Past Pass

Losing is good for us. Yes, such a statement goes against the tidal wave of political, athletic, and business thinking which says it is all about winning. Winning at any price, demanding every effort, and “failure is not an option.” Certainly it is nice to win on some occasions, if just to keep our spirit nourished and our mind motivated to continue to go on.

Losing has beneficial purposes in our life. It teaches us humility – one of the most important of spiritual values – usually at the very right time we need to learn it. Losing measures our commitment to our cause: do we pick ourselves up and try again, or withdraw into the safe prison of our failure? Losing opens up our bullheadedness that often shuts out needed perspectives and input of others. It tells us perhaps we did not have all the information, all the sufficient planning, needed. Or it reminds us that sometimes a good idea is offered at an inappropriate moment (too early or too late) to an audience not ready to receive it; we need to properly seed the garden of our ideas in order for them to grow. Ultimately, people may have a better idea, or maybe just a different one than ours, or there is simply more of “them” than “us.”

In the political realm, the big question for us is when do we decide to continue the fight and keep banging away at our objective – losing the battle but continuing the war unendingly? Or when do we recognize that the war has been lost, and give the battle up to a new day? Continuing the battle or continuing the suffering is to postpone getting to the new place that awaits us.

War is often a good example of this question. Near the close of the American Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordered his generals to scatter the troops into the dense woods and mountains to henceforth fight a continual guerilla war. Generals Lee and Johnston, seeing firsthand the sacrificial killing taking place, disobeyed the order. They wisely said “enough is enough” and surrendered to Union generals Grant and Sherman respectively. Japan was prepared to die to the last man/woman/child to defend the homeland at the end of World War II. Two atomic bombs – at a horrible price – led the Japanese Emperor to instead choose surrender in order to avoid the inevitable loss of millions of lives on both sides.

Today we are suffering across the globe from an unwillingness to accept new realities that are upon us, unwilling to accept that things have not gone our way. The State of Israel has been a reality in Palestine for almost 70 years; as well, the need for a permanent homeland for displaced Palestinians remains; years of killing and vengeance by both sides over past grievances have not changed those realities.  Conversely, hundreds of years of English domination of Ireland finally ended 90 years ago. But it took 70 more years for tensions in Northern Ireland to finally end with a recognition that peace outweighed long memories of persecution. It took 30 years to end the ostracizing of Communist China by recognizing the reality of its government in place; 50 years to accept that blockading Cuba was accomplishing nothing but the continual suffering of its citizens. The time comes when accepting reality takes precedence over maintaining illusions and wishful thinking from the past.

Nothing is intended to remain the same, ever. In America, we suffer – long after their expiration dates – unproductive longings for past stories that never fully were. And we usually have highly imaginative fictional memories about the past we are trying to hang onto. The past is past for a reason – the good ol’ days weren’t really always that good! They had their good moments, certainly, but not everyone shared in those good experiences; they existed side-by-side with some really not so nice times. Life in the Leave-it-to-Beaver household did not resemble many households across America. And that gap of lifestyle, economic opportunity, and equal justice exploded in full view in the turbulence of the 1960s.

Today, the calendar reads “2016.” Yet it increasingly feels like we are in a time-warped moment back to our past that is robbing us of noble accomplishment. A half-century ago, equal voting rights for all citizens was affirmed. The limited right to abortion under defined guidelines was affirmed. Equal rights of property ownership and employment reward for women has been continually legally affirmed over the years. Protecting our environment and the cleanliness of air and water was charged to the EPA. Medicare made a giant leap forward towards extending medical care to those who need it.

Each of these decisions (and others) are under new attacks seeking to reverse these realities. Issues that many of us thought were long settled are back on the table facing new assaults amid echoes of old debates. They often have different rallying names: Voter Id (versus poll tax); Obamacare (versus Medicare); same-sex marriage (versus inter-racial marriage); gays in the military (versus Blacks in the armed forces); women’s equal pay (versus women’s equal pay!). Why are we still having these old, repetitive conversations?

We have many serious new issues on our collective plates today. International terrorism; violence in the sanctity of schools and churches; broken political promises; energy demands serviced from destructive sources; illegal immigration with good people living in shadows; unequal application of justice; economic stagnation and disparity of wealth and income; unaffordable medical care. All of these suffer from a lack of proper attention due to the distraction of pursuing old fights from our past. Certainly we should remember our past, because there are important lessons to be learned from those experiences. But we should not live today as if it were the past, because the world has moved on and will continue to do so.

When a vote is taken, a decision has been made. Children intuitively continue to wail as their desires go unmet. As adults we are supposed to know better, having learned to compromise with others of a differing view in order to find better, more broadly accommodating solutions. We can fight the good fight fair and ethically by the rules of the community. But after the dice have been rolled, the cards have been played, the poll has been tallied, a future course is now set. “Today” has been newly defined, and we need to get on board and sail on the same ship, working together, each giving his/her best contribution. There is a time to debate, argue, and fight for opinions. Then there comes a time to accept and move on. None of us wins all; all of us win some.

In the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention in 1788, there were hard-fought arguments of deep beliefs from good, principled people on both sides on whether to adopt the new United States Constitution. Delegate Benjamin Swain spoke to the convention regarding his feelings on being on the losing side. Swain reflected that “the Constitution had had a fair trial and there had not … been any undue influence exercised to obtain the vote in its favor. Many doubts which lay on my mind had been removed.” And although he was in the minority, “I should support the Constitution as cheerfully and as heartily as though I had voted on the other side of the question.”  It was a position not just of magnanimity, but it was also a principle that is essential for democratic government to succeed: after a fair hearing and honest vote, the decision is thereby made and all must come together to make the decision work.

