Understanding The Will of The People

When people like FBI Strzok and his fellow anti-Trump conspirators think that it is their job to obviate the will of the people, it shows their lack of understanding of our democracy.

To recap:  Peter Strzok is the highly placed FBI agent who was a key player in both the Clinton investigation and Mueller’s investigation of alleged collusion between Trump and Russia until he was removed after emails surfaced between him and his then mistress and fellow FBI anti-Trumper.  Those emails suggested not only his bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump in his use of the now debunked dossier against Trump, but also emails suggesting his desire to undermine and even unseat a Trump presidency.  His emails indicate that he believed that “we can’t afford to leave this in we the people’s hands.”  This from a well-placed member of the intelligence community who is sworn to protect, not subvert our democracy.

This is truly frightening. This sort of thinking, that one knows better than the full voting public what the outcome of an election should be, is a danger to our democracy.  This is the thinking that allows a dictator to “win” by unanimous vote following a show election.  This is the thinking that denies power to the people and places it in the hands of a select few, a group whose interests may or may not include the best interests of the people.  To ignore the implications of this thinking is to ignore the fragility of our democratic Republic and sow the seeds of its demise.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there are times when I wonder how the voting public can be so uninformed, how they can fail to think or to understand the full implications of a particular policy decision. I have often over many years wondered how the people could possibly have elected this or that candidate.   And when it looks completely hopeless I have momentarily thought that perhaps we would be better with a benevolent dictator.  But no, we would not!

My parents’ generation were fond of saying that the “country is going to hell in a handbasket.”  Generations before them had similar phrases.  Yet here we are.  Somehow, at the darkest moments the people come through, they do what is right and good, and the country continues and moves forward.  Sometimes what we thought was a good choice was not, or what we thought was a bad choice turns out in the end to be quite good.  We learn, and we grow.  And that is the beauty of our form of democracy. 

We are not subservient to the mind or the will or the limitations or the whims of a dictator or other elite class who believes that they know what is best for all.  We are not subservient because we are, through our elected representatives, our own government.  We have the freedom to select and direct our government, rather than submissively complying with an authoritarian regime.

Those who would negate our democratic process to implant their views, policies, and candidates are not working for the good of the country.  Their actions would destroy it and replace it with an oppressive regime, for any dictatorship, even a seemingly benevolent one, reflects a disdain for the people and their voice.  

In this country we the people speak, and we are governed according to our own voice.   Our voice is not unanimous and those whose voices were not as loud must understand that when another view prevails their voice continues to have the opportunity to be heard.  They must have patience, and if their views are truly better, the people will eventually hear and recognize that. But speaking and being heard in a democracy does not include overthrowing the will of the people in order to immediately foist one’s own views upon them.

Since Donald Trump became the Republican candidate for president, the Democrats, their supporters, and other anti-Trumpers have been trying to insert their will for that of the people.  Hence, we had the apparent plots to destroy his candidacy.  One might chalk that up to hardball campaigning, but once Mr. Trump became President Trump, elected by the will of the people according to our Constitution, it was everyone’s duty as good citizens to support that president and in so doing to support the will of the people.  Yet, what many have done since the first day of his presidency is try to invalidate and delegitimize that presidency.  Shame on the Democrats for thinking that their will should supplant that of the people. 

Sadly, it seems that the Democrats have forgotten that the people are the government and that the government only exists through the will of the people.  We see this in their words about the tax bill that just passed – things like the bill is “stealing from the government” or that the people are “looting the federal treasury.”  Do they not understand that the government is the people, that its money came from those very people who they claim are stealing it? Any money that the government has, the funding of its services and programs, all comes from the people.  If the people choose to fund fewer government bureaucracies, then they are simply retaining their own funds, they are not stealing or looting their own treasury.  Yet, the Democrats seem to believe that the people are subservient to their own government, a government which the Democrats seem to believe only they and their ideas should control.

One who actually understands our democracy does not go about conspiring to reverse the will of the people.   To do so is horribly arrogant in its complete disrespect for the people and the government that they elect.  If we let it, our democracy works.  Yes, sometimes it makes mistakes, but it is also able to correct itself and to move forward.  A true American supports our democracy rather than trying to subvert it, regardless of who is currently in office.  

The Democrats need to accept the will of the people, understand that there may actually be some good in it, and that we the people may very well know what we are doing.  In the words of Keith Richards and Mick Jagger: “You can’t always get what you want but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need!”

The Costumed (Superficial/Shallow/Artificial/ Posturing) Society

People confuse appearances with deeper reality.  Perhaps it comes from misconstruing popular memes and sayings such as “If you believe it you achieve it,” “You can have anything you want if you dress for it,” or “If you want to be noticed, dress the part.”  Perhaps we are simply trained to focus on the superficial and to believe that if we get the superficial right, then we have succeeded in getting that which lies below the superficial right as well.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

First example:

When someone has denied sexual allegations, does his resigning, being fired, or even committing suicide as a result of those unproven allegations make the women who made them feel empowered?  Perhaps it makes them feel momentarily powerful, but they are anything but empowered.  Instead, they have revealed a lack of empowerment in their absence from coming forward  or taking appropriate action at the time of the offense and more importantly in their inability to use the legal system or other procedural means that provide them the ability to prove their allegations definitively and receive true justice.  Instead of their own empowerment, they simply rely on the current nurturing of such claims by media and others, sometimes for their shock value alone and sometimes as a way of removing or destroying those whom are disliked.  That has nothing to do with true empowerment of women.

Second example:

People are encouraged if not often required by school, job, etc., to do some sort of good work and then broadcast their good works to others as if this is some sort of proof of their inner goodness.  It is not.  Yes, some people who do good deeds in the form of some sort of public or community service are good people within their souls, but that is not necessarily so.  Others may do good works because they are required to do so or because they believe that their good works are a way to advance their own agendas or simply their own popularity and acceptance.  That has nothing to do with true inner goodness.

You may ask “Really what difference does it make?  The “me too” allegations (even if some are less than accurate or taken out of context) are making people aware of the problem of sexual harassment and even good works done with less than good motives still serve the people to whom they are directed.” 

While that may be true, it is also an acceptance that ends justify means.  But in this case the perceived ends are only that – a perceived reality that sees only a superficial and whimsical truth.  There is a huge difference between outer dressing and truly meaningful actions.  Just as fashions change, so too do societal trends; what is meaningful today may be insignificant tomorrow.  Women who are feeling powerful as they see their allegations have major impacts on the lives of the men accused may not feel so powerful when society takes a different view of such allegations.  But, if the focus of “me too” was instead to truly empower women with an inner strength that is not dependent on the whims of society or the strength of others, then that empowerment would remain regardless of the current posturing of society. 

Similarly, while any good works are helpful at the time they are done, if they are only done because that is the current fashion of society, then they can end when the designs of society change.  If we encourage good works only for superficial or selfish reasons we are doing nothing to create good persons within themselves who would choose to do good works regardless of the current trends and whims of society.  Hence those good works and their benefit to those served could easily end, whereas if we were more concerned with creating truly good people then those works would be far more likely to remain permanently ongoing. 

Posturing is not Being.  I can put on costumes that make me most anything, but who I am is the person with all the costumes removed.  It is who I am in my soul.  That inner being is what gives me strength, not the clothes I put on; it is what gives me whatever goodness I may have, not the clothes that I put on.  Yet, society seems to be dazzled only by the clothes, the costumes.  We think that they are the definition of whom we are.  We think that our costumes alone will define and sustain our world.  Yet, at some point those costumes fall away and we are all left with a deeper reality that we must face.

