Border Reality

Recently someone asked me why I haven’t written on immigration lately.  There are 2 main reasons for this. One, it is in many ways too complicated a topic for a short blog, and, second, it seems that this is an area where most all minds are made up already, though often not based on rational evaluation but rather on political point of view.  Nonetheless, let me try to add a few thoughts to the conversation.

Essentially, there are three approaches a country can take to its borders:  open borders, controlled borders and closed borders.  Standing for or against one or another of these forms does not necessarily mean one is racist or holds any other positions that various sides of the debate like to attribute to their opponents.  We might be more successful in resolving the immigration issues if we would focus on immigration itself, rather than on name-calling of those with whom we disagree.  That is, immigration should not be used to settle political scores.

A border is simply an outer edge that delineates where something ends.  In this case we are talking about the defining edge or boundary of a country.

An open border is one that allows free movement of people across with little or no restrictions.  Essentially there is no border control.  This may be by design, or due to lack of resources.  The borders between the states of the United States are open borders.

A controlled border is one that allows movement across but places some restrictions on that movement.  It may require a visa or a limited period of entry without a visa.  A controlled border will have some method of recording people’s movements across the border and for checking compliance with the restrictions and limitations on crossing.  Controlled borders will usually have some sort of barrier, either natural (e.g. a river) or man made (e.g. a wall) and will usually have designated crossing points for legal crossings of the border.  Most international borders, including the United States, are controlled borders.

A closed border prevents movement of people across the border with few if any exceptions.  Examples include the Berlin Wall and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

Our immigration debate seems to primarily involve the following positions:  arguments for open borders; arguments to keep a controlled border with essentially the same restrictions and criteria for entry as we now have (keep the current immigration laws) and have a controlled border but rework the restrictions and criteria (rewrite the immigration laws).

Most of the open border arguments are humanitarian or idealist in nature.  They argue that migrants coming from developing to developed countries can, by earning higher wages, not only improve their own standard of living, but in the process reduce world poverty.  Additionally, is the argument that it is inherently unfair for people to be treated differently or live differently simply based on which side of a border they were born.

The arguments against open borders are more pragmatic and realistic.  Open borders can create a drain on available resources in the country to with the people are migrating.  And, it can deprive home countries of the people necessary to improve those countries (both laborers and educated professionals), especially when they are developing nations. 

The arguments for open borders can be quite compelling.  But, in my opinion, they are not very realistic, especially when taken to their logical extreme. 

America is a great country.  It has natural resources and it has a form of government beginning with its Constitution that is the envy of people around the world.  It makes sense that anyone would like to come and live here.  But, realistically, this country cannot support the whole world.  Nor should it. 

America has always been very generous with its legal immigration as well as its humanitarian aid to developing nations.  Legal immigrants have brought much to our country and we have given them much.  But one key to past legal immigration is that those who came appreciated not only the resources available here, but also the government and way of life in America.  While keeping their ancestral identity and culture they also have been willing to become Americans, to support the basic values upon which this country was built and which allows it to be both enticing and welcoming.  These legal immigrants truly gave up their home country for ours and became full participants in our society.

There are many today who also seek legal immigration into America as a way to become Americans, who will both take what America offers and give what they can in return.  But there are others who seem to seek this country for what it has to offer them, but who would rather not become Americans; they would simply move their country into our land and reap its benefits.  In many cases these are those who begin their entry by disrespecting our laws and entering illegally. 

It is these illegal border crossers to whom many controlled border advocates object and whom many open border advocates welcome.  But one must ask: if you allow everyone in, what will happen to this country?  There were at least 6000 migrants in the most recent group that arrived at our border.  We likely could in some way absorb that number, but what about the next 6000 and the next?  If most of the world sees America as better, then why shouldn’t everyone come here?  And then what?  Abundant as our resources are, we do not have enough for the entire world.

Those who would allow open borders play on our emotions with pictures of mothers and starving children, try to shame us based on our humanitarian values into opening our borders to all.  Of course we want to help.  Those against opening our borders to everyone show us pictures of gang members who are rapists and murderers.  In reality, those attempting to enter our country include both and more. 

The focus should not be on who exactly is climbing the wall, or storming our border, or even seeking legal entry, but rather on should we or should we not open the border, and if it is not open, then what should be the criteria for legal entry.  In the meantime, we should enforce existing laws equally and against anyone who violates them, regardless of their emotional appeal to us or lack thereof.

