Searching…searching…searching……

I am looking for people with open minds who choose to think and think deeply.  The search becomes harder and harder.

By way of background, I am someone who struggles with those people, often well educated,  who believe that they know more than others and that they have all the answers on any and all given topics.  This usually goes hand and hand with a closed mind, unwilling to listen or consider other points of view.  My reaction to that is an urge to verbally shake such people until they realize that no one, including they themselves, knows all the answers and that when we realize that and then listen to one another’s differing views and interpretations of a subject we will all grow to greater heights of knowledge.  My fervor is great.  I really want to verbally force them to open their minds and THINK.  I cannot help but suggest alternate approaches and views, whether I personally support them or not, simply to force some critical and open thinking.

Lately I find that political discussions more often than not involve individuals presenting their view as the one and only correct view, even when it is based on incomplete, inaccurate, or even no evidence.  There are really only two conclusions to such attempts:  1.  As soon as I challenge a point for which someone has no answer or which proves their position wrong, I am called an insulting name (racist, bigot, white supremacist, deplorable, ignorant, etc. – whatever is the current in vogue term), or accused of having a political agenda, and, with no actual evidence to support it I am told I just am so brainwashed or stupid that I don’t realize what I am, for that is the only way that I could hold a different point of view; 2.  The conversation is simply ended before it begins with a statement that we just can’t talk about this (this being the specific political issue).  Either way, dialog is ended before it can begin.

Here’s an example of the above from an actual interaction:  One person (someone generally anti-Trump) shared an article in which a politician criticized President Trump’s response to the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico.  I responded with some additional details about the relief efforts, the complexity caused by the fact that Puerto Rico is an island and that it had bad infrastructure before the storm.  I noted I was sickened by people using the situation as just another way to make political points. The other person and a friend continued presenting other statements in which people criticized this or that act of Trump regarding Puerto Rico.  I objected to the “back seat driving” by those who were not privy to the entire situation or the way in which the Governor of Puerto Rico was working with the Feds to coordinate a complex and complete response.  When the first person and friend then began making direct comparisons to Katrina with the point being that Trump was failing, I pointed out that this was a different disaster and that even one of the friend’s sources noted that “no two disasters are alike."  I reiterated that I wished people would focus on the actual situation and tragedy instead of politicizing it and using it as just another way to attack Trump.  The friend of the first person then ended the conversation because I was “dragging politics into the discussion.”  Well, hadn’t this been political since the opening criticism of Trump?  But, once there is no response to a contrary point of view, the dialog must end with the fault being placed on the one with the opposing or simply challenging view, who has somehow become too political.  This is not an open dialog.

To be clear, this sort of “conversation” is not limited to politics.  For example, in a humanities seminar that I attend there is a fairly well-educated individual who loves to pontificate and present his views on a work as if they were the only correct, the only acceptable views.  Anyone who might suggest the possibility of a different interpretation of a phrase, a different understanding of an author, or an additional theme present in a book is dismissed if not demeaned as not knowing or understanding what the pontificator knows.  Alternate views are not necessarily presented as opposing or as the only correct view, but just as alternates and additional views to discuss and further enlighten fellow readers.  Yet, the pontificator who thinks the only answer is the one he holds cannot accept such additional views and sees them as some sort of a personal threat or attack.

As an educator, I have seen this many times in my colleagues throughout the years.  Yes, a teacher is (hopefully) more learned in his or her subject than are the students, but that does not mean that the teacher is more intelligent or that the teacher cannot still learn from the students.  It does not mean that the students may not have good ideas that are different from or go beyond those of the teacher. I have always been enormously saddened by teachers who think their job is to tell students what to think rather than to teach students how to think deeply and critically.  I have concluded that those who are not willing to be open to new ideas, those who feel the need to assert some sort of superior intelligence and that only their views are correct are really very insecure people.

So, lack of open-minded thinking, of real ability to engage in thoughtful dialog has always frustrated me.  In my ideal world people would take a position on something based on a critical review of all available evidence, but they would also listen to the views of others and people would be able to have a lively discussion (or even an argument) in which they critically challenge one another’s views while reasonably and rationally supporting their own.  Those involved in such a discussion would all have open minds, would respect views different from their own, and also be willing to be persuaded to a different position if the argument to do so was strong and reasonable.   Disagreements, through such dialog, can be resolved in a constructive and productive manner.  You can perhaps then understand my frustration when it seems that almost no one is able to enter into this sort of dialog today and my search for thinkers becomes more and more difficult.