It seems that today so many fear facing that inner reality, and so they simply don more and more costumes, costumes that make themselves and others feel good, but which can be discarded anytime at their own or society’s caprice.  The souls of so many in society seem empty, yet they do not understand that superficial costumes and actions will not fill them up.  And so, society itself begins to lose its soul.

We all need to step back from the daily hysteria, posturing, and shallow if not artificial interests and behaviors of our society.  We need to take some time to focus on what lies beneath the surface, in ourselves, our children, and our society.  We need to forget our costumes and nurture our souls.  For it is only that inner and deeper truth that empowers us and our society, giving us all a better and more meaningful reality.

A Note About Due Process

Dear Democrats,

Denying the basic democratic right of Due Process is not taking the high and holy ground.

To read much of the news today, the Democrats would have us believe that they are somehow representing the "good" to the Republican’s "evil" in forcing the resignation of Representative Conyers and Senator Franken.  But wait – both men deny at least some of the allegations against them.  Should they not be entitled to defend themselves, to have a fair and full hearing on all the evidence before being summarily forced from their careers?  Apparently not.

And, if one takes much of what we read today as correct, the Democrats intend to use this denial of due process to their members as a way to force the resignation of Judge Moore if he is elected and maybe even the resignation of the President, both due to unproven allegations of sexual misconduct against them that they have denied.  Democrats somehow believe that their actions have given them the moral high ground that will lead to their ability to remove opposition based on unsubstantiated allegations alone.  That is, they believe that acting as a lynch mob is somehow applaudable.

Yet, I wonder why anyone who really understands our democracy and our system of justice would or could respect a party that doesn’t respect Due Process.  For those who have forgotten what that term means, it is the right of citizens to fair treatment through the judicial process.  It is guaranteed by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution.  Due Process protects citizens from arbitrary punishment and sanctions without the full procedural and substantive processes provided by the law.   Punishment on mere allegations alone and without a full presentation and examination of relevant evidence is not due process.  Acting arbitrarily against someone simply for political gain is not due process. 

These political lynchings are troubling on many grounds.  First is the eagerness with which the Democrats are willing to dismiss a basic constitutional safeguard simply for their own political purposes.  If we applaud such action then we encourage these sorts of political lynchings in the future, perhaps based on other grounds, but always to the detriment of our system of democracy.  Second, but related is the denial to the people of their right to choose their representatives; the leader of a political party should not overturn the will of the people without fully substantiating evidence that such action is absolutely necessary, and finding such evidence would require due process.  Again, the Democrats do not seem to understand the role of the electorate and the voice of the people in our democracy.

Looking now to the individual toll on both accusers and accuseds, the third ground on which these political lynchings are troubling is that the men are now “guilty” without any proof of that guilt, and no opportunity to present their side or force an accuser to come forward and prove their accusation.  Whether guilty or not, they must now carry that label with them.   This sets a very dangerous precedent.  Fourth, these punishments based on accusation alone tend to cheapen legitimate accusations that, without proof in a court of law, will always be open to doubt and that doubt will be a further and continuing wound to the victim. 

The Democrats may think they have scored some sort of victory by demanding immediate resignations of their accused colleagues.  Al Franken may think that he has done something noble by falling on his sword for his party, even while denying the allegations against him.  But these are not laudable acts.  They are instead direct affronts to, if not attacks on our democracy.  Anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of that democracy or how our justice system works should be completely appalled.  Even those who like the ultimate goal of these acts should speak out against them.   Certainly, there should be no support or reward for these actions or for any such similar actions in the future.  We must not allow the ends to justify the means, especially when those means deny our basic rights as citizens and are a direct affront to our Constitution and our Democracy.

Addendum:  Breaking news just now that one of Moore’s accusers has admitted to forging at least part of the yearbook inscription that was used to accuse him.  Things like this support not rushing to judgment based on accusations alone.  (And by the way, why isn’t this on the front pages of the main stream and Democrat media in the same way that the initial accusation was?)

Where is the Non-partisan Outrage?

Interestingly, the following facts are barely reported in the main stream media; I have culled them from some less popular news sources as well as from some right leaning news sources.  I do not understand why the following is not being fully reported by sources such as ABC, NBC, CBS.  Nonetheless, here is a summary of recent facts revealing potential bias within the FBI and the Mueller investigation:

            During the campaign an FBI agent Peter Strzok was given wide authority to investigate Hillary’s use of a private server for classified information and then to investigate possible collusion between Trump and the Russians to affect the 2016 election.  In the Hillary investigation he let pass statements by Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills that were contradicted by their own emails.   It turns out that Strzok is the one who changed the description of Hillary’s actions from “gross negligence” (a legal term of art with criminal implications) to the less significant “extremely careless.”  Then, days after closing the Clinton email case, Strzok signed the document opening the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The authorization of FISA secret surveillance monitoring of the communications of Trump advisers were based at least in part on the anti-Trump and now discredited dossier that was produced for and underwritten by the Clinton campaign; there is strong evidence that Strzok was aware of the dossier and likely involved in the requests for FISA warrants based on the dossier. An informant has charged Strzok with obstructing a probe into the dossier.  Strzok was also one of two agents who interviewed then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and received the statement that resulted in the charge of lying.

In August Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation, but only in the past few days has it come to light that during the investigations he sent numerous anti-Trump texts and that there is other evidence showing his ongoing bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump.   The DOJ is now going through 10,000 texts between Strzok and Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair and with whom he apparently shared a strong anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiment.  Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, participated in meetings about both the Hillary and the Trump investigations.  

It has also been revealed that Andrew Weissmann, a deputy for Mueller in the Russia probe, wrote an email in which he praised then DOJ official Sally Yates for refusing to enforce a legitimate presidential order with which she and many anti-Trumpers disagreed.  Yet another DOJ lawyer, Bruce Ohr, has been demoted due to contacts with the anti-Trump dossier firm.

Mueller did not inform the congressional oversight committee about the Strzok texts or about his reason for removing Strzok.  The Senate Judiciary Committee had to demand that the FBI turn over documents related to the removal of Strzok, noting that “Strzok, the deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division, was removed both from that position and the Mueller team over the summer, and reassigned to the human resources division, after it was reported that he ‘engaged in communications demonstrating political bias while handling matters in two sensitive, high-profile investigations’”.

The above should disturb each and every American!  Here is seemingly obvious and ongoing bias staring us in the face.  Of course, the Right presents the above information fully, perhaps making it seem even more important than it is or making assumptions of even further bias beyond that for which there is evidence.  Meanwhile, the Left tries to ignore it or put a good spin on it (what a great man Mueller is because he removed Strzok in August). 

Each and every one of us, regardless of our political views, should be saying this sort of activity and bias by the FBI is simply not acceptable.   Are we really willing to overlook such obvious bias when it leads to decisions with which we happen to agree (ending Hillary investigation; continuing search for evidence against Trump costing taxpayers millions).  To me, the fact that there is not universal disgust and outrage about the apparently out of control and biased FBI is what is really troubling.  Have we completely lost our sense of justice and fairness?  And, how can anyone be satisfied with, let alone trust the accuracy of any conclusions reached by these investigations?

Let’s consider the two key pieces.  First, an investigation of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate, by Left-leaning members of the FBI.  The investigation ends with no charges.  Then an investigation by the same Left-leaning members of the FBI against the Republican president whose election horrified the opposition.  That investigation has gone well beyond its charge, yet after a year has still found no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians.  Yet, we encourage the fishing expedition to continue, at great taxpayer expense. 

I certainly don’t feel comfortable accepting the final conclusions of either of these investigations and their many off-shoots.  To me they seem more like something I would expect from a banana republic than the democratic government of one of the greatest nations in the world.  To others these seem like the actions of the feared and nebulous web of the deep state, or evidence of a sitting political party using its resources against the opposition.  Yet others who like the results because they further their own political agendas find nothing wrong here and fully support these questionable investigations.

