Whose Voice Speaks for Whom?

I am tired of people who are not part of a situation thinking that they know what is best for that situation. 

Take as a recent example the question of whether to reduce the size of the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument in southern New Mexico.  The Monument was created by executive order of former president Obama after attempts to pass legislation to do so were unsuccessful.  At a recent Senate hearing the Interior Secretary, reviewing the possible reduction of several such documents, stated he was open to keeping the size of this monument unchanged.  Representative Pearce of New Mexico, the representative from the district in which the Monument sits, beseeched the Secretary to indeed reduce its size.  Pearce had the signatures of hundreds within his district seeking the reduction.  Yet, those who live outside the district, those who know nothing about the area, or the Organ Mountains, or the effect of the Monument’s size on the economic opportunities in southern New Mexico, those folks contend that maintaining the size of the monument is crucial. 

Now, I am all for wilderness and open-space, and having the entirety of this area preserved as a national monument sounds great to me.  But I do not live in southern New Mexico, and so I really don’t know how this might affect the people who do.  The people within the district, or at least a significant portion of them, would seemingly like to see the Monument reduced to its size before Obama single-handedly increased it via his executive order. And isn’t it those people, through their duly elected representative, who should have the say, rather than those who hundreds or thousands of miles away think they know better what is best?

And, here, more importantly, is the problem with many on the Left.  They think they know better than those actually living within a situation what is best for those in that situation.  They think they have a better understanding of a variety of circumstances than those actually living in them: what is best for people of a race or culture of which they are not a part; what is best for those living in different economic circumstances than do they; people who hold more traditional values; people who have different life goals; etc.  The PBS News Hour recently did a story on how check-cashing businesses and even pay-day loan operators serve a very real need for low income people, a need that banks and others cannot fill.  Yet those who have never actually experienced life day-to-day and year-to-year in that economic situation would have such businesses shut down with no viable replacement because they think they are not good for those who actually use them. 

This country elects its representatives from specific districts; there is a reason for that.  The representatives go to Washington to speak for the people of their district.  The people in a rural area may have very different things to say than those who live in high-rises in a large city.  And people from one area, or one situation, should not assume that they know what is best for all others.

That, actually, is probably one of the best, if not the best reason why it is good that Jon Ossoff lost the recent Georgia-6 special election.  He was not from the district and, not having lived as/not being an actual part of the day to day life and culture of the district, he would not really have been able to speak for the people of that district.  If it were possible that one could just listen to those in a different situation and truly understand their struggles, what they feel and have to say, then we would not have a need for our House of Representatives. 

Sadly, many on the Left do not see the importance of this representation from all the people, from all the many different situations that exist across this country.  Instead, they think that they alone know what is best for everyone.  That perhaps is one of the reasons that they seem to so fear the idea of populism.  And it is their belief that they know better than the electorate that prompts their unrelenting attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election by any means possible and install one who represents their own views instead. 

Yet, accepting that there is not just one voice is a key to our democracy.  We must hear and tolerate other voices, especially those that come from situations and experiences that are not ours.  And, when those voices and the views they express seemingly cannot co-exist then we must find ways to compromise; we should not simply assume, and must never accept,  that only one voice is best for all.

Six Degrees of Separation

Here it is – the answer to why the President must be removed.  You will all recall the idea that we are all separated from everyone else by only 6 degrees.  That is, I know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Putin.  Also, through six degrees I probably also know someone who has colluded with Russia.  Therefore, according to the logic of the Left, I, of course, am a colluder and, if I were president I would need to be removed from office.

Yup.  That is how ridiculous the Left’s attacks on Trump are. Crazy.  But what is just a bit crazier is that so many people are willing to go along if not encourage this behavior.

Yet they continue to attack Trump, friends/family/supporters of Trump, friends/family/supporters of friends/family/supporters of Trump.  It just doesn’t stop.  There is nothing there!  Nothing except a President whom the Left finds distasteful and whose election has taken away their power. 

And, what is it that they would do with that power?  Well, it appears that what they most like to do is to attack and silence any and all who do not agree with them; attack and silence any and all who stand in their way.  Their way to what?  Well, certainly not benefit to the country and all of its people.  Rather, what they seek is a country where everyone thinks like them, acts like them, and behaves and thinks only in ways that they have mandated and allowed.  A country where they are all powerful and the people have no voice. Hmmmmm – sounds a little bit like a Communist Dictatorship doesn’t it?  Maybe we should be investigating the Left for their six degrees of separation.