If people are unable to carry out such a dialog about the meaning of a century old novel, or a philosophical essay, it may be frustrating or unpleasant, but it is not really going to affect our world in any great way (of course we could argue about whether every act no matter how small or seemingly meaningless has ripple effects, but that is a subject for another day).  But what is so terribly troubling is that critical thinking seems to be absent from every interaction, including politics which do, indeed, have a very real and current effect on our world.

Rather than the open minds necessary for reasonable, critical, rational dialog and decision making, it seems that far too many minds are closed, governed not by thought but by emotion that may or may not be reasonable or rational.  This is not to say that ultimate views and political positions should not contain an emotional component, but they must also include rational thought and understanding of non emotional facts and evidence.  And people must be open to accepting that all will not feel the same emotions about a particular set of facts. 

When we are ruled only by our emotions we are easily controlled by others who can and will manipulate those emotions.  And, because our emotions are ours, they are not subject to objective proof or lack thereof. (Emotion is defined as: “instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.”)  Hence, we have people who do not waiver in what they believe or wish to be true, despite no evidence to support it or in the face of facts to the contrary, and even people who find no problem with making statements that are contrary to other statements of their own (for example, the librarian who dislikes the President and seems to consider him a racist and who thus refused the First Lady’s contribution of Dr. Seuss books because they are “cliché and racist” can be seen in photos with her students dressed as the Cat in the Hat and also applauding the former First Lady when she promoted Dr. Seuss).  This irrational and emotional approach may work well for the egos of those holding their emotional and ego driven positions, but it does not work well for productive dialog when such is necessary, especially when it is associated with our political debates.

In this country where we are not (yet) required to all think alike, political debate is necessary to reach compromises for the good of the country as a whole.  But such debate requires objective and rational minds and people who can use them to think for themselves.  No productive debates can occur when people refuse to objectively examine current situations and realistically assess their own views in light of concrete facts and evidence.  If “dialog” is simply an assertion of conflicting emotions, people will only feel attacked, “conversation” will end, and there will be no resolution or progress.  I do not know how one gets people to start thinking again.  I do know that until they do there will be many angry and frustrated people watching our country fall apart. 

Belief Does Not Equal Evidence

When you believe something strongly enough you will find evidence for it everywhere.  Perhaps that is what underlies the irrational and unbending political positions taken by some.  For example, if one believes that the president is a racist/bigot/white supremacist then one will see proof of that everywhere.  When he makes a bland statement that there are bad actors on both the left and the right that will be seen as an assertion of bigotry and support for the KKK.  Then, when he states that people should respect the flag, that will be taken as some sort of code directed to white nationalists.  When his travel ban is directed at some but not all Muslim majority countries it will nonetheless be seen as further proof of his anti-Muslim racism.  When he states his opinion that players who disrespect the flag should be fired that is interpreted as a fully anti-Black call to action.  So, as one mounts up this litany of “evidence” it is easy to become more and more convinced of the initial belief and now, when someone asks “where is the proof of your assertions that he is racist/bigoted/etc.?” the believer can point to these “facts.” They can delight in sharing statements by fellow believers that cite the same “evidence” as further proof that their own beliefs are accurate. The only problem is that these are not facts.  They are interpretations of often quite innocuous statements or of opinions that simply agree with that interpretation.  They prove nothing except that one is desperate to believe what he or she believes and have a reason to listen to no other points of view.

Here is the problem:  beliefs do not create evidence.  Instead, evidence supports beliefs.  Labeling something or someone as a particular thing does not make it so just because it fits into our subjective view of reality.

This is the same problem we see with the Russia investigation.  Many who could not accept that Trump could be legitimately elected found that the idea of his collusion with Russia to win would make a good justification for their disbelief as well as a possible way of overturning the election.   We now have nearly a year of investigation with absolutely no evidence of any such collusion.  The investigation broadens.  It looks to Trump’s business dealings of decades ago, finding anything to grasp at that can be interpreted as collusion.  Anything to support that dearly held belief, a belief that cannot be shaken despite the lack of actual evidence. 

When we let what we believe reshape what actually is we are not living in reality.  And, when one does not live in reality, one cannot realistically address the problems of reality, let alone find solutions to those problems.  Moreover, when one’s reality is nothing more than a reflection of their inner beliefs, they will likely be unwilling to entertain ideas that conflict with those beliefs because those contrary ideas are really an attack on what for them is their reality; it is an attack on themselves.  Such thinking is not rational (actually it is perhaps the result of not thinking at all, but rather of being led by emotion).

When one’s belief system structures and is the skeleton of one’s reality, any attack on that belief system is an attack on the person him or herself.  The believer must defend it at all cost, even when there are no actual facts, no evidence to support it.  They will interpret what is in a way that will support their structure.  Our beliefs are always to some extent and in some way self-serving.  But when they become the very core of our reality then we tend to lose the ability to question them or to be open to other ways of looking at things.  We lose the ability to have any sort of dialog with one who does not believe exactly as we do. 