This is appalling, yet it fully reflects the low to which we have sunk.  It reflects our inability to be objective, to think rather than be driven only by group politics and emotion.  Left approves, Right does not.  What more do you need to know?  How about objectivity and fairness, not to mention justice?  No one seems to consider the danger of allowing if not applauding such an apparently biased investigatory force to continue.  Are we ready to allow our FBI to determine whom to acquit and whom to go after based upon prevailing political views within the agency?  How will you feel when your party is on the losing side?  Allowing these so clearly flawed investigations without question sets a very dangerous precedent for future use of state-sponsored intimidation that is a direct assault on a fair and democratic justice and governmental system.

Everyone, regardless of party or political views or like or dislike of President Trump or his policies should stand together and demand better.  We should all be outraged and demand that the FBI give us the fair and objective service to which we are entitled.  We must understand that even apparent bias weakens our democracy while true objectivity strengthens it.  Instead of taking to our respective partisan sides we should all be standing together in non-partisan anger as we demand the fairness that our democracy promises.

Critical Thinking - A Lost Art

There are plenty of topics for a blog in today’s news:  the bias of the top people in Mueller’s investigation; their special treatment of Hillary and their being instrumental in the initial allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia; the use of the FBI by a sitting administration to conduct opposition research against political opponents;  whether the Mueller investigation has overreached; whether it has any legitimacy at all given the revelations of the past few days; Time’s choice of the hysteria-driven and victim-creating #MeToo as its person of the year;  recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the hypocrisy of the Democrats outcry against Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem when they supported it in the past; Conyer’s retirement and who will take his place; what SCOTUS will decide about whether a cake artist can be compelled to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs and whether his refusal to do so is unlawful discrimination against members of the LGBT community; the Tax bill; immigration; the actions of the deep state; and on and on and on.

But, today, this being my 100^th blog posting, I will talk about something else.  Something more important than even the most hysterical hysteria of the day.  Something the lack of which underlies much of the hysteria and news-as-entertainment we see today.   Today I will talk about thinking:   deep thinking, CRITICAL THINKING.  This is something that seems to have been lost in our country, and without it I don’t see how we can ever stop the daily hysteria and the havoc it causes to our country and our lives.

Critical thinking is simply the ability to objectively analyze facts or evidence in order to reach a conclusion or form a judgment.  The key here is the word “objective” meaning unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, detached, dispassionate, and fair.  Critical thinking is performed by the one reaching the judgment or conclusion.  It requires clear and rational thinking.  And, it is sadly lacking today.

Critical thinking means that one questions everything, even their own beliefs.  One does not accept something just because someone else said it was true, even if that is a someone whom one respects or with whom one always agrees.   And, it means that one is able to distinguish between people themselves and the positions that they hold.   (That is, one may find an individual repulsive, but that does not mean that the individual’s agenda is also repulsive). 

In the last few days I have heard from individuals who support Democrat policies that anyone who does not support those polices is not only wrong, but an idiot as well.  I have heard parents ask how to tell their children that their teacher is “wrong” when the teacher has expressed or explained a viewpoint that runs counter to the viewpoint of the parents.  I have heard people say they will not even consider reading new or opinion pieces from sources labeled as holding political views to the right or left of their own.  I have heard people explain that it is too time consuming to read even a full synopsis of an issue or controversy, so they simply read the highlights as selected by their favorite news source, even if things such as quotes are distorted or otherwise misleading and taken out of context.  And, I regularly hear people adopt the conclusions and judgments presented to them by their favored source without any further inquiry or research.

These are all examples of the pervasive lack of critical thinking in our society.  Let’s look at these in more detail, beginning with the parent who thinks that he must tell his child that he is right and the teacher is wrong.  Not only is the parent not exercising critical thinking (not asking for details and context of what the teacher said), but the parent is not teaching or allowing his child to become a critical thinker.  Placing a child in an environment where one authority figure is always right does not teach a child to exercise her own mind and reach her own judgments.  A parent who expects a child to adopt all the parent’s beliefs unquestioned does not teach the child how to make her own judgments and decisions once the parent is no longer there.  In the instance where a parent finds a teacher or other pushing a viewpoint contrary to that of the parent, the better approach is to discuss, at an appropriate level for the child, the different ways of looking at the question. explain why the parents hold the belief they do, while accepting that others may hold other beliefs.  That allows the child to understand that there is more than one way of looking at something, that there may be a need to understand context or find further facts or evidence.  Even if the child is expected to accept and follow the parent’s view at that point in her life, it teaches the child about thinking, about the possibility of other views, and about tolerance of other views. 

Those are some notes for the parent, but I also have notes about the teachers and our education system.  From what I see, very little time is spent on teaching critical thinking skills.  Teachers seem to have no problem presenting their views and judgments as fact that the student either must accept, or will accept in order to please the teacher.   Emotional arguments and conclusions are accepted by teachers with no demand for logic or rational support.  Students are encouraged to express their feelings with little demand that their articulation be clear, organized, or well thought out.  Of course, logic, developing support, indeed, learning and thinking itself, are hard work.  There seems to be an aversion to the idea of work in school these days.  Rather, teachers want kids to have fun; they seem to seek friendship rather than respect from their students. And, we have placed upon teachers the burdens of parenting, social work, and other requirements that are not part of a teacher’s traditional duties or trained skills.

If we do not teach our children how to be critical thinkers, then we cannot expect to see critical thinking in our adult population.  If we train our children to simply accept the judgment of one or another authority figure then we cannot expect them to do otherwise as adults.  Thus, we have people who simply accept whatever superficial judgment sounds good to them without even seeing a need to do their own inquiry into the rationality and legitimacy of that position.   Looking more specifically at politics, we have people who support each and every position of their preferred party, without any thought or investigation.  We have people who support or oppose views simply because they like or do not like the individual who professes those views.  This is especially senseless in that it confuses an individual with an institution of which that individual is a part.   Every leader as an individual will have a variety of qualities that will generally be liked or disliked, but that individual’s administration and its policies should and will eventually be judged by different standards in the context of history (this assumes of course that those whose goal it is to erase history will not in the end succeed). 

Of course, the problem with all this is that we end up with two warring camps:  those who blindly accept the view of one side on an issue and those who blindly accept the opposing view.  Arguments about the issue devolve into calling the other side stupid, idiotic, or similar names because without critical thinking and its use to arrive at and thus understand the views one has adopted, one cannot really debate the issues themselves.  So, it becomes simply cults of personality and ad hominem attacks on those holding opposing views.

Sure, it would be easier to have clear cut right and wrong answers to every one of life’s issues.  But, life is far more complex.  And, in order to make sound judgments about the issues that face us as individuals and as society as a whole, we must be able to critically think about them.  We must take the time to fully learn the relevant facts and to fully educate ourselves about various and competing viewpoints.  We must each of us examine this body of evidence that relates to each issue upon with we have or would like to take a stand.  We must each arrive at our own understanding and our own conclusions, based on our own examination; we must not be content to simply accept that which we are told. 

When it comes to politics, our education must begin with a clear and objective understanding of the history and core principles of this country.  We must read and understand our Constitution as well as how it has been interpreted and applied throughout our history.  Before taking a position on a law or regulation we must fully understand if not entirely read the operative provisions of the rule and must understand the basis of differing views about the rule.  We must consider not simply the immediate effect or gratification but also the long-term consequences of what is done or not done.  And we must listen to full words and context when a politician speaks, not be content to have only the particular sound bite chosen by the nightly news or our preferred Twitter feed. 