The Democrat Alchemists

The Democrats are the only people I know who think they can make something from nothing; even the alchemists of old needed coal to make their gold.  But the Democrats, even after 9 months or so of no evidence against Trump, still believe and assert that there was collusion, obstruction and most any other impeachable offense.  They think that their talking about it can make it so.

But, then, isn’t talking the preferred means of action of these Democrats, schooled in Obama-speak?  Let’s talk about things rather than taking any actual action.  They don’t know how to deal with a man like Trump who acts, and in acting gets things done.

Imagine you have a tooth ache.  Rather than simply go to the dentist and get it fixed, and you out of pain, you instead talk:  What dentist should I go to?  Do I need to go?  If I go to the dentist will I be taking a slot from someone else?  Who is that someone?  Don’t they deserve dental care?  What right do I have to go to the dentist? Are you even considering pulling the tooth?  How can you do such a thing?  You were given that tooth to care for; you must suffer with it.  Perhaps you should wait and see if your tooth just gives up bothering you.  Tell your tooth you love it.  Meanwhile, you are still suffering the pain.  Or, you could go to the dentist, diagnose the problem, have it fixed, and be out of pain in an hour or two.

I will take the latter approach:  the approach of action that actually gets things fixed and done.  The Trump approach.  But what that approach does is put out of business the many who make their livings spending their time wringing their hands and talking about, but doing nothing.  And, since they are losing their power they are doing the only thing they know how to do in an effort to bring down the man of action.  They are wringing their hands and talking, but now they are using their words to create scenarios and realities that do not exist.  They begin with what ifs:  what if Trump colluded with the Russians; what if he obstructed, etc. etc.  They then take these unfounded what ifs and discuss their possible consequences, all of which lead to the removal of Trump, for, with his removal they will return to power so they can continue wringing their hands and talking. 

They simply do not know how to act for the benefit of the country.  Even when the people’s representatives hope to work on a bill to improve health care in this country, because it is not the Democrats’ bill they cannot work on it; all they can do is use their words, their hand-wringing and procedure to stop the work of congress; that is, to stop the work of the people, to stop any real action on their behalf.

This is not intended to imply that talking is not necessary or good.  But when that is all that one does it becomes pointless and often obstructionist.   So, back to the tooth:  yes, think about if the pain merits a trip to the dentist, but then GO; if the dentist gives you treatment options, ask about them, but then make a decision and DO it  You would not sit around forever thinking about your tooth, you would act.

But, perhaps that is really all the Democrat alchemists want:  to obstruct until the people get disgusted and then put them back in power.  They use their hand-wringing narratives with the hope first that they can  stop any action and that in so doing the people will become as disillusioned as they are with the President, and second that the people will actually believe the scenarios that they create from nothing and then support them in their attempt to remove Trump other than by the election process, and in so doing undercut the very foundations of our democracy.

I consider that it is a good thing that we have a man of action in the White House.  Jobs are up; prisoners are coming home; housing sales are up; illegal immigration is down; duplicative, unnecessary, or over-reaching regulations are being eliminated; manufacturing is up; various actions are taken to benefit veterans; there is action and improvements in foreign policy; return to states of power usurped from them by the federal government; etc.  Now, everyone may not agree with all of President Trump’s actions but the response to such disagreement should not be hand-wringing and then creating out of nothing narratives that show how every act is somehow grounds for impeachment. 

President Trump is getting things done, things that the American people elected him to do.  The hand-wringers, the talkers, the alchemists of the Left need to accept that fact.  This is a president they do not like, but he is not an illegal president.  He is a president who is taking action and getting things done for the people.  That is not a bad thing.  And those who don’t like what he is doing, instead of trying to create an illusionary case against him should try working with him and, if that is not possible, then simply work to get their candidate elected next time. 

Creating something from nothing is impossible and the efforts to do so are creating an obsession not just for the Democrat alchemists and their minions the news media, but for the country as well, and this is not healthy or wise.  We have a great country with great institutions; those who love this country will respect those institutions and the people’s representatives within those institutions and will work with them to make this country even greater than it already is.  They will not try to destroy it with hand-wringing scenarios created from nothing. 