We can all think of examples of mental illnesses that would be explained by this living in a world of beliefs rather than realities.  The problem is that when it comes to politics it seems that far too many are suffering from this malady.  In studying this sort of phenomena in today’s political landscape a researcher at Univ. of California stated, “What we’ve got is this contest of moral visions that has become a factual fight because of this tendency of people to change their factual beliefs to fit their moral inclinations.”

Our beliefs and the emotions that underlie them are not the same as facts or evidence.  When we confuse the two, when we create evidence from beliefs rather that beliefs from evidence, we are clouding what really is with our conceptional and emotional pictures of what we think it is or should be.  Of course, we all view reality somewhat subjectively and there is often more than one reasonable interpretation of a piece of evidence. But when we reach a point where we find it acceptable to ignore all reason, all rational input, in order to prop up a reality that we want and wish to be true, we are setting up a world full of antagonism between competing belief systems if not a world of complete chaos.

Just because one’s mind chooses to accept a proposition as reality does not make it so.  Reality is not simply subjective consciousness; it is made up of physical and objective facts.  Physical reality is perhaps not the only reality (philosophers and psychologists may debate this forever), but it is the reality that we all share and the one in which we must live together.  Of course we will all view that shared reality somewhat differently, and it is those rational but real different perceptions that can form the basis of deep and productive dialog.  These dialogs can lead to better understanding of one another as well as to genuine improvements to the shared reality.  But, with no shared reality we are really all left isolated in our individual belief systems, systems that respond only to our own control and that have little if anything to do with the shared world of objective and rational evidence.

Why is everything just a vehicle for expressing hatred of President Trump?

I really thought that by now the majority of the country would have returned to at least a semblance of sanity.  But, silly me, the irrational hatred that began the day after the election last November continues at full throttle.  It stifles any hope for rational and productive dialog.

I will get to the NFL taking a knee in a moment, but let’s just consider a few other things first.  For example, Sunday evening CBS aired its new Star Trek spinoff.  I watched the show, and, as a lifelong “trekkie” was pretty disappointed: I felt that it did not live up to the quality, story line, characters, or overall depth of its predecessor series.  I made the decision that it was not worth paying CBS for its “all access TV” in order to watch any further episodes.  Then, the next day I discover that immediately following its airing the cast all “took a knee” to show their solidarity with those expressing disagreement with Trump.  Bad enough, but then they go on to tell us that the entire series will cast the Klingons in a negative light as a clear analogy to Trump.  Really?  Gene Roddenberry must be turning over in his grave.  That taking of sides, of making the show a political mouthpiece is so anti everything that Star Trek stands for.  Yes, Star Trek always dealt with current and difficult issues.  But it presented its stories in a way that makes people think about those issues, not as simply a mouthpiece for a particular side.  But now, apparently, this new version, like so many other TV shows and movies, is simply a vehicle for expressing hatred of President Trump.

Now, as to the NFL “take a knee” controversy.  When Colin Kaepernick did this last year he asserted that he was making a point about inequality in the U.S.  I happen to disagree with the manner in which he chose to make his statement, but it was his statement and it had a purpose – to raise awareness about the inequality that he perceived as needing to be addressed.  Very few joined him until President Trump strongly objected this past weekend to players disrespecting the flag, the National anthem, and the country.  Now scores of people take a knee – their purpose simply to express their hatred of Trump.  Among the social media posts we see photos of Martin Luther King Jr. praying on knee at a Selma march and are told that Trump has objected to this.  Trump did not object to all protest, to taking a knee generally.  What he objected to was NFL players taking a knee stating that they are against our flag or our anthem.  He objects to disrespect of our country as do I and as do many Americans and, he too has a free speech right to make that objection (and, perhaps as the President he has a duty to speak out in defense of our flag and the country that it stands for).  In the Civil Rights, Anti-war, and other protests of the 50s and 60s to which many try to analogize today’s protests, few if any asserted a disrespect let alone a hatred of our country.  They asserted that there exist inequalities and things that need to be corrected while still being proud to live within a country where that could occur.  There is a difference between standing (or taking a knee) for a clear cause and doing so as a statement of hatred either for a country or, as is more likely today, of hatred for Trump.

As an aside, it is interesting that the NFL disallowed protests by its players designed to honor police officers who had been killed or victims of 911 or other social causes.  There was no uproar about any of that, no full teams with owners on the field.  But then, those were real issues, as was the issue behind Kaepernick’s original actions.  The current taking of the knee is a protest without a cause; it is simply another vehicle for expressing the hatred of President Trump.