Yes, this all asks a lot.  Making informed decisions takes time and effort.  But no one said that being a responsible citizen and a responsible adult is an easy task.  It is, however, a serious and a critical task.  Without critical thinking we are governed by emotion alone and our world becomes less rational and more angry.  Teachers and parents together must insure that children learn the skill and the joy of deep and critical thinking, and then as adults we must demand of ourselves and of others that we use those skills in making the important decisions and judgments that affect all of our lives.

Racism and Redefining the Rules

Every statement you don’t like is not necessarily racist, and calling any person a racist who says or does something you don’t like solves nothing.

Donald Trump uses the name “Pocahontas” when referring to Elizabeth Warren.  While some might for some reason find that insensitive or stupid, it is not racist.  Racist is defined as: “showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.”  While some would like to assume and proclaim that these are Mr. Trump’s personal beliefs, they need better proof than this reference to support their assertions.

Referring to Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas” in no way suggests discrimination against people of other races since Ms. Warren, despite her attempts to claim otherwise, is Caucasian.  Calling this racist is something that some choose to read into the use of the name simply because of their dislike of the one using it.  It is certainly not racist to call someone who claimed a false heritage for personal gain a name associated with the race which she claimed.  Indeed, her defense of her claim – that her grandfather had “high cheekbones” – is probably more racist (in the same way that characterizing Asians by the shape of their eyes is seen as racist). 

Now, many of Trump’s pet names for opponents may seem juvenile to some, even while they are often a shorthand way of pointing out a key flaw that is in some way relevant.   Used on the campaign trail they certainly are an effective sound-bite in an environment in which everyone, including the media, wants a short and pungent representation to capture a point, rather than any sort of in-depth discussion of an issue.

Sometimes these pet names anger those who would rather overlook the flaw that they point out.  To respond by calling the one using the name a bully or racist cheapens the real meaning of those labels.  Racism does exist.  Calling someone who falsely claimed herself to be a Native American “Pocahontas” is not racism.  To call it so is to redefine racism in a way that makes the terms racist and racism almost meaningless.  That is, terms with significant and legal consequence are redefined as simply a way to hurl insults at someone you don’t like or to deflect your being caught in some wrong-doing, not unlike the name-calling that happens on a first-grade playground.   (Perhaps we should remember the schoolyard chant: “sticks and stone will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”)  First graders are still learning about civility, and how to discuss and deal with disagreements.  We expect grown ups to have matured. 

We also expect adults to have reached the intellectual level and mentality beyond the purely emotionally reactive – a level where they can distinguish a person from his or her views.  Many people do not like President Trump the man, finding him un-refined in a sort of nouveau riche sort of way, or have other reasons for disliking the man.  That does not mean that he is a racist.  It does not mean that every one of his policies or positions is in some way racist.  Even if he were a racist, it does not necessarily follow that the policies of his administration are all racist.  Neither does the fact that his policies are not yours make those policies racist.   And, it does not make every one of his supporters or supporters of his policies a racist. 

We could ignore all this if things like the response to his using “Pocahontas” was an isolated incident.  But it is not.  Many on the left – those still unable to accept that someone who does not hold their views was elected as president – would redefine much in this world simply to achieve their own desires.   So, they redefine what is racist in order to spew condemnation at their president.  They redefine “free speech” as speech with which they agree; they redefine “due process” to mean that simply being accused is sufficient “process” to find one guilty;  they would have lawmakers place the needs and wants of non-citizens and illegal immigrants above the needs of the citizens whom those lawmakers are elected to represent and whose needs it is those lawmakers’ duty to address;  they encourage a special prosecutor to well exceed the scope and limits of his authority; they redefine most any acceptable behavior as only that which furthers their own cause.   This is very dangerous indeed.

Rules are becoming meaningless.  There is a name for a society without clear rules:  it is called an anarchy and is defined as: “a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority” as well as “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded [by some] as a political ideal.”  I would argue that those who see this as an ideal are those who have not matured past the first-grade playground and its emotionally driven and self-centered need for immediate gratification, without measured consideration or contemplation, and without civility or respect for others.

Instead of redefining or eliminating rules, instead of acting like immature children, we need to learn to slow down and think.  The first grader reacts to what he or she doesn’t like by name calling.  But the adult finds a better way to consider and correct the problem.  Calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” may make some people uncomfortable, perhaps primarily because it immediately points out her fraudulent claims.  The way to deal with that discomfort is not to scream racist, but to confront the underlying facts that gave rise to the name.  The way to address policies with which one disagrees is not to call those who support those policies racist, but to advocate for changes in the policies, explaining their shortcomings and working with their supporters to reach a mature and better compromise.  The way to make a better world is not to do away with rules, but to respect them and, when logic requires, improve them. 

Me Too Does Not Empower You

A recent survey shows that one third of young people believe it is usually sexual harassment when a man other than one’s partner compliments a woman’s clothing.  So then, was it sexual harassment when my male coworker complimented my new hairstyle?  I certainly didn’t think so at the time, but in today’s environment I would seemingly be justified in coming forward and saying, “me too.”  Did it matter that the coworker was gay?  We don’t need to spend time on that, because I also had a male heterosexual coworker compliment my new outfit: clearly, in today’s climate, a “me too” offense.   One fourth of these same young people surveyed believe it is always harassment when a man invites a woman for a drink.  If we were to put a stop to this sort of behavior it might mean that about half of my friends who are happily married would never have gotten to know the person who ultimately became their spouse.

A female friend was in Starbucks earlier today, in line behind an elderly man.  The barista was having trouble figuring out how to put honey into the man’s tea, so the order was taking a while.  The man turned to my friend to apologize for how long his order was taking and they struck up a friendly conversation.  That is, until my friend was overtaken by the hysteria of the times and wondered if this could be interpreted as harassment, should she continue, and if she did was she bringing it on, and might the kindly gentleman be seen by someone as harassing my friend and then be accused?  So, my friend (who was enjoying the simple social interaction and was in no way offended) broke off the conversation, leaving the man to wonder what he had done to offend her (and indeed, he had done nothing).  Thus, sadly and badly ended a simple and kind interaction between two people.

Is this really where we want to go?  Will a smile and a hello on the street to a passing stranger soon be condemned?

Is this the new face of feminism? Or is there something else going on?

Feminism in the past has been an ideology manifested in social and political movements whose goal is to achieve political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

MeToo does none of that.

What MeToo does is create victims.  It has become fashionable to be able to post “me too” on social media, especially when the alleged perpetrator of the “me too” act is a public figure.  Creating a class of victims is a way of un-empowering those placed in that class (see this blog’s posting dated 11/12/17).   One who claims, “me too” is labeled and enters the MeToo victimhood.  And the remedy given to this class of victims is nothing more than to scream “me too” and perhaps be used by others for their own political or power gain.   That is not a real remedy and it does not provide real power.  It does nothing to achieve equality. 

What would better give these alleged victims power would be to teach them what is and what is not harassment and how to respond to actual harassment or assault, both in the moment and after the fact.  It would be better to teach the real remedies for real harassment and how to pursue those remedies, for that provides a far better resolution than some 15 seconds of fame for screaming “me too.”

MeToo takes responsibility away from women, and in so doing gives them a false sense of power.  Yes, saying “me too” seems to provide a power to silence every type of male-female interaction which a particular woman might dislike, and it may seem to provide some sort of revenge against an individual against whom one has a grievance.  This is a momentary gratification, a momentary power.  In the end, it usually fades leaving one not with a real remedy but only with a question: “is that all there is?”

In conflating all affronts into the very same category, MeToo makes true harassment claims meaningless, thus demeaning and cheapening the real hurt and injury suffered by women who were truly harassed, assaulted, or raped.  In seeming to provide a resolution, it provides none while taking away real resolution from those women who deserve and do seek it. 

