Words, Action, and Reality

President Obama said there should be increased vetting for visitors from certain Muslim majority countries. 

Those are words.

President Trump enacted a temporary ban on those same countries in order to develop enhanced vetting.

That is action.

Why are people so upset by one and not the other?

Perhaps because whether one disagreed or agreed with the principle behind the words, they were yet just words.  If one disagreed, it was easier to ignore, especially when the narrative of the beloved speaker of the words was that he held a utopian, open border, love for all view of the world.  And if one did not disagree, if one believed that a balance needed to be struck between easy entry and safety, maybe it is now easier to find the disagreement when the action is taken by one whom is not beloved, but already hated.

Perhaps because when we see the words in action we must face their reality and in so doing we face ourselves and the messiness of reality generally.  When it is just words, it easier to ignore the complexity of issues because one does not see the reality of the words in action.   Now we must look at the many complicated issues raised: is this to protect the country or some other reason?;  How can it be a “Muslim" ban when 40 other Muslim majority countries are not banned?;  If we do not enhance vetting, how to we keep people with sinister motive out of our country?;  Should we keep them out of our country?;  Should we open our borders to everyone?;  How would completely open borders affect our natural resources and our citizens?;  Do we care? These are just a few of the many questions we must now face – we must look ourselves in the eyes and understand our own positions.  Understanding requires a lot of effort. 

When the suggestion of increased vetting was only words, it was much easier to ignore what that would mean in the real world.  One could pretend that one believed in that utopian world where no one is ever sad and where one’s every action is one of love toward all.  Increased vetting, restrictions, and safety are complicated issues that do not exist in some utopian dream.  When one thinks he or she is someone filled only with loving goodness and when one then realizes that the complexity of real life makes such perfection impossible, it is hard for one to face him or herself in the mirror and realize that neither the person nor life itself can achieve the perfection believed. So, people become angry, often at the actions that resulted in the shattering of their dream, and often at the actor.  But that is life: it is complicated.  Issues are also complicated, not black or white but filled with shades of grey.  With only words people can go on about their business assuming that all is fine, everyone is happy and that they will never take an action, no matter how justified, that would make someone else unhappy.  But, because we are not simply beings in an intellectual exercise, we must move beyond words and act in the real world.

There are words and there is action and we need both in this world.  We need words in the form of dialog, not hateful epithets thrown at those whom we think do not agree with us.  We need to take the time to hear the words of others and fully understand complicated issues.  But reality is not just beautiful words and esoteric discussions.  It is also a place of action.  And when issues are complicated, the action they require is also complicated, and before totally condemning an action or an actor it is important to at least try to understand the action and see the many facets behind that action as well as both the pros and the cons of the results it achieves.  

While screaming in the streets is certainly permitted, it is not the way that we accomplish things.   We have a system of laws and checks and balances in this democratic republic.  People vote and through their votes have a voice in the laws and the actions taken by our country.  Nothing will ever be accomplished if our only form of dialog is screaming hate at those whom we think do not agree.   The world is not black or white and neither should be our dialog.  Facing reality is not easy.  It is much easier to live in a world of words where one’s positions and arguments all result in good and everyone is happy.  Reality is much messier. And complicated.  And it benefits from both dialog and action.

Thoughts on "the right to choose"

Let me begin by stating that I am generally against abortion, although I acknowledge that it is always a difficult question.  But what I want to address in this post is the phrase “a woman’s right to choose,” a phrase that is often used to support a woman’s right to an abortion, including her unilateral right to make that choice.

In my opinion, the woman’s “choice” came well before the time at which she is considering an abortion (except in cases of rape or similar crimes which can be the subject of a separate discussion as noted at the end of this post).  Unless one assumes that a woman is so weak and driven by her sexual desires to the extent that she cannot use her mind, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse.  I also believe that women are intelligent enough to understand all the possible consequences of that activity, including the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.  A woman is able to grasp the fact that no form of birth control is 100% effective and she is able to understand that means that even if she uses birth control there is the possibility of pregnancy if she chooses to engage in sexual activity.  To think that women cannot understand this is to paint them as far dumber than they actually are.  

When a woman engages in consensual sex and becomes pregnant, the pregnancy is not a mistake.  It might be an undesirable consequence, but it is not an unknown possible consequence.  If the choice to have sex itself was a mistake, addressing the consequences of that mistake should not give the woman the automatic right to terminate another living being.  