Then there is the new travel ban.  It includes N. Korea and Venezuela, clearly not majority Muslim countries and excludes countries that are majority Muslim such as Saudi Arabia.  The selected countries were chosen in large part because their governments will not provide information that is necessary to background checking those who seek entry to our country.  Nonetheless, I heard interviews on the news today in which interviewees asserted that the new ban should still be challenged as racist and anti-Muslim because “we know Trump is anti-Muslim and that is the real purpose of the ban.”  Here is another vehicle for simply expressing hatred of President Trump.  Other recent stories led to assertions that Trump is worse than the leader of N. Korea, that he hates [fill in the blank], that he wants to hurt/destroy [fill in the blank], etc.  Then there are the attacks on such trivial things as the food he eats or the clothes his wife wears.  I am hard pressed to find anything that is not some sort of vehicle for hatred of President Trump.

Everyday every potential news story is turned into a way to express vitriolic hatred of Trump.  This hatred is often based on no facts whatsoever but rather on unfounded interpretations and characterizations that simply fit and support the hater’s hate.  And, because it is built out of hatred rather than evidence, it is nearly impossible to have a rational dialog about the underpinnings of the belief.  This is abundantly clear to me whenever I decide to ask someone reciting a litany of hate on what piece of evidence, what fact, they base a particular assertion.  Despite their having no answer, no evidence to support their hate and vitriolic name calling, they continue to assert that their hate and hateful labels are accurate and that those who do not accept this are either stupid or some form of bigot.  And the likely response when this occurs is to hate the hater.  So the hate goes on and the divisions in the country become more and more solidified. 

Rather than talk, people avoid any attempt at discussion and dialog or examination of differing views.  And the voices and messages of hate surround us.  I understand that people dislike the President for a variety of reasons.   But the vitriolic hatred that daily spews forth from so many is not rational or healthy.  It is being fed by the news and by the entertainment media and by the haters themselves until the entire country becomes completely entranced by this siren song.  The whole country seems to be a churning whirlpool from which there is no escape and the only voice is just a louder and louder scream of hate.

This must stop!

But, like most any problem, the first step to recovery is the acknowledgment that there is a problem and the desire to recover.  People must examine their hatred and face the fact that much of it is irrational.  They cannot blame this hatred on the President or anyone else – they must look within and examine the facts:  what supports their feelings and what feelings are simply the creation of their hate.  Everything the President says or does is not a cause for hysteria and while some may not like him as a person or disagree with some of his policies or actions, or simply wish he had lost the election, President Trump is not evil personified or the cause of every trouble of every individual or group or of the world.  People must ignore the siren song and realize that the best way to escape this whirlpool of hate is to rationally consider what the facts do and do not support along with the broader ramifications and pros and cons of differing positions and actions.  Each individual must focus their own understandings, issues, and protests.  Only with that beginning will we ever be able to arrive at rational discussions about the issues that divide our country.  Only then will our voices not be just another vehicle for hate.  I thought it would have happened by now, but it really is time that the country come to its senses and rationally address its problems.

Entitlement

We throw this word around a lot, so perhaps we should examine it a little more thoroughly.  First, entitlement is defined simply as: “the fact of having a right to something.”  There are many people who feel they have this right to many different things.   There are people who can perhaps trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower who may believe they are entitled to be among the ruling class.  Yet, there are also likely some of the same heritage who live in trailer parks or worse and who are primarily concerned with the roof over their heads and how they will eat tomorrow.  Similarly, there are some people who are descendants of slaves who may live today in wealthy and tony areas of cities or suburbs while other such descendants may live in poverty and curse that birth right while believing they are entitled to what others born into better situations seem to have.

Who of the above is entitled to what?    Another word we like to use without any depth of examination is “fairness.”  Is it fair to provide entitlements to a wealthy person of color while denying the same to an impoverished white?  That is what happens when we base programs and entitlements on ethnicity, color, or race.  Is it fair that a white child is denied access to college scholarships or a young entrepreneur be denied access to grants and funding simply because of the color of their skin, even when without such aid it is difficult at best that the white child will find a way to attend college or to develop her business?  Is it fair that a wealthy person of color can apply for and perhaps receive aid, grants, and similar assistance denied to the white simply because of the color of their skin? And, if entitlements are based on ethnicity, how does that work in this age of ancestry DNA tests that can determine the racial mix of nearly all Americans?  A person seen as white may have a significant percentage of DNA belonging to non-white races; does that mean that person may claim that ethnicity and entitlements that go along with it?  What percentage will be enough? 