Is This the America That You Want?

Get your way “by any means necessary” including drawing blood, even in the political arena:  is that really what you want?  Because that is what is being encouraged in this slow and silent coup.  Even though those who promulgate it claim they are only doing what the Americans want, can this really be true?  Do you want to live in a country where:

            sThere is no respect for our government or its institutions;

            sWe simply remove from office, using unfounded charges, allegations, and innuendo, those with whom we disagree;

            sWhere narrative is everything and facts mean nothing?

Because, that is certainly where this country is headed.  And, if it happens today, to this president, to this administration, then it can happen tomorrow to another president and administration and on and on.  It you create the country in which this can happen simply because you don’t like the current people in power then understand that it can happen again when people you favor are in power.  The will of the people, the cornerstone of our democracy, will be lost, and we will be ruled by those with the best narrative who seek power for themselves and often not for the good of the country.

It is time for the country to right itself and accept certain basics of our democracy.  First, we don’t always get our way and everyone does not and is not required to agree.  We have different views on how best to accomplish what is best for the country.  We have different lifestyles.  We value different things.  Or system of laws, our form of government and its processes, our democracy has ways of dealing with this.   Conducting a coup is not one of them.

Tolerance for other views is essential for the continuance of America as we know it.  If we instead continue on the current path of intolerance and hatred for anyone not like us then this democracy, which has for so long been a beacon to the world, will cease to exist.  We may not like people not like us, we may not like their beliefs or their life-style or other aspects about them.  Because they are not like us we may see them as outsiders and perhaps fear them (certainly the professional politicians see President Trump as an outsider, not like them and perhaps fear the shakeup that he brings to Washington).  But just because people are different, not like us, does not make them evil.  Without tolerance for those not like us we cannot have a democracy, because if we allow any one, or one group, to dictate every aspect of our lives, every thought we have, then we have lost the voice of the people, the voice that is the key to America.

If this concerns you, then stand up for America.  Demand respect for our institutions (even while disagreeing with a particular action or while disliking the person currently inhabiting a particular office).  Follow our laws and our constitution and our democratic processes.  Remove someone from office by working for a different candidate to replace him or her in the next election, not by working to destroy them or remove them or incapacitate them by keeping them constantly under attack.  Demand facts, not narrative.  Do not accept any means necessary for the end you seek; instead seek out honorable and democratic means to achieve your goals.  And demand the same from others.  That, my friends, is the best and only way to save this country.

Thoughts on the Sessions Testimony

I watched the Sessions testimony on Tuesday.  I think that everyone should be required to watch this (suffer through this) so that they will realize how idiotic is the Democrats' witch hunt.  Their questions are solely for the purpose of making anyone connected to the Trump administration look bad and/or to play the game of “Gotcha.”

I cannot watch/read/listen to reviews of this hearing because I already know what they will say and it will depend on whether the presenter is pro or anti-Trump.  I am so sick of this.  So, how do we put an end to this ridiculous spectacle?  Let’s begin by reviewing today’s hearing.

First, let me recommend Session’s opening statement to everyone.  It exposed how insane these hearings really are.  The Attorney General took the committee to school for its unfounded allegations and for how these hearings interfere with the work of the people.    His statement also covered all the points that were legitimately before the committee and gave his answers.

But, no matter.  The Democrats just attack and attack.  They tried to catch Sessions while at the same time setting up more innuendo about other Trump associates, assumingly to be able to call them before the committee next.  They ask questions that have been asked and answered, and answered, and answered, ad nausea.  I think that either they hope that if they ask the question enough, the innuendo included within it will finally be believed, or that they will somehow be able to catch Sessions in a lie, or both. 

As you listen to the Democrats’ questions you can almost hear the headlines in the Left biased (most of the) media tomorrow.  Those headlines will have no qualms about turning questions into fact.

Then came one of the most insane lines of questioning yet.  If one asserts that a communication is confidential then he is accused of “stonewalling.”  Apparently there should be no confidentialities.  Tell that to  your priest or your psychiatrist or your doctor or, if you are a journalist, tell that to your confidential source.  Failure to reveal confidentialities is not an effort to impede the investigation as the Democrats would have us believe. It is adherence to rules as well as ethical standards regarding certain conversations.