We are a country, we are not the keepers of the entire world.  We are indeed fortunate to live in this blessed land.  But we have also given blood and treasure to build and keep this country.  Compassion for those less fortunate does not require us to open our borders to all or to give away that which our people have worked hard to build.  There are many ways to express compassion.

Our immigration laws need to determine the criteria for legal entry.  These criteria should include an understanding of why the applicant wishes to enter and how they will in some way contribute to our country.  Perhaps they have a skill we need; perhaps they will learn here and take what they learn back to their country, sharing our compassion in that way to make a better world. 

Of course we must take in those who seek asylum (though there may also be limits on that number).  But a refugee is not simply someone who thinks it is better here than in their home country.  A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.   If they simply don’t like the economy or policies of their country, it seems a better plan for them to work to change those problems and make their own country a more livable and better place.  We can perhaps give advice or training or monetary assistance.  But we cannot simply open our doors to everyone who sees America as better than where they are now.    

Opening our borders to everyone requires that we be willing to give up our country, for a country without borders is no country at all.   We see many of the illegal immigrants that enter our land still holding the flag of their home country while defacing the flag of the new country they would call home.  They choose not to learn our language or our customs or our values.  It is those things, held in common, that are the basis of a country and not simply a geographic area filled with competing tribes.

A controlled border allows us to have laws that insure that those who seek to enter have a true desire to become a productive and supportive participant in America.  Those laws also allow us to exclude those who attempt to enter illegally or with purposes that are not in the best interests of this country.  With such restrictions we can enjoy the gifts and talents that immigrants bring with them while ensuring that those of us (immigrants and current residents) who choose to be here will continue to have the country that we have chosen.

Of course, we’d all like to believe that if there were open borders everywhere, we would all just get along fine and the world and everything in it would be wonderful.  But the world is inhabited by imperfect humans and it is highly unlikely that would happen.  We can open our borders, but we must be prepared for a loss of our way of life:  a loss of resources, a loss of shared values, a loss of our cultural identity as a nation. 

In the real world, open borders are a bad idea.  Controlling borders means creating clearly defined and protected borders, not allowing illegal immigration (and not rewarding it after the fact), and having clearly defined requirements and procedures for legal immigration and appropriate penalties for violations of those rules.  It is time that people get over the emotional and unrealistic arguments and stop using immigration as a political weapon and simply focus on making America’s controlled borders the best they can be.

A Trigger Warning for Christmas?

I’m thinking that maybe I should put a trigger warning* on the Christmas cards I’m about to send out.  They have a picture of the nativity (a reproduction of a 15^th century painting). 

*Trigger warning for those who are not familiar with the term is “a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).”  Teachers and professors are advised (sometimes required) to give such a warning to students when a subject to be addressed in class might prove upsetting to some.  

While my consideration of a trigger warning for my card is primarily in jest, it is also in response to learning that an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota, posted on his Twitter account that the “virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,” and “There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.” He concluded the tweet by writing “Happy holidays.”

So, those of us who enjoy Christmas, for religious or other reasons, can now consider ourselves complicit with those sexual predators called out by the MeToo movement.  We are also not to listen to a variety of Christmas or Winter season songs – “Baby Its Cold Outside” (date rape); “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” (racist); “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer” (bullying), “Deck the Halls” (homophobic). I haven’t heard complaints yet, but I’m sure “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is a symbol of elder abuse.  Of course, we already have learned that Charlie Brown is racist from his Thanksgiving special.   And, the movie “Elf” includes the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” so it too must go.  I’m sure there is a long list of other offensive Christmas activities that we will eventually hear about.

Once upon a time in a Children’s story the Grinch stole Christmas.  There are real grinches who would not only spoil the fun of Christmas but put an end to it altogether.  They remind us that it is really a recycled pagan holiday, that we don’t know when Jesus was born, and that the word “Christmas” is not in the Bible.   We already know we should not be using the word Christmas – if we must give a season greeting it should be the generic “Happy Holidays.”

Debates.org has a debate poll asking the question “Should Christmas be abolished?”  The result:  49% yes, 51% no.  Reasons for yes include that the holiday is racist, sexist, and Christian, that it “gives false hope” to children, and that it is for capitalists.

Once upon a time in this country we were more tolerant.  Even if a holiday were not one that we chose to celebrate, we were tolerant of those who did.   We were not offended by, nor did we look for everything possible by which we could be offended in the holidays, beliefs, and activities of others.  I grew up on a street with Christians and Jews.  They did not celebrate each other’s holidays, but neither did they take offense at them.  They respected the other’s views and were tolerant of them.  They did not try to take the joy out of them or spoil them or end them altogether.