Beyond the above, there is a deeper, more sinister problem with entitlements, especially when entitlements become a way of life that is handed down from one generation to the next.  The definition of entitlements is “the act of entitling” or “the state of being entitled.”  (Interestingly, this word first appeared here in the early 1800s; was there no sense of entitlement prior to that time?)  The problem with entitlements is that they can become a way of destroying the human spirit or at least a way of creating an underclass of people who will be dependent on someone else’s power rather than their own for their well-being and perhaps their very existence.  When one is provided with what one wants, there is little incentive for working for that something.  With the expectation that one will receive one’s wishes with little or no effort on their own one is likely to lose respect for the things provided as well as for those who work to provide it.  And one will become dependent on those who provide the entitlements.  As a class of people they will become beholden to the power class that provides the entitlements.  This provides a way for that power class to remain in power and reduces the likelihood that the power class will receive challenges from those whom they are entitling.  It also has the potential to reduce the spirt of those being entitled.  It is a way of signaling that one is not capable of taking care of oneself, a concept that is in the end demeaning and a way of signaling that the entitled class is somehow less than the class doing the entitling.

A third problem with entitlements is that sooner or later everyone wants their piece of the pie.  Some tend to forget that the entitlements are ultimately funded by people like themselves.  Yet, if people are less industrious due to entitlements they will have less to contribute, via taxes or otherwise, to the entitlement fund.  And, as taxes increase to fund entitlements and the tax burden becomes greater and greater, more and more people will feel the need for entitlements just to survive.  Ultimately, the system must collapse. 

This is not a post that argues to completely eliminate programs that are designed to help people in a variety of difficult situations.  Nor does this post not acknowledge that each one of us is born into a different place and situation and that the situation of one’s birth may seem to place one in a more or less advantageous circumstance to begin life.  But, so do the differences in one’s intelligence and innate talents.  And the ways that one will be raised.  No two birth situations are the same and some are far better than others.  That is likely to never change; it is simply a fact of life.  What is important is that we not view or treat all people born in one type of situation differently than how we treat those born or placed in other situations.

What this blog does intend to suggest is that entitlements, especially those based on race, ethnicity or similar identity factors are unwise, unfair, and likely destructive.  It is also contrary to the values underlying our democracy and the American Dream.  While these “bourgeois values” have come under attack lately, the qualities of hard word, drive, individual responsibility, and the belief that one, with one’s own effort, can become the best one can be, are the values that have brought many to this country and that have allowed many to succeed in their dreams.  Is it really fair is to consider some people entitled just because they do not have everything that they wish for without consideration of the effort they themselves have contributed? Is it really fair to condemn some people’s successes, achieved through their own hard work, just because of their color or station in life?  What is fair, far fairer than identity entitlements, is to simply give each citizen the same opportunities and let them do with those opportunities what they will.  The results are likely to be different for everyone, but that is not a lack of fairness; rather, it is a difference in each individual’s talents, skills, motivation, values, etc.   Such results, while individually diverse, are fair and moreover will not create an underclass of people dependent on entitlements and someone else’s power for their existence.

Equality and Equity

Equality exists when everyone receives the same treatment and has the same opportunities.

Equity exists when individuals are treated fairly.

These are not the same.  As a country we seem to spend much energy arguing about equality and fairness, yet I think that some of those arguments result simply from a misunderstanding of the terms.  Perhaps it is time to clearly focus on what our disagreements are.

This country and its laws strive to provide equality – to treat all Americans the same and to provide equal opportunities to all, regardless of factors such as race, gender, etc.  No, we are not there yet, but we have that aspiration and strive towards its perfection.  No doubt there are some fringe elements who do not favor equality, but as a whole this country is fully behind it, if not fully achieving of it yet.  (And, such achievement will likely never be perfectly reached; the key is, that we continue to ever move forward as we indeed do).

Equity is another thing entirely.  While I think most everyone would agree that all individuals should be treated fairly, the problem arises in answering what makes treatment fair in any particular instance.  This is where our disagreements truly lie and where we should focus our dialogs.  For example, should everyone receive the same pay regardless of effort or of the job they do?  Some would answer yes, some would argue no.  The answer is based on certain underlying premises and value systems, and it is those underlying concepts that are the basis of conflicts about results.

Hence, if we are to come together as a nation we must explore those underlying values and determine if we can find areas in which they are compatible or on which we can agree. Which are we willing to eliminate and which do we hold dear or will fight to the death to preserve.  In the above example it is easy to simply label one view socialist and one view capitalist and walk away from any further discussion.  While such labels might aptly apply, to label and do nothing more is not productive, nor does it resolve the divisiveness that is currently pervasive in this country.  All it does is encourage people to take sides, often based on things they don’t really understand.