Then there are questions like the one from the Democrat from Oregon:  “Why did you sign the letter [recommending Comey be fired] when it violated your recusal?”  Do you note how this presumes a completely unproven fact – that it did violate the recusal?  Well, based on the testimony from Sessions as well as what else we know prior to the question, it did not violate the recusal.  Yet, because the narrative that it did is more favorable for the Democrat position, they will just take it as a fact.  And, of  course, they hope that their audience will take if or a fact as well.

We also have a number of questions asking Sessions what the President or others thought or meant.  Well, why should he know what was in their minds.  Yet we are supposed to assume that his response of not knowing is some sort of attempt to stonewall, or that Sessions is just lying or covering up, or that the answer must be so bad as to essentially indict the one whose mind Sessions is supposed to be able to read. 

Then there is the questioning, perfected by Senator Harris, that asks a damning question and then does not allow the witness to answer, or cuts the witness off before the answer is completed.  Clearly there is no real interest is learning all the facts or getting to the truth.  The goal is to get the information you can use against Trump and his administration and to ask questions that will create innuendo to that same end.

If people want facts, not innuendo and narrative argument, they should perhaps listen to Senator Cotton and his articulation of what the actual facts are.  The Democrats, in contrast, seem to be living in their own reality with absolutely no interest in facts or truth.  Of course it serves their purpose to continue this narrative - it is good for them politically, even if it is disastrous for the country.

People should listen to this entire hearing.  I can’t believe that anyone who does will not be disgusted with the Democrats' self-serving tactics.   They will see the narrative and innuendo for what it is:  part of the concerted effort to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him. 

The problem here is that with their unfounded grasping for “dirt” on Trump, with their focus on how to destroy him and his administration, the Democrats are really destroying our country.  Please, everyone, wake up and tell your Congress-people to stop wasting time and your money and get to work on the work of the people, on the things that affect your life and mine and the future of this country, and not the destructive and self-centered agenda of the Democrat politicians.

Some Questions and a Plea for the Anti-Trump Brigade

Questions:

•         Why is there alleged obstruction when President Trump says he “hopes” the Flynn investigation will end, and when Comey himself confirmed that the White House has control over the FBI, yet no obstruction claims when many presidents throughout history, including FDR, Kennedy, and even Obama have directly instructed the FBI regarding ongoing investigations?
•       Why is there alleged obstruction when President Trump tells FBI Director Comey he “hopes” for the end of an investigation but not when then President Obama instructed Comey not to call the Hillary Clinton investigation an “investigation,” when former President Clinton, Hillary’s spouse, met secretly and privately with then Attorney General Lynch and that following that meeting Comey gave a speech in which he made the unilateral decision (a decision not his to make) that there would be no indictment of Hillary and thus ended the investigation, and then continued in the same speech to state facts that would seem to support an indictment or at least further inquiry?
•          Why does this even begin to pass the “smell test”:  Comey has stated that Trump was not the subject of investigation and there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, yet, Comey, who doesn’t seem to like Trump, leaks information through his friend to the New York Times with the purpose of having a special prosecutor appointed to investigate possible collusion (of which he knew there was none per his own words), and, that special prosecutor turns out to be a close friend of Comey and Comey even discussed his most recent testimony with that special prosecutor before presenting himself before the committee and giving that testimony?
•          Why is government by executive fiat (executive order) OK when you agree with the order’s contents  or like its author (Obama), but not OK when you disagree with its contents (often to undo Obama’s overreach) or dislike its author (Trump)?

These are just four small examples from the mountain of evidence that easily establishes that there is a concerted effort to remove President Trump from office or at the very least to bring down his administration and make it powerless.  It establishes that anti-Trumpers are "focused like a laser beam" on that effort regardless of whatever claims they make to the contrary.

This sickens me.

So, dear Anti-Trumpers, let me suggest that you take a moment and breathe.  Reattach yourselves to reality, or at least to the reality of our democracy.  I am sorry that you were shocked and dismayed when Trump won the election; but, get over it!  I am sorry that:

•         You don’t understand how our electoral process works;
•         The entire country doesn’t agree with you and your positions;
•          Enough people believed that Trump was the best candidate to elect him;
•         Many would like to see Trump’s agenda implemented;
•         Those people (the one’s who disagree with you) have a right to have their voices heard;
•          You have no right to silence other voices;
•       You have no right to tell them what to believe or to force them to believe as you do;
•           The government does not exist for you and you alone.