Today we do not have such tolerance.  Those who oppose Christmas are not content to let others enjoy the holiday.  Instead they would impose guilt, doubt, hatred on those who do.

In soviet Russia, the State took charge of what people should believe.  The goal was to establish State atheism.  Religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.  Believers had to worship secretly; public displays of religion were prohibited.

Is that where this over-eager hunt for Christmas offenses leads?  It is certainly in line with the autocratic mind-set of dictatorship.  And with what seems to be more and more the prevalent mind-set of the progressives in this country.  The Democrats (most recently via Sen. Hirono) have told us that they are just too smart for the rest of us.  Perhaps that is why they believe that it is their job to tell us how to think and to act, what to celebrate and what is just too offensive, what we should feel guilty about and why we should just never be able to simply enjoy life without shame and guilt for our many sins and misdeeds.  And, among those, apparently, is the joy and fun of Christmas.

Lenin wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”  Marxism-Leninism advocates the suppression and ultimately the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious”.

That is communism; we live in a country that protects a variety of beliefs and expects others (even those who think they are smarter than our bourgeois working class) to be tolerant of them.  The current war on seemingly every aspect of Christmas joy is simply a part of the war on everything that does not conform to one particular point of view.  It is a war, that if successful, will change this country completely and make it reminiscent of the joyless communism of the USSR.

The Hollowness of Show

We seem to live in a world where appearance is everything and there is an emptiness behind the superficial.

I watched a time lapse photo on Facebook of an artificial tree being erected in a family living room.  The video is cute and the “tree” is lovely, but I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing.  The point of the video was (I think) to show the world the “tree”  and that the family had gotten that job done. The time lapse encapsulated removing the "tree" from its box, stacking its tiers, turning on its pre-strung lights and adding the coordinated decorations.  When it was over you imagined the family simply returning to their everyday lives.

But isn’t Christmas and the holiday season not really about the tree or other decorations, but something deeper and far more meaningful?  We can all admire a perfectly erected artificial tree, but I would rather have a less than perfect tree and focus on the time together selecting (perhaps even cutting) it and decorating it (perhaps with homemade decorations or ones that are otherwise individually meaningful).  And, if it is only about the photo op of the “tree” or checking off the box that one put up a “tree” then we have lost any deeper understanding of what that tree might signify to us as an individual, to our family, to our faith, to our culture.

In contrast I recently watched some videos of holiday celebrations in Eastern Europe.  Families laid beautiful tables using special dishes, but the decorations in the homes were sparse.  One family had their celebration around a kitchen table with stove and sink as the backdrop.  Yet, in these videos, the families were focused on one another as they enjoyed the meanings and memories of the holiday.

I can remember birthday parties at our family’s kitchen table.  The table was well set and decorated, but the stove, sink, and cluttered kitchen counter were the backdrop.  I hope my children were not ashamed or embarrassed by this, especially when the typical child’s birthday (including those of their peers) was celebrated at some sort of entertainment center where the parents can demonstrate that they keep up with (or perhaps surpass) the Jones.

Appearances.  They seem to have become important ends in themselves.  Not just noteworthy celebrations, but daily life as well.  New homeowners feel compelled to completely furnish and decorate their new home immediately; no waiting and saving and buying piece by piece.  Slower acquisition results in a décor scheme that includes unmatched but complimentary pieces.  Perhaps not the perfection of a décor right out of a magazine photo, but a décor that one can feel is their own – that has meaning to the one who created it.

Yet, in all of the above, what will people drool over and compliment?  In most instances it will be the perfect artificial tree, holiday celebrations not in kitchens but in elaborately decorated homes, birthdays planned and carried out at some impersonal venue, homes that indeed look like a magazine photo.  The point is not the underlying meaning, but what it looks like to the rest of the world.  It is superficial beauty with a hollow core.

And it is not just our environments; it is ourselves as well.  The first questions asked upon meeting or hearing about someone are usually aimed at identifying where the person works and what their social status is.  Not who they are but what label we can slap on them.   Do we even care if there is anything beyond the surface that we label and then judge?

There is a hollowness in all of this.  An emptiness that reminds one of those philosophies that assert the emptiness and meaninglessness of life itself.  Perhaps that is why there is now so little interest in history or so much focus on making things better and feeling good in the moment with no thought to or concern for how it might affect the future. 