It is now 2016, not 1968. We are well past the time for moving on from a past time that was never exactly as we remember.

©   2016   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Constitutional Responsibility

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. The longest-serving of the current justices, he was the lynchpin of the Court’s five person conservative wing. There were few legal arguments on which I could agree with him, but this blog is not to rehash past Court decisions or Scalia arguments. Rather, it is to comment on what has transpired since his death.

Less than one hour after the public announcement of Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood in front of microphones and cameras on Capitol Hill and incredibly declared – in effect – that the President of the United States did not have the authority to appoint a replacement to fill Scalia’s vacancy, notwithstanding the express words of such authority in our Constitution. (So much for any believers in “strict constructionism.”) Further, if the President nevertheless dared to send forth such a nomination, Senate Republicans as a block would conduct no hearings on that person’s qualifications, and no confirmation vote would be taken. In fact, the nominee would not even be granted the basic courtesy of an introduction  and handshake!

The ostensible reason for this negation is that the current President is in the last year of his second 4-year term. An election for his replacement is in process, albeit over eight months away. So “the American People should have a say” in who is to be nominated as a result of who is elected the NEXT president – even though the vacancy is NOW. This is all, of course, utter legal and political nonsense. As well as governance nonsense – but far more egregious than we have seen before. Because this is nothing less than the willful Congressional redefinition of the express words of the Constitution by a political party claiming to be the true believer and defender of that Constitution. And such an action deserves to be called out for the insubordination and attempted usurpation of power that it is.

Article 2 / Section 1 of the Constitution says that “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It further states that “[The President] shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years.” It does not say “except when other people are running to replace him.” (These days, people are running for four years to be the next president!) Article 2 / Section 2 says that “[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” It does not say a “future” or “next” President. We have a President elected by the people; we have a Supreme Court vacancy. The President’s job responsibility is clear: make an appointment. We have a Congress; their job is to consider the candidate fairly, based upon his/her judicial qualifications and personal integrity, not political or social philosophy. Those philosophies are inherently embedded in the President elected by the people and who nominates the candidate. (Admittedly, not all justices turn out to be what their President expected!) The Senate’s job responsibility is clear: advise and consent on the nomination, based upon the nominee’s qualifications and character.

Playing out Mitch McConnell’s Constitutional confrontation is not just another ugly political battle such as we have become far too accustomed to seeing. It is also an insurrection with consequences. The Court has essentially been a 5-4 deliberating body for years. This one vacancy will make many key decisions a 4-4 tie. The Court is now halfway through its October-June session, with few cases yet decided and announced. There are major substantive cases accepted for review this session which will now go 4-4 undecided, meaning the decisions of the lower courts will stand. Most of those decisions have gone against the McConnell / conservative political agenda, so those losses will now be confirmed. In these contentious times, a 4-4 non-decision is not sufficient legal guidance; these cases deserve a more honest and final conclusion.

To add insult to injury, waiting for a new President means we will not only freeze the current session into a stalemate; we will lose virtually all of next year’s session in a second stalemate. By the time a new President is inaugurated next January, picks a nominee, and the Senate waddles its way through its advise and consent process, it will be April 2017 at the earliest – two months before the 2016-17 session ends. Two full sessions without a fully staffed Court is an inexcusable situation for our governance. Further, in this high stakes poker game, Republicans are counting on the new president being a Republican. Do they really think they will get a better choice a year from now should it be a President Clinton or Sanders?

Around one-third of the Senate seats are up for election this November. If our Constitution has been de facto amended such that Executive Branch leaders are no longer allowed to perform their responsibilities due to being suspended during an election, then that should also apply to sitting Senators. No voting or decision-making by them until after the election. Given Congress’ non-performance over the past six years, we would not likely notice the difference.

This is all quite a pathetic excuse for leadership and governance. Congress has long neutered itself of any meaningful governmental role. The Presidency has been marginalized. And now we are rendering our Supreme Court – supposedly the bastion of the rule of law and the bulwark against political excesses-of-the-moment – powerless. The country that claims the mantle of “most powerful leader of the world” acts more like an emerging chaotic 3^rd-world country.

This gamesmanship is the latest reason why Americans are so disgusted with political “leaders.” Angry at their manipulation of governance systems, and the casting of all meaningful issues into the garbage bin of political opportunism and grabs for power. On this particular topic, both parties are rolling out quotes from speeches and position papers of long ago. Each party has advocated opposite opinions against themselves, talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on whether they are in the majority driver’s seat or out. The hypocrisy of everyone in this debate is astounding. Our politicians sound like spiteful sibling children in the playground, arguing that it is the other person’s fault because “they did it first.” Do they not remember their mother’s admonition from long ago saying, “two wrongs do not make a right”?

Just once it would be nice to see elected leaders lead by doing what is simply the right thing to do, rather than what is politically expedient, or what benefits their personal reelection agenda, or because the other Party did such and such. This is one of those times. Certainly we would all like to see our preferred jurist on the Court. But we are charged with being responsible citizens that accept the reality of timing; sometimes timing goes our way, and sometimes it does not. The pendulum always swings back and forth. Antonin Scalia died when he did. Like it or not, we have to move forward from this moment in time.

The United States Supreme Court has already become far too political an institution. This latest political high-jacking only serves to further that politicization. We need to restore judicial integrity as our highest priority, higher than any particular ideology. We need to do so by fulfilling the Constitution that the Supreme Court is charged with safeguarding.

©   2016   Randy Bell                         www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

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