Actually, I am not sorry about any of the above list.  What I am sorry for is that you either do not know or do not understand or do not care about how our democracy works.  I am sorry that you do not understand that things don’t always go your way and that in this country we not only listen to other voices but tolerate them as well.  I am sorry that you do not understand that everyone is not required to think as you do.  I am sorry about your lack of understanding because your failure to understand these things is destroying this country, our American form of government, and the very democracy that allows you to behave as you do.

To be clear, I am not sorry for you.  I wish you understood and I wish that you would get over your hurt that in this election you did not get your way.  You need to understand and accept that everyone does not think as you do (as evidenced by the election).  So, get over your hurt, your angst; grow up and instead of being permanently locked in some sort of childish temper fit, start acting like adults and like Americans! (and, if you are wondering how our government actually works, see many of my previous posts in this blog, read the Constitution, or get a good book on government).

This, then, is my plea to the anti-Trumpers:  STOP IT!  Grow up and act like Americans, not whiny, selfish babies. Accept that the world does not actually revolve around you.  Let the country, including the current administration, get on with the country’s business. 

                                                           

The Power of Narrative

A narrative is a story.  Synonyms include such words as “account,” “tale,” and even “lie.”  Dictionary definitions include the following: “a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious”; “a story that connects and explains a carefully selected set of supposedly true events, experiences, or the like, intended to support a particular viewpoint or thesis.”

Just to be clear, narrative may or may not be factual.

Narrative is often used as a form of persuasion.  One creates a compelling story that encourages its audience to react in a particular way.  The story may or may not be based in fact.  Narratives can be entertaining, they can be useful, and they can be a dangerous form of propaganda.

We currently see narrative functioning at its most dangerous every day on the news; that is, if we can see beyond the story created we will see the narrative for what it is.  For, what passes for “news” today is actually a mixture of fact, innuendo, and fiction composed to create a view of the world that fits into an agenda; it is an attempt to form our views about leaders and policies in a way that fit a purpose that encourages the audience to act in a certain way towards those leaders and policies.  This is not news, it is propaganda.  That it is passed off and often also accepted as a rendition of fact rather than a carefully crafted narrative is dangerous indeed.  For if people act and react based on a false rendition of reality the result is often unfair or unjust, likely destructive, and surely unproductive.

There is a very sinister use of narrative by many on the Left who, in conjunction with members of the media, set forth a narrative about the current administration that is completely negative.  They are creating their own story – the story they want to be true – regardless of its factual support or lack thereof.  The goal of this narrative is to urge anyone who hears it to join their efforts to bring down this administration.  Their narrative is powerful, but, often, not factual. 

Yet, facts do matter.  There must be a realistic and factual appraisal of any existing situation before people can work to improve it.  Competing narratives prevent meaningful dialog and preclude a joint focus on what is.  Without facts there can be no rational dialog; rather, dialog will be guided by emotions generated by the narrative being told.   Rather than informed, intellectual debates about issues, those issues will be decided by whomever is best able to manipulate others by creating the more persuasive narrative, regardless of its truth.

There is a difference between interpreting actual and existing facts and simply creating your own.  Facts are always open to interpretation and discussion.  Interpretations of facts – their significance, whether they are good or bad, their cause and their effect - may change.  But the facts themselves do not change; they are not fluid.  Narratives, on the other hand, have a fluidity that can be useful to their creators; since they need not be factual, the story can change at will in order to create the effect desired by the narrative’s creator.  When such narratives are taken as fact then reality itself becomes fluid and we are all left to the mercy of the one who can create the best narrative.  This is a very dangerous place to be since the motives underlying the creation of any particular narrative may be less than kind, and may be sinister indeed.

And, when narratives succeed, their creators, feeling a heady and dangerous sense of power, are likely to continue to use that tactic to their benefit again in the future.  Suppose the anti-Trump narrative succeeds in removing Trump from office.  What is to prevent a new narrative being constructed to remove his successor, then his successor and so on?  The dangerous result is nothing less than a loss of our democracy.