Let’s think about where this attitude leads.  If everything is nothing more than a “tree” to get out of a box, put up and move on, wondering “OK, that’s done, what’s next?”  then we are well on the way to not just denying but destroying our culture and with it our very souls.

There was a time when this country tried to make the many Native American Tribes give up their cultures, their languages, their ceremonies, their very way of life.  When this country came to realize the mistake that was, the Native cultures were only able to restore themselves and survive because the elders had preserved traditions and understood their deeper meanings and were able to pass this on to younger generations. 

Yet, as today’s PC police chip away at anything that is offensive to anyone, they are in effect doing what we tried to do to the Native cultures.  The progressive “inclusive” movement tries to make everyone think, act, and be alike.  That requires individuals and families to give up their personal traditions and beliefs – the things that tie them to both their past and their future.  It requires them to give up their very souls.

As we lose what is individually meaningful, we are losing the understanding that is necessary to preserve individual families and the culture that is their soul.  Some may think this is the way to a better world, to the utopia that is (and by its very nature must always be) a dream.  It is not.  Rather, it is the way to a loss of individuality, of one’s very being.  It is the way to a hollow and superficial world, a world that has no meaning and therefore no respect.  No respect for culture or for the families and individuals from which a culture derives. 

When there is no respect, no understanding, no meaning to something, then there is no need to sustain it; it can acceptably be destroyed and forgotten.  And hollow people can go about behaving as they are told, with no understanding of why and no individuality or meaning to their lives.  And that, at least in my opinion, is not a utopia.  It is instead a hollow world that can very easily collapse upon itself and cease to be.  When appearance – the show – is everything, then we must wonder what happens when the show ends and the curtains close. 

Democracy Means That Sometimes You Lose

The 2018 elections prove what began to become obvious in 2016:  many Democrats believe that if they or their candidate does not win then the result is illegitimate.

One would have to have been living on a deserted island for the last 2 years to not realize that the Democrats still cannot accept the fact that their presidential candidate lost the election.  They continue to mount attack after attack on the winner of that election to prove that his presidency is somehow illegitimate.

Now we see the same sentiment expressed in many of the midterm elections.  We could begin by talking about the questionable tactics following close votes and then the sudden appearance of previously undiscovered votes – these suddenly produced ballots may simply be the result of incompetence, or they may be the result of something more.  Perhaps they reflect the view that any means necessary, including counting illegitimate ballots, is acceptable in order to produce a win for your candidate.  We will probably never have a definitive answer on that question.  But, we will always wonder if the call of the losing Democrat candidates to “count every vote” is meant to include both legitimate and illegitimate votes.

But, beyond that, look at the difficulty that the Democrats have in conceding.  When it is obvious they cannot win they will file lawsuit after lawsuit to attack the results.  In many of these races, the national and outside Democrat interests have millions invested in the race (making politics anything but local!) and even after a win for their candidate is completely hopeless and the candidate concedes, the winners are immediately attacked as illegitimate with assertions that they somehow stole the elections, as well as having the now typical Democrat epithets thrown at them (racist, supremacist, etc.).  The voters are then also attacked (for example, a recent CNN panel attacked “white women Trump voters” as racist and white supremacists).

When they finally realize that the votes just are not there for their victory, the Democrats often concede without conceding.  In Florida, Gillum conceded, withdrew his concession, conceded again.  Nelson, who finally conceded to Scott, did so only after filing scores of lawsuits.  In Georgia, Abrams finally conceded but refuses to call Kemp’s victory legitimate, saying “I think it was wrong.” (apparently if you lose then that is wrong, and the winner’s victory is illegitimate.) 

So what does this inability to accept one’s loss say about one’s understanding of our democracy?  It is an inability to accept the very core premise of our democracy – that there will be a fair and honest vote in which the people will decide.  This means that sometimes the people do not want what your candidate is selling and you lose.  And the loser needs to lose gracefully, concede, to wish the winner and our democracy well.  Only those who believe that they know better than the people, that they are somehow entitled to be in power, would see a loss as something so wrong that it makes the victory of their opponent illegitimate.

Yet, this is exactly how many Democrats seem to view our elections.  They believe they should be in power because they know what is right for all of us.  They would prefer not to listen to the people’s voices and, when those voices disagree with theirs then they simply believe that those voices are wrong or that there has been some illegal act that has stolen victory from their candidate.  They claimed the Russians did it in 2016.  In 2018 they claim that it is somehow the fault of a variety of perfectly valid election laws.  They claim unspecified tampering.   They blame the voters.  Yet, isn’t it interesting, that any actual evidence of tampering more often than not points towards the Democrats.