MeToo teaches that the way one resolves any affront is to run to the press to present a grievance rather than the proper authorities or other appropriate body to have it resolved and in so doing it makes the court of public opinion superior to the court of law.  By elevating a cry of “me too” to some sort of justice, we are negating the need to teach women about harassment, assault, and the legal remedies to which a woman afflicted by such acts is entitled.  There becomes no need for a woman to learn about normally interacting with a male, how to deflect unpleasant words, how to say “no” when she needs to, because all she has to do is let whatever happens happen and then, if bothered, say “me too.” 

There are some instances where the woman truly has no control, but there are many others where women do or could have some modicum of control or even those in which they either knowingly or unwittingly encouraged or consented to the complained of behavior. Women need to be taught that they have the right to decide what behavior is acceptable to them individually and then taught how to counter behavior that they have determined that for them individually is not OK. But MeToo encourages women to avoid making decisions, or to deflect any guilt for decisions they later regret by simply blaming another.   This is not the type of empowerment that the feminists have typically sought.  It is the sort of thing that powerless victims do.  While it does provide some power – to destroy others without due process, to seek revenge for real or perceived affronts, to perhaps give one a way to justify some behavior of their own of which they are now ashamed – it does nothing to give women the means to assert their individuality and equality and find the justice in the world that the women’s movement once sought.

The “me too” hysteria, while not empowering women, does reflect something very dangerous in our society today.  We have become a society in which we are carried by the sensational and hysterical emotion of the day.  Today it is the harassment claims that demand an end to all normal male-female conversation or interaction.  Before that it was Russia (and Russia is still with us, ready to become the hysteria du jour again when the harassment hysteria runs its course).  Before Russia it was white cops killing blacks, after every mass shooting it is gun control.   We get all worked up over the sensation of the day.  We vent.  But we do nothing.  The hysteria prevents real dialogue between differing groups or viewpoints.   We don’t really think deeply about the problem or what its causes are or how to rectify it.  That takes time and effort.  Instead, we move on to the next trending topic.

In the meantime, each hysteria gives rise to another group of victims.  Today it is the MeToo women.  Tomorrow it may be the MeToo accused.  Every group of victims reacts with anger and perhaps hatred towards those they perceived to have victimized them  (e.g. victims of gun violence against gun owners, people of color against white,  poor against wealthy, women against men).   This group vs. group is useful to and often encouraged by those seeking to use the victims and their group identity to further their own power.  It is not, however, useful to the victims themselves. 

And, this hysteria gives a false power along with fear of being able to destroy someone on your word, or the word of public opinion alone.  Democracy does not issue convictions on someone's word alone.  While the lure of media entertainment and hysteria existed before the Trump presidency (indeed, we can see it even in the Salem witch trials of the 1600s), it has become all encompassing since President Trump took office and his opponents and haters have sought one sensation after another as a way of de-legitimizing his presidency, removing his supporters from office, with an ultimate goal of removing him.  Now we are seeing “me too” resulting in politicians, entertainers, journalists, and others being removed from office or their careers ruined based only on someone’s word and the surrounding societal frenzy of the moment.  This court of public opinion is using its victims to remove and destroy all not in favor of the public outcry of the day.  Today it is any man accused of a “me too” violation.  Tomorrow….?

Finally, teaching to distrust if not dislike or even hate men  (about half of our population) is not healthy nor is it rational biologically (though perhaps it is a way to further destroy the deteriorating family structure, but that is a subject for another post). People need to be able to trust those unlike and with differing views than their own so that they can have an open and honest dialogue and begin to understand one another.  With understanding of differing viewpoints, desires, values, and needs comes true steps towards equality.  Teaching distrust and hate does nothing but interfere with the tools necessary to equality as well as our democracy.

So, how to empower the “me too” women?  Teach them about our democracy and how it works.  Educate them about their rights.  Believe that they can think for themselves and expect them to do so.  Allow them not to be victims or tools that support the latest media sensation, not tools of a political agenda, but real people entitled to real justice provided by our democracy, its laws and their enforcement in our courts of law.  Help them to stand up for their real rights and demand that they perform the duties necessary to those rights.  Teach that dialogue and understanding are powerful tools.  And help them to understand the difference between a simple societal pleasantry, even if delivered awkwardly or creepily, and real harassment for which they have real remedies beyond the 15 seconds of “me too” fame. 

Remembering Lady Justice

This morning on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos took what seemed like forever repeatedly asking a White House spokesman whether President Trump believed the Roy Moore accusers.  I kept thinking to myself “what difference does it make what the President’s judgment is on this?”   But then, the round table discussion on this and other Sunday morning news shows all seemed to be in agreement that the president must take a stand on whether the women are telling the truth.  With that stand is an implied judgment of the guilt or innocence of the accused.  And they all sound like school children, demanding that everyone take sides.

Since when was it the president’s job to judge such disputes or to take a stand on every allegation of wrong claimed by one person against another?  I realize that President Obama made a practice of it in his rush to judgment in cases when a minority claimed to be aggrieved.  For example, he found the shooter of Treyvon Martin guilty, and similarly called out the police officer who responded to a burglary call and arrested a Black man he saw breaking into a residence.  In most cases the rush to judgment has proven incorrect.  There was no guilty verdict against Martin’s shooter.  The police officer was fairly doing his job when he arrested the apparent intruder and the charges were dropped when it was shown that the accused was breaking into his own home.  There have been many similar incidents and incorrect emotional judgments made without benefit of the facts.  And, when it comes to sexual allegations, we seem all too eager to rush to judgment without full facts (consider the college rape allegation/sensation published in Rolling Stone in 2014, that later proved false but not before ruining the lives of several young men.)

Such rush to judgment is harmful by anyone, but it certainly isn’t the president’s job to act as jury in these types of disputes.  Neither is it the job of the press to try and judge every case that raises public interest and emotion, yet that is what we seem to have these days:  public outcry replacing deliberate and reasoned justice.  And now, we demand the president also rush to judgment or be condemned for not doing so.

Today this is in the context of sexual assault allegations, but it could involve whatever is the current fancy of the public.  Let me just suggest a hypothetical to demonstrate the ridiculousness as well as the danger in demanding a rush to judgment.  Suppose a woman states that her boss entered her office and in discussing something she was working on that was displayed on her computer screen he came around to her side of the desk and leaning over her left shoulder towards the computer screen he placed his right hand on her right shoulder.  She complains, telling her story, perhaps tearfully, and believably.  The question is:  Is she telling the truth?;  and, the implication is that if so, then she was a victim of sexual harassment. 

Now let’s consider just some of the many possible scenarios and contexts for this incident that additional facts might provide, none of which attack her credibility in the statement that the man put his hand on her shoulder, but many of which provide very different interpretations of the event:  Perhaps she asked him to come around to look at the computer, had asked him to do so on previous occasions, and knew that when he did so he usually leaned his hand on her shoulder; perhaps they had previously dated and, following a break up she tells of this event; perhaps she is angry at her boss for not giving her a raise or a promotion, and a complaint about this act is a way of getting back at him or of excusing her own failure to move up the corporate ladder; perhaps he was fully focused on the information on the computer and simply needed a place to rest his hand and steady himself as he leaned forward to read the information more clearly; perhaps the event happened years ago and the actual memory is no longer clear, but over the years the woman has thought that maybe he placed his hand on her shoulder and her memory of it happening that way has become more and more certain over the years until that version has become the absolute truth in her mind; perhaps she is making the whole thing up, but has convinced herself that the incident did in fact occur; perhaps she thought nothing of it when it happened, but in today’s “me too” climate has now come to the conclusion that this was after all an act of harassment; and, perhaps the man’s whole intention was indeed to harass the woman, maybe even continue to slide his hand  forward until he could grab her breast, but she was able to stop him before he did so. 