This is where education is important.  Concepts of fairness are always going to be based on values and mores of the culture in which the question of fairness exists.  Public flogging or even death might be considered a fair punishment for adultery in some cultures while not so in America or others.  Countries are founded based on certain shared values of the founders.  Those values will to some extent determine such things as the form of government, the laws, and the justice system of the country.  When those basic shared values are no longer shared by a majority of the citizens, then it is likely that country will face upheaval and change, possibly to the point of no longer existing or becoming totally unrecognizable as the country it once was.  Such change can be well thought out and planned, or it can be based on a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of what exists and the likely effect of substantive changes in the underlying values and structures of a nation. 

America seems to be going through this sort of change, but without any understanding of the what or why of what is going on.  First, there is little understanding of the history of this country or its founding or of its Constitution.  From my reading as well as personal interactions with others it appears that few people really understand our democracy, how it works, or its underlying principles.  Second, those who favor a move to bigger government and smaller individual rights seem to lack an understanding of the long-term consequences of such a move; they seem fully uneducated about the histories of countries that have already followed such a path.  Similarly, those who argue for open borders seem to have spent little time thinking about the actual consequences of such action.  Third, there is a lack of knowledge about the various religious texts that are often used to support one position or another as well as to attack an opposing position.  Using one’s religion to shame or attack them without any depth of understanding about that religion is divisive, not productive.  Fourth, combined with lack of education and understanding in key areas, people or constantly bombarded with propaganda – what we now call fake news – that presents selective and incomplete if not fully distorted stories about key topics.  Finally, in addition to the drought of information and understanding is a superficiality and selfishness in the approach of many to their lives.

I, for one, believe that we should not change the underlying principles of America – the principles of self-reliance and independence, of small government, of free speech, and the basic guiding principles of our republic and its government that are set forth in our Constitution.  I also believe that a meritocracy breeds success and allows and encourages individuals to each reach their highest potential.  I encourage equal treatment and opportunity, but also believe that rewarding individual hard work is fair, even though it may leave individuals in differing (unequal) positions.  I believe that it is those things, those underlying values, that make this country the greatest country in the world, as well as the fairest and most equitable.  But, I also realize there are those who would prefer to abandon those principles and values.  They see equity differently.  I just hope that they take the time to educate themselves and realize what they are truly arguing for, because if we abandon those basic principles we will have a very different country that views each individual in a very different way.

DACA, Dreamers, and Reality

When laws are broken, people often get hurt.  Often those people are innocent victims.  That does not mean that laws should not be enforced.

With that thought in mind let’s turn to DACA and the Dreamers. 

We have immigration laws in this country that provide very generous immigration policies.  We also have people who enter the country illegally in an effort, for whatever reason, to circumvent those laws.  They are illegal aliens.  Sometimes they bring their children with them – they too are illegally in this country.  One can invoke great feelings of sympathy by describing a very young child who was simply carted here illegally by parents who chose to break the law (for whatever reason, noble or not) and most everyone would say they abhor the idea of that child being thrown out of the country.  But, if I ask whether you want to ignore our laws and our Constitution, you might have a different response; indeed, I would hope that the idea of only following the Constitution, our laws, and our system of government when it feels good would be abhorrent to everyone.

And, that is the first problem with the current DACA situation.  When Congress, the body responsible for enacting laws about immigration, failed to reach a solution to address the Dreamers, the then president Obama, tired of waiting, and asserting feelings of compassion, violated the separation of powers and created DACA by executive fiat.  Not only is that itself wrong, it also sets a bad precedent:  do we really want a president to be able to circumvent our separation of powers when he or she feels strongly about something?  The possibilities of that are truly frightening and suggest a totalitarianism rather than a democracy.

So, let’s accept that Trump was correct in rescinding that order and in placing the answer to the dreamers and the immigration questions they pose in the rightful hands of Congress.  It would seem that all law-abiding citizens should be able to agree on that.  But, sadly, they cannot.  Many of the populace would rather have emotion rule the day.

And, so, we have attorneys general of several states filing suit to retain this program that was created in violation of our Constitution.  These are the folks who should be leading the way in upholding our laws, not arguing to enforce programs that are emotionally pleasing to us regardless of whether their creation violated the basic premises of our Constitution and our democracy.

The disagreement should not be about whether the 2012 DACA order should have been rescinded.  Rather, the disagreement should be focused on how Congress should deal with the fact that there are individuals illegally in this country who were brought here as minors.  On the part of most I suspect there is an urge toward compassion, which is good.  But along with that must come an examination of the consequences, both good and bad, of that compassion.  In weighing those factors, one must first have a basic grasp of the actual facts about DACA and the Dreamers, because proponents of various views will put forth only their interpretations of those facts.