Yet, narratives are only as powerful as their audience allows them to be. Today, when narratives with little or no basis in fact are competing for control of our country, we must all become extra vigilant.  We must demand facts and expose narratives.  If we continue to allow the blurring of the lines between fact, fiction, and opinion we will be participating in creating a culture that is intellectually bankrupt and continually at war with its own reality.  If we instead choose to take narratives for the stories they are, if we demand facts and distinguish those facts from opinion and fiction, we can create a culture where we will be able to have intellectual, rational, and productive discussions about existing facts and their meaning because we will all be living in and a part of the same reality.  

One Very Un-American Issue

When I started writing this blog immediately following the inauguration of President Trump, I was reacting to what I thought was a short-term hysteria among those who simply could not believe that Trump had been elected President.  At that time I hoped that the anger and hysteria would recede, that people would remember how our democracy works and accept our duly elected president.  I hoped that they could put aside any personal dislike of the man and support our country by supporting and respecting the office of president.  I hoped that people would work together, sharing dissenting ideas on particular issues that the president and his administration favored,  and work towards understanding and compromise for the good of our country.

Well, how wrong I was!

The anti-Trump brigade has one issue only.  It is the same issue they have had since January:  remove Donald Trump from office.  That is all they care about.  And they don’t care if they destroy the country and all that it stands for in the process.   

Imagine if on day one of Trump’s presidency these people had instead taken the position that even though they were not happy about his election, even though they disliked some of his policies, that they would try to work with him for the good of the country and all its people, even those who liked and elected Trump.  But, that is not what we got.  Instead we have had a constant attack not only on Trump the man, but on the office of the President of the United States since day one.

Consider the history:  Constant daily attacks on Trump’s character, along with the way he speaks and the way he looks;  allegations (completely without any substantiating evidence) that he was and is not the legitimate president because either the Russians rigged the election to the point of changing the results or because Trump and his people colluded with the Russians to do the same; constant attacks on his legitimate businesses along with unfounded allegations that the fact that he had successful business interests is somehow a breach of ethics; constant attacks on his family, including his 10 year old son, and attacks on his close circle of friends and advisors;  doing anything possible to stall and delay any movement toward enacting the policies and promises of Trump’s campaign – the policies for which the American people voted;  following these regular crippling attacks and stalling tactics with assertions that Trump is incapable of accomplishing anything; daily misstatements, half-truths, omissions, and sometimes outright falsehoods about Trump and his administration reported in the press; leaks of confidential information lauded as patriotic rather than criminal acts; refusal of many bureaucrats to do their jobs because those jobs require them to take actions with which they disagree; no acknowledgement whatsoever of any positive actions taken by the administration; refusal to hear any viewpoints that do not support the anti-Trump agenda;  encouragement of law-breaking if it is done in opposition to Trump policy, regulations, laws, or orders; creation of a “resistance force” against Trump; regular calls for impeachment despite any evidence that would support it; etc., etc.  The list goes on and on.

This is not American.  This is not how America works.  I am sorry that some people did not like the results of the election.  But, folks, that’s the way it goes in a democracy where the people elect their leader.  I understand that some people don’t particularly care for Donald Trump.  Well, folks, he’s probably not going to come over to your house for dinner, so go ahead and dislike him; but that does not mean that you should try to destroy the presidency.  I suspect that many presidents in our time and before have not been very likable people (certainly there are some that I have disliked); that does not mean that they should not be president or that they cannot or did not do good things for the country.   A successful democracy requires a respect for that democracy and its institutions, including the office of the president.  One ought to be able to distinguish between the office itself and the one who holds it. 

Many seem to dislike Trump because he is not a typical politician.  Many of the elite and career politicians find it distasteful that he does not speak like them; yet many Americans find his real-life way of speaking to be refreshing.  Many career DC inhabitants find it troubling or perhaps threatening that President Trump is shaking up the way things are done in Washington, despite the fact that the status quo bureaucracy is often dysfunctional.  And many Progressives dislike Trump because he does not agree with their vision of America (but neither do the many Americans who elected Trump).

The reasons for disliking Trump may be many and varied.  But they are not reasons to try to destroy his presidency and in so doing destroy the office of the president itself and in so doing ignore and topple our form of government itself.  That is not American.  A dislike of the president or his policies are reasons to work for the election of a different person in the next election cycle.  We do not remove presidents simply because we do not like them or their policies.  We do not create a daily barrage of unfounded attacks in an attempt to completely cripple if not destroy both the occupant and the office of president. 