Now, in each of the above scenarios the woman is telling the truth when she says the man placed his hand on her shoulder.  But, while some of the additional contexts might support his guilt of some level of harassment, all do not.  Yet, the current climate is that the woman asserts the act, society demands we believe her, and that we also therefore find the man guilty of harassment.  And those who will not outright affirm their belief in her statement will also be condemned for supporting the (as yet unproven) heinous acts of the accused. Then we simply move on.  And, if perhaps, the man is ultimately acquitted, we nonetheless continue to believe in his guilt while finding the woman has failed to receive justice and perhaps finding a systemic failure against women in the same way that when a police officer is acquitted for taking complained of action against a minority he is still often hounded as if guilty and there are often claims of systemic injustice against that particular minority group.  While this all may be very entertaining to some, and may provide some level of gratification to actual victims, it is not justice in any way whatsoever.

In America we have a strong and principled justice system.  It is not perfect and we can all find anecdotal evidence of times that justice has failed.  But, by and large it is a good system and more often than not it prevents injustices.  In the above hypothetical, in a court of law in which both sides present their evidence and all the relevant facts come to light, there would probably be a far fairer verdict than simply finding guilt based on the initial complaint alone.  There would likely be evidence of the hand being placed on the shoulder, supporting the woman’s allegation as truthful.   But additional facts would then determine whether or not this act, in its particular circumstances, constituted harassment and if so, to what remedy the woman was entitled.  That is justice.  It may not be as exciting or entertaining as rushing to judgment in the media, but it is far more fair and far less dangerous.

The symbol of justice wears a blindfold and holds a balance scale.  She is not swayed by media and public emotion, but instead weighs all the facts and evidence fairly.  The sword in her other hand, held lower than the scales, signifies that the evidence must come before any punishment, but when it does come that punishment will be both swift and final.   She does not support lynch mobs, but rather looks to the fair and reasoned deliberation of a jury.  She seeks truth and fairness, not immediate and emotional gratification.  And, when punishment is required, her goal is not to provide revenge, but to finds a way to appropriately recompense victims of wrongdoing in a way that allows them to move forward with their lives. 

Today, while there is focus on women, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of Lady Justice.  We do not need rush to judgment about every allegation, nor do we need a rush to judgement about whether the president or anyone else believes the complainant is telling the truth.  What we do need is education about where one should take their complaints (to the courts, not social media and the courtroom of public or political opinion).  Ignoring the wisdom of our courts and our justice system is dangerous not only to individuals involved in disputes, but to our very democracy and way of life.   Everyone just needs to calm down, get over their need for immediate gratification and opinionating, and let Lady Justice do her job.

It’s All About Feeling Good

Taking cans out to the mailbox today to be picked up by the mail carrier for the local food bank, I kept thinking how foolish this is:  it would be much smarter, more efficient, and better for those in need, if instead of providing a few cans I and others were instead giving that cash to the food bank.  The few dollars spent by each of us for the few cans would go far further if the plain cash were combined and used by the food band to buy in bulk.  Mother Nature Network on 11/18/17 estimated that food banks pay about 10 cents a pound for the same food that costs shoppers about $2 per pound.  According to an NPR Talk of the Nation piece in 2011, for the same amount of money spent on buying cans for a food drive, donors can feed 20 times more families by providing cash as opposed to cans. That would create a far greater stock of food for those in need. 

So, why are we asked to donate cans and not money and why do we do it?  I think in large part because the tangible act of holding the cans and handing them over makes people feel good, like they are doing something.  It’s easy – maybe you have some old cans of beans in the back of the cupboard – pull them out, put them in the bag, and feel good as you get rid of them.  And look:  everyone can see your bag of cans by your mailbox – your neighbors will see you are doing good.  All public, positive, and immediate reinforcement – much more so than writing a check and mailing it off where no one sees your good deed and any benefits to you in the form of tax deductions will not be seen for months.   The bottom line is we donate the cans – to the mail carrier, to the bring a canned good to the ballpark day, to the school drive, etc. – because it makes us feel good.  Yes, it also benefits those in need, but this particular act of charity seems to be more focused on making the donor feel good than on providing for the recipients.

Nothing wrong with feeling good, unless it becomes the primary and driving force of all our actions.   And isn’t that exactly what seems to have happened in our society.  We do things because they make us feel good.  And part of that feeling good seems to be a sort of sophomoric popularity that goes along with defining the feel-good acts to be done.   Hence, we had those in the entertainment world doing more and more outrageous acts that felt good and in those circles made them more and more popular, until recently when the tables turned, and they have begun to be called out for their acts, acts which are no longer approved by the populace.  Now we have the “me too” crowd purging their hurt or hatred while being applauded for stating “me too.”  But, while this may make everyone feel good as they pat themselves and others on the backs for simply coming forward, just as giving a can is less effective than giving a dollar, saying “me too” or asserting a stand against all the accused is not really very effective beyond a momentary good feeling.

Looking at the “me too” movement, I see very little good in it.  And I ask myself what is it teaching our daughters, and our sons?  We  should be teaching that when people are aggrieved, rather than simply posting their grievance on some social platform,  they should take their grievance to a proper authority who must listen without judgment, assume that the aggrieved is not lying, will investigate further, and take appropriate action.  The aggrieved must also understand that they very likely will not get immediate gratification, but that in most cases in the end they will see justice.  And, we all should be taught that because each and every one of us perceives facts differently that all people involved in any incident need to be heard.  We also need to know that sometimes we absolutely believe something to be true, even though that does not match the factual reality.  That does not make a person a liar, but it also may mean that they will not get the particular relief for which they hoped.   And, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, just as with most other wrongful behaviors, there are different forms and levels and all are not equal.  A lewd glance or remark is not the same as a momentary unwanted touch, and neither approach the level of actual rape. 

What “me too” teaches is that if you claim to have been a victim you will feel good.  Regardless of the severity of your harm, people will applaud you, giving you loving attention. You will be a welcomed member of the “me too” victimhood group.   You may feel good for calling out the one who affronted you in the way that revenge makes one feel good.  What does that teach?  Simply that victimhood and revenge are good.  It does not teach anything that might stop the cause of the victimhood.  And, it leaves out the important concept of justice.  Some may think that because the accused is immediately and publicly shamed that will stop others from behaving in the same way.  I doubt that.  Capital punishment has not yet stopped the sorts of heinous crimes for which it is a punishment.  And, to continue the analogy, innocent people are sometimes put to death, just as I suspect that public conviction upon a mere assertion of “me too” will result is some innocent people being wrongfully shamed.

But, back to feeling good.  There will be little permanence in a society that uses that as its guiding force, especially when it is defined by the values and mores of the day.  That is, feeling good as a response to external factors is a superficial way to find meaning in life.  And, as with anything superficial (that is, of the surface), it can easily be washed away.  If one chooses to be led by feeling good, let that feeling be guided by internal forces and values of goodness.  Yet, here is the problem:  as a society we seem to have lost those internal and constant values that used to guide us.  The superficial feeling has replaced those deeper internal beliefs. 

This need for and elevation of superficial gratification, especially gratification without difficulty and with public affirmation, would seem to lead to a selfish and often hateful populace.   A populace in which feelings eclipse all else:  facts, historic and religious values, respect for others, education, thinking, self-fulfillment, independence, justice. Let’s just look at a few of these.  Grade inflation makes students feel good as does passing a child forward whether they are competent in their grade level or not.  Tests, homework, hard work are not fun/do not make the students feel good, so we will dismiss them even if it means our students do not learn as much or do not learn to think deeply.   Facts can get in the way of feelings, so we will just ignore the facts we don’t like or alter them to our liking.  Hence we have competing “factual” accounts of most everything in the news – even whether the president properly fed the fish in Japan.  If one’s own feelings are most important, then they will outweigh feelings of others and this leads to disrespect for the others and their views.  Independence and the freedom to speak one’s views have become less important than conformance with the asserted group-think, and with that comes a government that is more and more intrusive into people's lives and hence their independence and ability to be who they are as individuals rather than a cog in the wheel of a power structure that may or may not have their best interests in mind.