First, let’s consider who the Dreamers are.  They had to be under 31 in 2012 and had to have come to America when they were 15 or younger.  Most of the DACA “children” are in their mid-20s today.  They had to have lived in this country since 2007 (10 years as of today, 5 years when DACA was signed in 2012).  Many have jobs.  They are eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and Earned Income Credit on their taxes, but are not eligible for many other welfare benefits.  Many of the Dreamers hold jobs, and there is an argument being put forward that it would be detrimental to lose them from our work force. 

I will begin with considering that jobs argument.  Are there no eligible American citizens that can fill those jobs? Last time I looked there were still many unemployed Americans looking for work.  I read an article this morning that included a statement by an employer that he had 3 construction jobs filled by dreamers and was concerned he would not find replacements.  Huh?  There are not 3 young people here legally who would be willing to take those jobs?  Is it that he won’t find replacements, or that he won’t find replacements who are as subservient as the DACA employees or perhaps who will demand higher wages or benefits?  Do the people who are asserting that only Dreamers can do the jobs really have that low an opinion of our own young adults?  That, alone, deserves a far deeper discussion, beyond what is being addressed here.

But, I am ready to assume that most – nearly all – the Dreamers are good people who are stuck in a horrible situation through no fault of their own.  (I remind people that life is not fair and we cannot fix everything for everyone).  But, if all it meant was giving citizenship to these young adults who were willing to apply and to go through the formal process, I might be for that.  But again, we must look at reality and reality tells us that things would not end there.

So, here are some of the problem consequences with granting any kind of legal status to the Dreamers.  First, if we revoke the rescission of Obama’s DACA order and allow that order to remain in place, we are setting a dangerous precedent that allows a future president to override Congress, our laws, and our Constitution. 

Second, if Congress reinstates DACA in a legal manner, we are essentially sending the message that if you come here illegally eventually America’s compassion will get the better of itself and its laws and you will be granted some means of becoming a legal resident of the country.  This is even if the DACA program itself is limited only to those currently within the country.  One only has to consider the rise in illegal immigration following the grant of amnesty during President Reagan’s term in office.  What is to prevent illegal immigration of new families coming with the belief that if they wait long enough they will be given some sort of legal status.  Not only does this fly in the face of any legal immigration policy, it is also a slap in the face to those families that choose to pursue a legal path to immigration and citizenship.

We also have family unification programs that allow those immigrants here legally to bring in their families.  So the Dreamers would likely have an opportunity to be joined by family members who otherwise would have had to follow a normal immigration procedure.  So, along with granting legal status to 800,000 young adults under DACA we could also be granting legal status to a significantly larger number as they reunify their families.

I can’t imagine being brought to a country by my parents only to be told I am illegally there and hence must deport.  It is a horrible situation.  On the other hand, I also cannot imagine being over 18, knowing I am illegally present, and not considering alternatives beyond hoping that I eventually be given some sort of legal status. 

This is not an easy problem and we should not provide easy solutions; nor should our solutions be based solely on emotion.  Life is hard.  Laws exist.  When people break the laws, even with the best motive, people are hurt.  Parents who brought their children illegally to America may have believed they were helping their children.  They were not.  They were breaking the laws and their children are now the victims of their illegal behavior. 

These children are now mostly young adults.  Like all young adults, they need to find their path forward, and for many of the Dreamers, just as for many other young adults, that path may not be an easy one.  But that fact alone does not mean that we should grant them legal status.   Congress must seriously consider the many possible consequences of their actions on behalf of the Dreamers, focusing not only on their compassion for these young adults, but also on their compassion for the legal citizens and immigrants of this country and for this country’s laws.

DACA

If you are interested in reading the actual DACA rescission order, here is the link:  https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

If you are interested in hearing Attorney General Sessions’ speech announcing the above, here is a link:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?433616-1/attorney-general-rescinds-daca-program

If you are not interested in reading the actual source material, but instead prefer to read opinion and hysteria about it, or to be told what you should think about it, go to most any media source.

I find it amazing that demonstrations and walkouts have already been preplanned based on assertions that are inconsistent with the actual text of the order.  I find it interesting that few seem to care about the underlying legal issues, that the 2012 order was overreach by the executive branch which was in all likelihood a violation of the Constitution, and certainly an affront to the separation of powers and hence to our form of democracy and freedom.  But, then, one wonders if that even matters to those who simply want what they want and want it now.

We are a nation of laws, and laws must be followed, even when they are not to our liking.  It is our representatives in Congress that we elect to create, amend, and adjust the laws.  When we allow a president to circumvent those laws by executive order as was the case with the 2012 order, then we are on our way to creating some sort of dictatorship in which whoever is in power can act on their, not the people’s, desires.  We should all thank the current president for righting the ship of state on this issue, and rescinding the 2012 order.  We should also note that it compassionately allows case-by-case examinations of current DACA people.  Those who find the current laws not to their liking, rather than throwing a variety of temper tantrums based on incomplete or incorrect understandings about our government and its laws, should fully and accurately inform themselves and then take their thoughts and suggestions to their chosen representatives in Congress. 