In this country, we have elections and when they are over, the losers, while unhappy, need to accept and respect the result. They many not like the individual who now holds the office, but they need to respect the office and give support to its holder, because such support reflects a support for our country and its democracy.  And note, support does not necessarily mean agreement with every policy decision or action; our country thrives on diverse views.  But, our country also thrives on elections that provide the will of the people in our government of, for, and by the people.  

The Democrats' inability to accept and their readiness to attack the will of the people is very telling.  In my opinion it evidences not a concern for the people or for our democracy, but rather an unquenchable thirst for their own power – a thirst that is willing to ignore the people and our very democracy in order to achieve that focused goal.   It is the similar thirst for power that one sees in the sham elections that occur regularly in a variety of dictatorships around the world. 

This thirst of the Democrats shows no sign of abating.  With a majority in the House, rather than work on legislation for the good of the people and the country, the Democrats appear to be focused only on investigations and attacks against anyone in power who is not one of them.  Rather than accepting a variety of state elections and letting those who won get on with the business of governing, the Democrats will use the courts to mount attack after attack upon the winners and the results.

Disagreements over policy are one thing, they are a healthy requirement of democracy, but attacks on any differing voice and a total intolerance of opposing views is completely contrary to the very core of our democracy.  Yet, that intolerance is exactly what the Democrats inability to accept the legitimacy of an opponent’s victory reveals.  A true believer in our democratic form of government will respect and support, not attack the voice of the people.   They understand that their power is subservient to that of the people.

The Democrats simply do not understand that Democracy means that sometimes you lose and that the appropriate response is to accept that defeat, continue to express your differing views while working with the winner for the good of the country and its people. 

The Hate Continues (and a Plea to End It)

According to Axios, the Democrats are readying at least 85 subpoenas against Trump for when they take office in January.   Click here for Article  Is this really what those who voted for them want them to do?  Is this country so filled with hate and so driven by revenge that they would rather see their elected officials act out on their animosity for the man who beat their candidate in the presidential election than work on the needs of the people who elected them?  Apparently so, because it was no secret that was the Democrat’s intent; their agenda is focused on one thing only:  get Trump by any means necessary.

I have never seen such hatred for such an extended period of time.  While the Democrats would have us believe that somehow Trump is destroying our country, the reality is that it is they, the Democrats, who are doing so.   If one goes beyond the anti-Trump propaganda one will see that our economy is booming, that unemployment is at its lowest in years (and the lowest ever for some specific groups), they will see successes in international relations including return of enormous numbers of political prisoners, renegotiation of NAFTA in a way then benefits our country, and overall a more positive and hopeful situation than America has seen in years.

Yet all these successes for this country that at least some of us still hold dear are dismissed by the anti-Trump fervor of the Left.  And their actions post the mid-term elections show that they will do anything to stop anything Trump does, including many actions that are good for America and its people.

Are the Democrats really so distressed simply by the fact that they were beaten in 2016 by someone who was a bit rough around the edges and not an erudite phony as are many of them?  President Trump is a real person who sees the real needs of this country and its people.  He doesn’t play the identity politics games that the Left finds so endearing.  He doesn’t pretend to be perfect or to be everyone’s moral superior.  He simply (and sometimes awkwardly) tries to do what is best for this country.  But is that a reason to hate someone so?  To go beyond mere dislike of policy and try to actually and completely destroy a man?

There is something more, something terribly nefarious going on here.  The Left’s present agenda seems to simply be to destroy Trump, to thwart him at every turn by any means necessary.  Those means include attacking his every word, fomenting anger and violence against him, his staff and supporters, demeaning anyone who does not take their view, using false and misleading statements to attack and destroy his appointees, and, now, attacking the very core of our democracy – our vote. 

Yes, there seems to be a playbook for close elections:  when they seem to turn to the Republican, have the Democrat candidate refuse to concede, claim every vote counts, then suddenly produce some previously unseen absentee or other ballots that amazingly go overwhelmingly for the Democrat.  (See for example New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and perhaps others as well).  This scenario may be in part due to incompetence, but the pattern seems more than a coincidence and the use of all the big-gun lawyers of the Left to further the legitimacy of questionable ballots supports the argument that the Left, when it says “count every vote” wants more than just legitimate votes counted.   These attacks on our vote are far worse than any dirty campaign trick, yes, worse than Watergate or other spying attempts, worse than making up lies about your opponent.  This is our vote and it must be honest or we will no longer have a democracy. 