I believe that women, like all people, should and are capable of taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Hence, once making the choice to engage in sexual intercourse they are responsible for all the possible consequences of that action.   If the resulting consequence of choosing to engage in sex is that the woman becomes pregnant, she then carries within her body another living being that belongs not to the mother alone, but to the father as well and most importantly to itself.  Any right to choose that the mother may now have does not extend to making choices for the father or for the child within.  While the pregnant woman might believe that terminating the life of the child is a good choice for her, it is no longer her choice alone to make; no longer is what is good for her the only consideration.  This does not imply that abortion is never the best choice.  The point is, that in making the decision there are now 3 lives involved, not just that of the mother.

Yes, the child is within the mother’s womb; the woman’s body is affected by the pregnancy.  But this was a possible consequence when she made the choice to have sex.  She cannot now say “oops, I didn’t know.”  In a way, saying that the woman’s choice occurs after the pregnancy begins is to assume that women are just plain stupid, or weak and incapable of assessing possibilities and making decisions about whether or not to have sex.  It assumes that women are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions, even when those actions lead to a result that they do not like and now include a responsibility to another living being.

Note that the above is focused toward pregnancy following a consensual act of sex.  If the act was truly non-consensual then of course the woman did not have the opportunity to make a choice to or to not have sex and whether or not a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion if a pregnancy follows that non-consensual act requires a separate and more difficult discussion.  Similarly, there is a more difficult discussion if the mother’s own life is at risk if the pregnancy continues.  These sorts of situations require more difficult dialog because, while there is a stronger argument for allowing the woman to choose to have an abortion, there is still the other living being within her whose life will be extinguished if the abortion occurs.  The question then becomes how much does this growing life count in the decision process.

Totalitarianism and Tolerance

I see that sales of Orwell’s 1984 are up and that college profs are adding texts on totalitarianism and authoritarianism to their syllabi. (NRR, Jan. 25; USA Today, Jan. 25)  This since the inauguration.  I assume that this is because people fear some sort of totalitarian governmental control from the Trump administration.  While I don’t object to students being exposed to more and diverse ideas, I do find it somewhat amusing and ironic that these books only become popular now.  Many have felt that for at least the last 8 years they were more and more being told what to say and what to think and more importantly what they could not say and could not think.  People have felt that they could not express viewpoints contrary to those of the progressive left without being called names or worse.  Racist for saying “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter.”  Anti-LGBT for holding a religious belief that homosexual marriage is not appropriate even while willing to tolerate alternate views and accept gay marriages.  Anti-woman’s rights for holding a belief in the right to life.  Anti-immigrant for opposing illegal immigration while being willing to open their arms to legal immigrants.  College campuses have banned some speech because it creates “micro-aggressions” or worse and permitted students to skip classes or exams when they are too upset by the day’s political news. Some have dictated what Halloween costumes students can and cannot wear. Entire history has been eliminated from textbooks and elsewhere and historical statues have been torn down.   It is not only the limitations and control imposed by the demand for “political correctness” or a distaste for some of this country’s history.   The governmental control has reached into such things as what size soda you can drink, what food your children can eat for lunch, etc. 

           

Fear of totalitarianism or authoritarianism may or may not be appropriate.  But it is not just suddenly appropriate.  It seems that over the past several years it has been the fear du jour for whichever party is out of control.  That really is sad that we have come to so overblow the fear and distaste of policies contrary to our own.  We like to believe that this country is about tolerance:  tolerance of people and ideas that are different from our own.  If we could all just stop the overblown hysterics perhaps we could instead have a dialog leading to understanding and the tolerance that I still believe is one of the most important ideals of our democracy.  That is, perhaps we could use a bit of tolerance to defeat the fear (and the actuality) of totalitarianism.  

Individual or Group?

Are people beginning to calm down, or better yet to focus?

We have a new president whose MO is very different than his predecessor, as are his policies and priorities.That is fairly normal for a democracy when the country is filled with diverse individuals who are allowed to think for themselves and advocate a variety and sometimes competing approaches to governance.  That, my friends, is one of the most beautiful things about this country.

And, as our new president issues policy statements and takes action, let those who disagree with a specific act focus more clearly on the specific action that concerns them and make their voice and alternate view about that specific issue known in a peaceful manner.

As to marches or other actions labeled as if they represent an entire gender, I hope that will end.  Again, I find it both demeaning and insulting that people assume that because I am a woman I must think a particular way and hold a particular set of viewpoints and positions.  Realistically, the march last Saturday was to shout out and stand for a set of mostly progressive positions.  It was not a “women’s” march but rather a “progressive’s” march.

I do believe that we would all be far better off if we would stop thinking that we must all be labeled as a member of this or that group.  The problem with that is that it is so very limiting.   I know that I hold views that are in concert with and also in opposition to some of the beliefs of many groups.  Labeling myself as a member of a particular group limits what people see in and expect from me.  For some that may be easy or comforting; that is, by identifying with a group the members do not have to make the effort to figure out who or what they or their beliefs are.    That work is done for them as they merely accept the agenda and itinerary of the group.  It also saves one from having to get to know and understand individuals.  So, group identity can save one from grappling with complex issues and making difficult decisions.