Addendum:  Here, also, is a link to the President's statement on the rescission: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/05/statement-president-donald-j-trump

Anger

Anger is defined as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.”  But it also seems to make people a little crazy.  For example, today, still, the media is discussing Melania’s stiletto heels, though, to be fair, they have also moved to the hat she wore in Texas.  Today, even an opinion in the Washington Post notes that  despite no evidence of collusion, the Russia story survives (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/30/the-trump-russia-story-survives-even-as-evidence-of-collusion-fades/?utm_term=.38036f4a5075).   More examples abound, both of the findings of fault for any and everything regarding Trump, as well as the lack of ability to acknowledge anything at all positive coming from the President or his administration.  It also seems to allow people to be blind to any possible bad acts that do not involve Trump (DNC server and DNC/Wasserman-Schultz’s now indicted IT crowd; emails showing Comey prejudging Hillary before seeing evidence; violence of the Antifa group; to name just a few). 

I want to say, “give it up”; for isn’t it about time to do so?   But it seems there is a large group, including a large portion of the media, who simply cannot do so.  I am thus inclined to think (to fear) that perhaps this is the new normal.  Clearly, there is still a large group of people feeling annoyed, displeased, and even hostile that Donald Trump is their legitimately elected president.  The problem is that they do not know how to deal with that anger and so they continue to behave in immature and unhealthy ways. 

Psychologists tell us that anger is a normal emotion, and, dealt with properly it can be a healthy emotion.  Anger becomes a problem when it is out of control or aggressive and when it is acted on in ways that are not healthy for the actor or those with whom the angry person interacts.  Parents try to teach children how to properly address their angry emotions and avoid “acting out” their anger.  From the looks of the anti-Trump (& anti-Trump supporter) hatred, it would appear that many parents failed in teaching this skill.  For really, isn’t today’s political name calling and behavior not unlike what one hears and sees from young children when they are angry?

Those angry children are unable to have a dialog; instead, they throw their tantrum and call their names.  They don’t want to hear a rational explanation of why they aren’t getting what they want; they don’t want to have reality encroach on their own angry caricatures of the world and the people in it.  And, sadly, the one whom the child attacks, then often responds in equally irrational ways.

One must ask:  is this really that different from what we see and hear daily in the news?  There is a narrative, filled with caricatures, that sustains the anger and its subsequent behavior.  The narrative includes first that Trump is an illegitimate president - this then justifies all the “annoyance, displeasure, and hostility” at his presidency and subsequently at those who support it.   This narrative supports the tantrum and, in the way of those unable to face and deal with their emotion of anger, rational evidence to the contrary is ignored.  Because this anger is so all-consuming, it leaves no room for rational thought or dialog.  It requires caricatures.  Thus, any attempt to explain a contrary position is simply met with name calling:  one who disagrees is labeled with an appropriate caricature (racist, bigot, Nazi, deplorable, ignorant, hateful, etc.)  and thus everything that person or evidence might put forth can be ignored.   This precludes the possibility of any actual dialog beyond name calling.

Anger is the emotional response that accompanies aggression, though a well-balanced adult is able to deal with his or her anger without aggression.  But, when anger is the primary if not over-whelming emotion, there certainly exists a danger of aggressive action.  Is this not what we see at many of the recent demonstrations?

Think again of the child throwing a temper tantrum.  It is often because the child is frustrated at not getting what he wants and hence feels somehow deprived.  He is not willing to understand that too much candy might make him sick or that a toy is too expensive or that he must first do his homework.  Think of the angry teen, frustrated and furious because he can’t use the car or because his parents have imposed a curfew that the teen sees as unfair and as some sort of deprivation.  In the heat of anger, the teen is not going to listen to reason and dialog is impossible. 

But, in most cases, the anger will pass, either because the individual himself will gain control or because the parent will skillfully defuse the anger.  Then there is an opportunity for dialog.  This is how we learn to step back when we feel anger and then address it and its frustration rationally and constructively.

Sadly, in the political arena there seems no interest in diffusing the anger, in facing reality, and in constructively addressing frustration.  Rather, those people who feel in some way deprived because they did not get the president they wanted, are content to let their anger fester and grow.  They seem to be content to live in a narrative that their anger constructs, regardless of its rationality.  And, until that changes, I fear that this “annoyance, fear, and hostility” will continue to pervade every aspect of our lives.  I fear that anger is indeed the new normal.