So what is it that the Democrats want?  What drives them into such a frenzy of anger and hatred that they are willing to destroy the very essence of our country?  Is it simply power or is it more?  I suggest that it is a wish for the power to destroy what this country has been for over 200 years, a wish for the power to entirely remake this country into something else.   Whether that something else is a socialist state, or a country without borders (which by very definition is no country at all), or simply some unknown, I suggest that the ultimate result will not be pleasant for the majority of the people.

What do these Democrats who are so filled with hatred envision?  These are the people who are totally incapable of tolerance for views that do not match their own.  These are the people who scorn bible owners, gun owners, pot-luck participants, people of color who are conservative (don’t fit the identity label the Left has given them), women who are anti-abortion, people who want the laws enforced equally, including immigration laws, people who believe in the concept of innocence until proven guilty, indeed, anyone who does not hold and support the views of the Left.  Such intolerance is not America.

These are the Democrats who foment mobs to harass and intimidate until they get their way.  That is not America.  These are the people who excuse violence if it furthers their cause but condemn the most innocent slight if it is by someone who is not one of them.  These are the people who use false accusation to condemn a man as a rapist because he holds views they do not like, but who elect men against whom there is evidence of sexual assault or abuse when that man holds views like their own. This is hypocrisy, this is not fair, this is not America.

These are the Democrats who create identity groups, then pit them against one another not for the good of any group but only as a means to further the hatred that they believe will ultimately lead the Left to power.  If anyone thinks that they truly care about any of these people they are using then you are living in a fantasy world.  It is all about hate and that hate is all about a means of achieving power, power not for the people but for the benefit only of those who would ultimately hold it.   This, a country based on hate, is not America.

The Left is clever.   They have co-opted the media to serve as their propaganda machine.  They have co-opted social media to push their agenda while suppressing any opposition.  Like the best snake-oil salesman they make what they are selling sound like the cure for all that ails individuals, groups, and the country itself.  But in reality that snake oil is toxic.  And if we continue to imbibe then the sickness we now have will become terminal.  America as we know it will die.

Perhaps many who voted for the Left believed that with their election the hate that we see in this country would come to an end.  Wrong!  It is about to get much worse.  The Left is becoming bolder and bolder with their hatred.  The Democrat power structure is out to destroy.  Period.  That seems to be all they know how to do.  Destroy the President.  Destroy his supporters.  Destroy his dreams for a better America.  Destroy America itself. 

The only way to stop this is to stop listening to their propaganda.  To look at what is truly going on and not what they tell you and would have you believe is going on.    Close your ears to their siren songs and open your eyes to reality.  Think beyond today and see the tomorrow to which they would take us.  The Left has no intention of stopping the hate; it serves them too well.  Only we the people can stop the hate and it is well past time that we do so.

Some Short Notes on the Election

Here are some quick notes for those elected and for those interested in the elections and their aftermath:

1.  Democrats, stop being angry and get something done.  You have had 2 years to vent your anger over the 2016 election.  Now you have control of the House.  This is your opportunity to show us that you can do something besides hate.  I am concerned that already you have ramped up the name calling and hatred against Trump and his administration.  I realize that you don’t like his bluntness and sometimes unsophisticated words, and that, more importantly, you are still angry that he won the presidential election.  But, please, get over it.  Stop acting like angry children and start acting like adult legislators.   Many in this country look at what the President has accomplished for our economy and jobs and in our foreign relations.  They look at his actions rather than his personality and they either support him or believe in working with him and the Republicans to accomplish good things for the country.  Would that the Democrats and the Left would act like that.

2.  Please stop counting numbers of identity groups elected.  If I hear one more time how many women or Blacks or Native Americans or gays or (name any other identity group) that were elected I think I will scream.  Really, who cares? (Sadly, too many).  What I wish we could say is not that the (name your identity group) was elected, but that the best qualified was elected.  Let me make this clear:  simply being a (name your favorite identity group) does not make one qualified for a political job.  Voting based on identity groups just makes it easier for people who don’t want to think and easier for those who don’t want you to think to convince you to vote for their candidate.

3.  Those of you that made promises in order to get elected.  Show the people that you can keep them.  (That, by the way, is what our president has done)

4.  Those of you that won, remember that now you represent all the people within your district or state, not just those who supported you.  Do what is right for all of them, even if sometimes that is not what you personally want.  Don’t be afraid to work across the aisle and don’t think you must always simply regurgitate your Party’s line.  Remember, it is not about you; you are now a public servant and you represent the people.