Feeling good.  It can be momentarily pleasant, even helpful.  But it is far from the best guiding principle with which to lead one’s life or one’s country and society.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

Do you now or have you ever [been a member of the communist party] behaved inappropriately toward a woman?  The hysteria is incredible, and it really is getting ridiculous.  Today’s accused, to the delight of some and dismay of others, is Al Franken.

Let me first state that I am a woman and yes, I have been harassed in the past.  But, let me also declare that was the past and based on the circumstances of the time I chose to or not to make formal or informal complaints.  I certainly do not consider myself a victim today.  Let me also state that I am not particularly fond of Al Franken, as a legislator or in his previous role as a comedian.  But, like so many other of the delayed complaints, I find the complaints against him to be ridiculous at this time.

Let me also note that I am not making judgment about the acts complained of.  At the time of the acts that so many women are now complaining of against so many men, the acts may actually have been reprehensible and inexcusable and perhaps criminal.  But, perhaps they were not.  And that is not an attack upon the women now making the claims.  (It is frightening in itself that any words that might be seen as an questioning the “me too” victims are seen as attacks and quickly silenced.) 

The many allegations that newly surface every day are usually from many years ago.  To use the most recent Franken allegations, they are from around 10 years ago.  Now, if we take a single act alone and in a vacuum, it may have a very different character than when looked at in the context of its circumstances.  For example, if I told you I forcefully yanked a child’s arm you might think that bad, but if you learned that it was done to pull him out of the way of a speeding oncoming car you might think differently.  And, what if the child, now an adult, came out and complained that years ago I had hurt him by yanking his arm.  If I or others were not allowed to provide context, might not an injustice result?

Similarly, we cannot just absolutely accept every isolated act reported now as some form of punishable harassment.  To take Franken again:  there are some pretty ugly photos now surfacing of him grabbing women’s breasts. There are reports of his crude jokes in which he talks about assaulting women.  In isolation these acts or words are certainly offensive. But, Franken was a comedian at the time who used this form of comedy and this sort of comedy was generally found funny by many of his followers (indeed, you can still find this sort of infantile humor performed on a variety of comedy shows and by many comedians today).  Perhaps Franken would not use this humor today and perhaps the audience would not today find it so funny, but the alleged actions did not take place today; they took place at a time when that sort of humor was routinely accepted.  That does not make it right, but it also does not merit the horror and hysteria that is being voiced today.

One must wonder why suddenly so many come forward with age old stories of harassment.  Yes, the climate for reporting is different today, and hopefully that means that women who are harassed or assaulted today will come forward today with their complaints.  But such complaints are far different from suddenly finding one’s voice over something that one until now had been content to live with for years and which occurred at a different place in life, both societally and individually.

Are we going to search everyone’s life back to the day of puberty to see if they ever did anything that today we would find offensive? And are we going to judge yesteryear's acts by today's standards? Because that seems to be what we are doing.  That is really unfair because times and circumstances are different today than 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.  If something was acceptable at the time it occurred, is it really fair to find someone guilty years later when a particular act or behavior is no longer considered acceptable?

Time passage is important.  People’s memories change over time.  People may now perceive an interaction in a completely different light than they did at the time of its actual occurrence.  In most instances there are statutes of limitation for these types of complaints and there is a reason for those limits.  Similarly, courts and legislatures generally do not apply new laws and prohibitions retroactively. 

But, in the court of public opinion, media allegations, and politics there are no such limitations.  One only need to come forward with a decades old allegation, claim that they felt harassed, demeaned, or humiliated and the alleged harasser is immediately condemned.  Those who question the complainer are also condemned for not believing her or seen as condoning the types of acts complained of.  This is a real danger.  And, it is approaching some sort of mob rule.

We have a justice system that provides remedy for wrongs.  That system assumes someone is innocent until proven guilty.  It also assumes that those complaining are being truthful.  When the two sides disagree suggesting that one of the assumptions is incorrect, then the law provides a way of presenting relevant evidence in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.  When we not only allow but encourage people to come forward with allegations and then judge them in the media without a full hearing of all relevant evidence we are denigrating our justice system and by implication our way of law and government.

I am glad that women feel that they can come forward now and be believed about their reports of harassment, but I am not sure that it is really wise to encourage the rush to judgment about incidents that allegedly occurred long ago.  We are creating a class of victims in all the “me toos” but beyond that we are encouraging a belief that all one has to do is say “me too” and they will get vindication – without any actual proof, without the hearing of the other side of the story, without any due process at all for the accused. 

And, so, what then happens when someone does make up an allegation? What happens when allegations become nothing more than political tools, perhaps a way of removing an opponent?  And, what happens when the full facts and circumstances would suggest that the accuser was not wronged in the way she now believes or perceives? We will never know the answers to these questions, because we are not allowing for this sort of rational consideration of each allegation.

The most written about allegations on this particular day involve Roy Moore and Al Franken.  I don’t particularly like what I know about either man, but I also think that neither should be railroaded based only on allegations of incidents that occurred years ago. This is not fair to the men, nor is it fair to their accusers who have a right as well as a duty to have their allegations solidly proven. I am also disturbed by the way that both are being used for political gain by the men’s opponents.

I do not think that it is disrespectful to question an accuser, even one who is accusing someone of sexual crimes or harassment.  And I do not think that it is unreasonable to wonder whether the plethora of such allegations coming forward is not perhaps to some extend a sort of social media way of belonging.   And, I am skeptical that simply a mass of people coming forward because it is the thing to do right now is really a way of empowering women to come forward when the time is not so ripe for such allegations.

Women who are harassed should come forward with a timely complaint.  They should be believed and allowed to present their case against the accused.  The accused should be presumed innocent and allowed to present their view of the alleged events. Honest and reasonable questions about either’s story should not be viewed as attacks.  Judgment should occur without hysteria and only after a full and fair hearing of all the facts.  This, of course, is easier when the facts are not decades old, forgotten, or altered by faded memories.

I began this post by changing the words of the McCarthy hysteria to the words of today’s sexual harassment hysteria.  The hunt for Communists was not good then, and the hunt for harassers is not good now.  The hysteria is out of control and mob mentality along with media “trials” and rush to judgment, while perhaps cathartic for some, are not healthy for our democracy.

Victimhood, Group-think, and Identity Politics: “MeToo” for Everyone

I have been thinking a lot about victimhood lately.  I have come to believe that we in large part encourage and have indeed become a society of victims.  This victim mentality seems to have merged with identity politics and together they seem to be pushing us to a place of superficial group-think that is a danger to our democracy.  Let me explain:

A victim is someone who is harmed or injured as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.  We have all been victims of something at some time in our lives.  There are many ways that one can deal with victimhood.  One can ignore the harm or injury completely – hard to do if it is much more than a stubbed toe.  One can seek an appropriate remedy for the injury – legal recourse, medical treatment, perhaps just an apology – and then move forward.  Or, one can bemoan one’s hard luck for a day, a week, or perhaps even a lifetime.   It is when one chooses to assume that permanent label of victim that they begin to demand attention beyond that which the actual injury merits. 

There are individuals who relish their victimhood; perhaps they emphasize or even exacerbate it simply as a way to get attention and special treatment (we will leave it for the psychiatrists to determine what was lacking in their childhood or their psyche that gave them this need for attention).  I suspect that these individuals are not very happy; I know that they can disrupt as well as make demands on the happiness of those with whom they interact.   But, what happens when we have a whole group, if not a whole society, filled with victims?