The bottom line is that the anti-Trump brigade does not like the results of the election.  There is nothing wrong with that.  What is wrong, what is truly un-American, is their unrelenting attempt to destroy this man and his presidency.  Like children throwing a tantrum until they get the piece of candy they want but were denied, these anti-Trumpers are throwing a tantrum that will not stop until they get what they want – the removal of Trump from office.  No one should fall for the line that their actions are being done for the good of the country; they are simply selfish acts of people who did not get their way and cannot accept the way that a democratic form of government works. Their actions are in the end un-American.   Their one issue – remove Trump – has become their obsession and that obsession has the very real possibility of destroying America as we know it if it succeeds.

The Sky is Not Falling

And the world is not coming to an end.  The story of Chicken Little has been around since at least the early 1800s and a very similar story found in Buddhist culture is at least 25 centuries old.  In the stories, Chicken Little thinks the sky is falling when an acorn hits him on the head.  He races around yelling to others that the sky is falling and they join him in an hysterical stampede.   While the precise unhappy ending suffered by the hysterical mob differs somewhat in various renditions of the story, the clear moral is the same:  don’t believe everything you are told; hysteria ends badly and rather than mob hysteria the better course of action is deductive reasoning and subsequent investigation.

The latest group hysteria of the Left is based on President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the subsequent assertions from the Left (the Chicken Littles of this story) that the world will now come to an end, or at least we will be unable to breath from all the pollution that is about to fall upon us. They also yell that anyone who supports the withdrawal does not understand science and does not believe in climate change and so they are causing the demise of our planet.

But wait.  What does a feel-good agreement have to do with the actual environmental condition of the earth, let alone one’s belief or not in climate change?  The answer:  Nothing.  The agreement is perhaps an aspirational document, nothing more.  In my church every Sunday the prayers include the following: “Give us all a reverence for the earth…that we may use its resources rightly….”  This too is aspirational – it is a prayer.  It is not going to save the earth.  Although, if everyone said and then followed this prayer, it might (assuming of course that we did not fall into battle over what “right use” is).   

But, back to the Paris Agreement.  It, in a way, is also nothing more than a prayer.   First, it has nothing to do with one’s belief in the state of the earth, in climate change, or in whether that change is or is not man made.  So, one could be a strong believer in manmade climate change and still think that the Paris Agreement is not a good plan.  It does nothing to change the condition of the earth; it simply suggests that various countries will work towards various goals.  No consequences if the goals are not met.  It just allows every signatory to pat themselves on the back and say how good they are because they have these high-minded aspirations (that they have said their prayers).  

In reality, though, what is going to help the earth is innovation.  We have more and more people needing more and more resources.  Technology requires more and more energy.  There are problems with both renewable and non-renewable energy sources.  The problems need to be solved.  Signing feel-good agreements will not solve the problems.  Words will not solve the problems.  Innovation will.  And innovation generally does not come from governments.  It comes from the private sector that is often motivated by profit.  So, why not encourage the private sector to innovate.  That, not the Paris Agreement, is far more likely to solve the environmental problems faced by an earth that is rapidly becoming too overpopulated for its own good.

The other thing of note about the Paris Agreement is that it was essentially signed via executive order; that is, there was no discussion in Congress by our elected officials about whether or not the U.S. should sign.  The fact that people are disagreeing about our withdrawal from the agreement suggests that we might also have disagreed about our entry had we been given the change to discuss the issue.  That is what we do in this country.  We have elected officials who speak for the people and, in a government “of, by, and for the people” those people, via their elected officials, should have been a part of such a step.  The withdrawal simply reverses an authoritarian act that should not have occurred in the first place.

To be clear, I am concerned about the environment and generally support environmental initiative.  But, I am also not a fan of the Paris Agreement and am perfectly OK with the fact that the U.S. has withdrawn.  I do not think that the sky is falling nor that the world is about to come to an end.  I think that the private sector is far more likely to create positive environmental change than is any feel-good piece of paper.   Those of you who want to jump on the latest bandwagon of hysteria, just remember the story of Chicken Little.