5.  Those of you elected were elected to the greatest democracy in the world.  Please remember and respect that.  America is a Democratic Republic.  It is not a democracy of mob rule.  It is not socialist.  It is a country with borders and with a Constitution and rule of law that governs and protects us all.   You will be required to take an oath to support that.  Please take your oath seriously.

Sticks and Stones and Bones and Souls

There is an old children’s rhyme: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.“ This rhyme, it turns out, is a lie. The name calling such as that which the Left now engages in against those of different political persuasions cuts to the quick – to the soul. More accurate than the children’s rhyme is this from Ecclesiasticus 28:17-18: “The stroke of the whip makes marks in the flesh, but a stroke of the tongue breaks the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.”

Words can be lethal weapons that injure the spirit and crush the soul. Many on the left have learned how to weaponize words. Words can do damage far worse than a stick or a stone. Bruises heal, they are superficial, the hurt is short lived. Sharply weaponized words attack the very soul of an individual – the inner self that makes the person whom he or she is. It silences what could and probably should be a very vibrant part of whom they are.

Recently (the admittedly Right-wing source) Breitbart printed a list of 632 verified political acts against those not supporting Leftist agenda; many of these were acts of verbal harassment. (see article here) This list does not include the acts of name-calling and shaming that occur daily in simple attempts at conversation between people of differing political views. All are attempts to intimidate and silence.

I along with others I know, have personally been the recipient of nearly every epithet in the Democrat repertoire when daring to state a point of view contrary to theirs. Even though false, these epithets hurt deeply, in the way that it hurts when one is accused falsely of a crime and any attempt to prove innocence is impossible. When the attack has been especially vitriolic, I have afterwards felt a deep sadness, a sort of aloneness that reaches deep into my soul.

Are those who engage in these verbal assaults attempting to wound their perceived opponent’s soul? Maybe (this question of course assumes that they believe in such things as a soul). Do they know that this name calling is a weapon that they are using intending to cause hurt? Most probably. Is it intended to silence diverse views? Most definitely.

This weaponized name-calling is an adult version of the sticks and stones of childhood. When a child on the playground doesn’t know how to deal with something he doesn’t like or understand, he might throw a rock. These Democrat adults seem unable to handle views contrary to their own and so, instead of throwing a rock they throw an epithet. But, the intent is the same – to hurt and silence the one causing them confusion or discomfort; to make them go away.

It is bullying, and bullying is a result of intolerance. Intolerance of those who do not look, think, or behave as the bully would like. It is an attempt to have the victim either go away or change behavior. It results from ignorance and dislike of anything different. It is an attempt to silence that which one does not understand.

Verbal attacks do more than silence the words of opponents; do more than simply stop them from speaking their views. They create an intimidation that reaches one’s soul as they attempt to reform one’s very being into one that the Left find’s acceptable - a clone of their every view. That creates a separation of being as the victims understand that they are seen as some sort of evil worthy only of shaming and exclusion. This sort of intolerance is wrong. Whether it is addressed toward someone’s looks or race or sexual orientation or religious persuasion or political stance, it is bullying, plain and simple. And the wounds often remain, silencing one’s soul for a lifetime.

I suspect many on the Left would condemn words that may have effected the silencing of others in the past: hateful words flung at gays or Blacks or Jews or mentally disabled or anyone else who looks or behaves differently from some “norm” of the attacker. Yet how different is that from berating one with words like racist, supremacist, hater, inhumane (the list goes on and on) or banishing someone from one’s world simply because a person holds a different political view, a view that the Left is unwilling to tolerate or understand?

While they often accuse those on the Right of intolerance, the Left has a blanket intolerance for any and all who do not think like them. This is what those without tolerance seek: silence of those whom they choose not to tolerate. The Left’s use of bullying words is nothing more than evidence of their intolerance and unwillingness to listen to those with whom they disagree; their assaults are intended to shame or intimidate differing views into silence. They break the bones of the victims' souls.

The Left’s use of verbal assaults is cruel and heartless and by its very nature flies in the face of all they claim to stand for; it belies their claims of caring for humanity from all walks of life while proving their real objective of claiming uncontested and ultimate power for themselves.

Yes, sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but the Left's words of intolerance break the soul – the soul of the victim, of free and open discussion, and of America itself.