Identity politics seems to have co-opted the victim mentality.  Every group has its grievance and that grievance, they believe, gives them a permanent victim status with rights of special treatment for past wrongs. This does not mean that the original harm or injury was not real or that an identifiable group did not suffer some particular harm.  But, what groups seem to do is to choose not to seek redress and then move forward, but instead to assume the permanent label of victim seeking continuing and ever-more redress.   All those within any particular group are required to buy into the victim hood of the group or be cast out from that group identity.  Thus, we have blacks or gays or women who choose not to proclaim permanent victimhood being condemned by their respective black or LGBT or feminist groups. 

This group-think is important to the politics of identity, as is the inherent victimhood.  If one wants to use a particular class of people to one’s own advantage, one way to do so is to make those people unite in dependence on you and in opposition to some enemy.  This is a classic technique of community organization:  rile a particular community up against a caricatured evil enemy, make the community a victim of the oppressor.  Identity politics labels people according to group.  One must think and behave exactly as all members of one’s identified group.  Thus, group-think becomes required within the groups one supports and is assumed of all members of groups which one opposes. And, if a particular leader is seen as the advocate or savior of the aggrieved group, that group’s dependence on that leader will sustain the leader’s power.

Group-think is certainly an easier way to approach interactions with others than getting to know individuals.  It is also far more superficial and in the end very dangerous.  Victimhood combined with group identity and its incumbent group-think completely destroys dialog between individuals; it does not allow for differing viewpoints.  When one disagrees with a victim, they are often accused of challenging or attacking the victim.  This becomes a way for a victim to assert his or her position and/or demands without any push-back.  Because the victim is a victim their every need should be acknowledged, believed, and attended to.  Facts become irrelevant as the victim’s feelings become all important.

Here is an example from current events.  A woman claims she was a victim of sexual assault by current Senate candidate Moore when she was 14, nearly 40 years ago.  When Kellyanne Conway suggested in an interview by Martha Raddatz that we should wait for and look at the evidence, she was accused of calling the woman a liar and the conversation effectively ended.  Yet, one should be able to question allegations and seek further evidence without that being an attack of the person claiming victimhood.  This is especially true when the event alleged is 40 years old.  It is common science today that our memories are memories of memories.  One can fully believe that their recollection is accurate and as such it is true for them, but facts could prove otherwise.  That is, our memories can and do alter historical reality.  We are in a very dangerous place if the mere claim of victimhood means that anything one says or does must be accepted as true and tolerated without challenge or even discussion. (And this is so for either side in a he said-she said situation).

Permanent victims claim an inability to handle not only the past harm, but any and all future harms.  They become overly sensitive to any real or perceived words or actions that might harm them or that they find in some way offensive.  Because there is no opportunity for dialog about this, because we instead are asked to cave into every demand of the victim, we instead provide safe-spaces, trigger warnings, and try to avoid even the least micro-aggression.  We all walk on egg-shells trying to protect the victim from future harm or upset of any kind.   This does nothing but encourage more victimhood.

In our group-thinking identity groups every member of the group is encouraged to proclaim their own victimhood.  They are on the look-out for the slightest affront to which they can proclaim “me too.”  Thus we have women finding solidarity with their sisters who were raped by claiming “me too” for a cat call heard when walking down a crowded street, or a person of color claiming “me too” when they were looked at a little too long by a store clerk, thinking this gives them solidarity with a black man unjustifiably beaten because he was black.  This group-think victimhood has become a way of belonging, of joining the in-crowd instead of being left on the sidelines. 

And what this group victimhood does is perpetuate the group’s status as victim, creating anger, fear, and hatred against those outside the group who are the perceived victimizers.  Must all women hate all men because some women have been victims of sexual harassment or assault by some men?  Must all people of color hate all whites because some people of color have been victimized by some whites?  Must all Muslims be feared and hated because some Muslims have committed atrocities?  The list goes on.  But identity politics tends to force an affirmative answer to these questions. 

Those groups and those answers are useful to those seeking power through politics.  And that is why this culture of victimhood combined with identity politics is so dangerous.  Our democracy is based on education, dialog, and compromise.  All of these require free speech and none of these are possible when speech is foreclosed because someone might be upset by it.   In addition to ending the dialog necessary for democracy, victimhood can lead to a frightening police-like state that allows punishment based only on a victim’s claim, effectively destroying our justice system.  Again, Martha Raddatz in her interview with Kellyanne Conway urged an articulated standard of guilt it the court of public opinion.  Apparently, from Raddatz and other political and media urging in regard to the allegations against Moore, the claim of a victim alone should be enough for a verdict of guilty. Imagine how this can only encourage false claims of all sorts in order to remove individuals from positions of power (this is not meant to imply that the claims against Moore are necessarily false).

Group-think victimhood and its silencing of dialog and free speech also results in a superficiality that perpetuates rather than solves problems.  Take gun-control for example.  Every time there is a mass shooting the claim is for gun control, as if simply taking away the guns will solve the illness within our society that is the ultimate cause of the ever-increasing numbers of killings within our country.  We have become a society of victims and with that victimhood comes an alarming increase in hatred of those outside our victim-group, those seen as our group’s victimizers.  Taking away guns won’t fix this, though those who perceive themselves as possible victims may nonetheless believe they have the safe space they seek.

So what do we do?  First, let us stop encouraging victimhood.  Think of the child learning to walk who falls and scrapes his knee.  His mother can pick him up, brush him off, add a bandage if necessary, give him a hug, and then encourage him to get up and move on.  Or, she can fall all over his victimhood, teach him to never run again lest he be hurt again, and essentially send him the message that he is sadly unable to run like other children and needs a safe space along with all the benefits that those who are able to run, who are not victims, have.  Of course, that might be easier than getting back up and learning to run, but which would you choose for your child? 

In our society there are many individuals who have suffered a variety of wrongs.  In some instances, these individuals can be identified as belonging to a group – for example, Blacks descended from slaves who did suffer the injustice of slavery or women who have been denied equal pay.  There were unquestionably injustices and victims involved.  But permanent victimhood is not the way to respond.  And encouraging victimhood as a way of belonging to a group is also not the way to respond.  Looking for a safe and protected space where one will never be hurt again is also not useful (and probably impossible).  Better is to help victims to deal with their victimization appropriately and in a timely manner, resolving the situation, and then moving forward.  In the case of individual harm, this might mean a lawsuit, a complaint of some sort, medical attention, etc.  In the case of an injustice directed at a particular group, for example refusal to pay women equally, the remedy may involve both individual and class lawsuits, lobbying for laws or regulations, etc.  But in all cases the point is to promptly deal with the harm and then move forward, not wallow in one’s victimhood.

If society consists of perpetual victims always looking for their next injury, no matter how slight, then we will be stuck in a world where all dialog is silenced for fear of affront, where everyone demands their own safe space, where feelings, especially feelings of hurt are the driving and ruling forces, countered by fear and hatred between groups.  The individual will become lost in the group-victimization-think, as will our intellect, reason, and judgement.  Easier as it may be to fall and cry for others to pick you up while crying “woe is me,” it is more rewarding to pick yourself up and move forward.   Politicians seeking power would rather keep others as victims so that they will be dependent upon the politician’s power to carry them.   We need to see the danger of all this and stand up, each and every one of us, and refuse to support a society of victimization and divisive group-think.  Instead of crying “woe is me” we need to scream “we can be” – we can be ourselves, we can be problem solvers, we can work together with those unlike us, we can listen, we can think, we can be!   In the democracy that is America, the democracy that gives us our individual freedom, the “me too” victimization and group-think of identity politics is not for everyone; indeed, it should not be for anyone.