But, the worst part about the prevalent need to identify with one group or another is that such group identity is necessarily divisive.  It creates a sea of “others” – people who are different from the identity of the chosen group.   It is human nature to more often than not reject rather than embrace the “other.”  Additionally, surrounding oneself with only those perceived to be the same limits one's understanding of differing viewpoints.  And, as we have all seen many times, the group identity can be used for political purposes, turning one group against another in the hope to gain power.  This is not healthy for the individual or for the country.  We need to remember that even when we choose to wear a group identity, the group will have its own, and not the individual members’ interests as its first priority.   

Perhaps, as we all finally calm down and move forward with a new presidency, we can take the time to examine who we each are as individuals, putting our unique person-hood above whatever group we might instead identify with.  And, perhaps we can look at our fellow humans not as members of this or that particular group, but as the complex and many faceted individuals that they are.  And as far as political issues and polices, perhaps rather than just blindly accepting the position of one group or another we can each take the time to inform ourselves as fully as possible about the issue and then, if we feel the need to speak out, join whatever focused presentation is being made on behalf of that issue, not on behalf of some group that, while it may hold our position on that issue likely has a much broader agenda incorporating several issues, some of which may not be our issues or our agenda. 

I guess the point is, let the individuals work for the good of all rather than turning over our individuality to a group which will work not for all, but only for the good of the chosen group.

"Alternative Facts"

A short note on “alternative facts” and Chuck Todd's Interview of Kellyanne Conway on Meet the Press yesterday.

Can everyone please just calm down.

First, I do think this was a poor choice of words on Ms. Conway’s part.  But, if we are going to take the time to define “fact” let’s also consider what “alternative” means:  Other or additional.   It does not deny the first alternative stated, just says here is another way to look at it, perhaps here are more facts.  It does not mean false.  It does not mean that they are not facts.

An example:  Let’s say we have a proven fact that a police officer shoots a bystander.  An alternative fact might be that the bystander had pulled a gun and was about to shoot the officer.  That alternative fact is not a falsehood.  It is an additional piece of information that might create a different view of the entire situation.

So, can we calm down and give Conway the benefit of the doubt?  First, yes, a poor word choice given the climate in which the anti-Trump industry jumps at the chance to use any little tidbit to condemn the president.  But, let’s remember that there actually were alternative facts, facts beyond those stated by Mr. Todd, some presented by Ms. Conway, some not.  Assuming that Todd was correct in his statement that the crowd was less than for the last inauguration (and we will never have an actual, provable, and definitive crowd estimate, so we cannot take that statement as something that is indisputably true, even though it probably is), there is the additional (alternative) fact that the Nielson ratings were higher in 2017 than the last inauguration.  Ms. Conway did mention that.  A further alternative fact not mentioned by Todd or Conway in the interview is that there were demonstrators who chained themselves together or otherwise blocked entrances to the inauguration.  We do not know how many people did not enter because of that, but it is probably safe to assume that at least some turned back.

So, again, calm down.   I really can’t believe I am wasting my time writing about this, but I unfortunately feel compelled to do so in reaction to the over-blowing of this whole issue by the anti-Trump industry.   Don’t  people have anything better to do?

Introductory First Post

The name of this blog is Pink’s Politics.  The name comes from my high school nick-name “Pink” which was based on my then last name.  That is the only significance of the word “pink” here and anyone who attempts to add further or political meaning to it is just wrong.

This blog begins because I am tired of carrying on political conversations on Facebook.  I really don’t think that is the place for them.

I am truly both a political junkie and someone who cares deeply about this country.  And, thus, as you can imagine, I have some things to say about the current political atmosphere in this country.

I am not an ideologue.  I do not belong to any political party and am happy to vote for Democrats, Republicans, or others depending on whom I believe will be best for the country as a whole.  My political leanings probably identify most with what were once called the “blue-collar lunch bucket Democrats” – a group that really doesn’t exist anymore.  In the 60s I was a self-styled “hippie” and antiwar protester.  I put myself through college and law school and practiced law before becoming a professor.  I have always been deeply committed to the Constitution and to the equal treatment of all along with the concept of individual responsibility and a “no excuses” approach to life.  I have always believed in America.  I have voted in every election since I became eligible, and as to presidential elections, I have voted for slightly more Democrats than Republicans.  In 2016 I voted for Donald Trump.  I do not think he is a perfect person, nor do I agree with all his policies, but I do believe that he was not only the best candidate but indeed a good candidate who believes in America and its promise.  I also believe that now that he is president, if we will allow him to govern and put our interests in what is best for the country as a whole, that we really will see a better and stronger America.  I hope to explain my reasons behind these statements in upcoming posts.

As to those reasons, I hope that people who read this will wait to see what they are before they choose to delete me simply because I voted for Mr. Trump.  Indeed, in the same way, I wish that the entire country would wait to see what his actions are, what he actually does, before protesting against their own fears of what he might do.

I have been troubled this weekend by many things many of which will be the focus of my posts in the upcoming days.  Just a few short comments here:

The Inauguration Speech: 

As I listened to the speech, I had two key reactions.  I thought this is not a very eloquent speech that will be remembered for some great turn of phrase and I thought that the points that were being made were good ones and clearly articulated Mr. Trump’s agenda to put America first and to think of all Americans as the individuals that they are rather than as members of one group or another.  The speech was a bit dark in the sense that it told it like it is:  there are many people suffering in America and a great many people who have felt and indeed have been forgotten over the last 8 years.  I also remembered that we did not elect Mr. Trump for his eloquence.  Words were our last president’s forte.  Mr. Trump is about action and the speech gave us his action plan.  So, that is not bad, even if it is not what we are used to in an inauguration speech.  

And indeed, the speech is not what we are used to just as President Trump is not what we are used to.  But isn’t that why he was elected?

As to its “failure to reach out to particular groups.”  Well, again, wasn’t that part of candidate Trump’s appeal – that he was going to stop the game of identity politics that has so divided us over the past 8 years?  So why not begin on day one.  It’s about America, not this or that group with its real or perceived grievance against some other group who has its own real or perceived grievance against yet another group and on and on.  Let’s just end that here and now, and all be Americans, working together for the good of all of us and our one nation.

The Women’s March: 

            There is so much both right and wrong with this whole event that I can only scratch the surface here.

            First, I applaud anyone who has the courage to assert their first amendment right and peacefully demonstrate for something that they believe in.  So, kudos to all those who did that.

            Much positive has been reported in the media, social media, etc., and so I will not repeat that here, though my failure to do so does not necessarily mean that I disagree with those reports.

            But, I do have a few problems with the march that I will outline here. 

            I begin by objecting to the name.  The term “women’s march” implies that the views of the marchers represent the views of all women.  They do not. And, beyond that, to imply that women all hold the same views furthers a divisive identity politic and also suggests that women are somehow not individuals fully capable of making up their own minds about who they are and what they believe.  As a woman I find that most insulting.

            Another problem I had with the march is its focus, or lack thereof.  I still am not clear about what the marchers were marching FOR.  Many were marching against Trump, others will tell you that was not their purpose.  Some were marching to object to the many perceived evil actions that they think Trump might take as president.  Yet he had only been in office one day.  The only substantive action he had taken was to ease some of the burdens of the ACA.  So why did I see signs protesting his revoking their reproductive rights or their monetary entitlements or their LGBTQ rights or his racist actions or sexist actions, etc.  I am not talking about Trump the less than perfect human being.  I am talking about Trump the president.  In my experience, it is better to have something real to protest if you are going to protest, rather than to protest against your own fears.

            I also believe that many were simply continuing to act out their anger and frustration at the fact that their candidate lost the election.  I understand the feelings – I have had candidates win and lose, and winning is much better.  I personally have been horrified by some previous presidents’ victories.  But I can tell you that I always stood up and said “this man is our president, and even if I don’t like it he deserves a chance as well as our respect.”  At least some of the comments from some at the march sounded more like toddlers having a temper tantrum because they didn’t get the piece of candy they wanted.

            Many at the march were there to stand for peace and love.  That is wonderful and I stand with you for that.  But I do not understand how that goes hand in hand with trying to delegitimize or otherwise make ineffective the leader of our country who likely also supports those noble ideals.  He, however, also has to deal with the real world and make decisions each of which will never be satisfactory to everyone but which we hope will overall make this country better.  Can we not at least give the man a chance?

Racism, Sexism, hate-ism:

            So many seem to proclaim that the country is full of hate and that it is traceable to the election of Donald Trump.  I really don’t understand this.  I have seen hate grow for the last 8 years as we have had a president and a progressive party who have played group against group in an attempt to further their own power.  Group identity does nothing but divide us.    If you want to complain about the divisions, complain to the people who egged each group on to find another group on whom they could blame their troubles.  I would like to see people more interested in developing their individual humanity than in simply defining themselves as a member of one group or another.  That is so terribly limiting to one’s individuality.

I will develop these and many more thoughts in the days ahead, and I suspect there will be new issues coming at a rapid pace that I will also want to address.