Expressing and Being Open to Diverse Viewpoints Are Essential for Democracy

“When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen”

                -Ernest Hemingway

Silencing, dehumanizing, and erasing of opposing views are at odds with the tolerance necessary for a free and democratic society.   While many assert that we have to “listen to one another,” it becomes harder and harder to believe that is what they really want.  I am more and more of the belief that the Left’s goal is not just to silence those with more conservative or less socialist leanings than their own but to completely erase all differing views along with those who hold them.

In my experience, those on the Left, rather than listen and learn, often prefer to isolate, shame, and silence those with whom they disagree.  Their methods of doing so range from simple mean-spirited name calling to more aggressive forms of harassment and sometimes even to violence.  All, I believe, are intentionally hurtful.  But all also reveal an immaturity and a lack of self-control in the same way that a schoolyard bully throws a rock at someone who doesn’t do what he wants because he has not yet learned a better way to deal with his emotions and a more civil way to communicate.  He has not yet learned tolerance for differing viewpoints or that simply disagreeing is not an act of aggression to which one responds with an attack. 

Also like a schoolyard child who has not yet learned to probe below the depth of situations to understand more complex ideas, my experience is that many on the Left are either unwilling or incapable of having any sort of dialog that goes past the restatement of buzzwords, memes, and memorized phrases.  That is, the depth of thought needed for adult communication is not apparent.  

In an excellent opinion piece Nolan Finley of the Detroit News, calls out those on both sides of the political aisle. In part of the piece he states:

“Public shaming of [political] opponents is easier than engaging them in persuasive debate. Better to harass them in public, threaten their families, troll them on the Internet and violate their right to privacy than to prevail on the strength of earnestly expressed ideas.

Disagree with what someone is saying? Shout them down. Chase them from the podium. Go after their jobs.

The catch phrase answer to all of our problems is, "We need to have a national conversation."

But we are as far from a constructive dialog as a nation can be. Conversing requires listening. And we don't want to hear what the other side has to say.

Winning is all that matters, and we're so convinced we hold the keys to wisdom that we think it's OK to do so by any means necessary.” 

(See https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2018/10/28/finley-honest-we-hate-each-other/1773954002/).

In what seems to be a futile attempt to have conversations with those of differing, usually Leftist, opinions, I have many times been the recipient of such harassment, verbal assault, and public shaming.  I have written about some of those experiences in previous blogs.  Last week I faced two such incidents, One was in person, during a lunch, and I included that in a blog last week.  The other was an incident in which I was unfriended on Facebook for a fairly innocuous comment responding to a meme attacking Trump.  To summarize briefly: before the serial bomber was arrested, a then Facebook friend posted, in a series of quite hateful and ad hominem attacks on Trump and his supporters, a meme that asserted that asking Trump to go after and arrest the bomber was like asking OJ to go after his wife’s killer.  Later that day, after the arrest was made and Trump had spoken and denounced him and his acts, I posted a comment to the meme which said “But he did, didn’t he – caught him, condemned him, condemned the acts.  Now if only the Democrats would condemn the Democrat who shot and almost killed Scalise, the Democrats who assault Trump supporters for wearing Trump hats/shirts, the Democrats who call for assaults and harassment of Trump supporters and the Democrats who answer that call.”  Without further comment, and without any notice or communication with me, I was unfriended - erased from this person’s world.

Now, while I admit my comment may have been a bit snarky, it was nothing like the hateful speech regularly appearing on this person’s page attacking conservatives.  It was, however, the only comment that expressed any disagreement with the Leftist views on this person’s page.  But, this is simply one more piece of evidence in my growing exhibit folder (and shrinking “friend” folder) that many on the Left cannot deal with anyone who does not parrot their own positions.  There is no room for conversation in their world.  There is no desire to listen to other views.  Rather, many on the Left would simply erase all who do not think like them. 

The Left’s response to anything or anyone that challenges their viewpoint is to shame and silence.  I have previously discussed how this is a brainwashing tactic (See Blog dated 8/19/18, https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/08/a-suggestion-of-mind-reform-are-you.html ).   They even want to silence the President, to turn him into someone closer to the sort of politician that, if not one of them, they can at least control to some extent with traditional political games.  Anything he says which they do not like they claim is adding to the problem of violence in this country.  The unspoken demand is that he simply stop speaking – be silenced.  Meanwhile, they have no problem with their own leaders and their supporters encouraging and specifically directing people to harass and silence those with whom they disagree.  The hypocrisy is truly deafening.   

In this environment it becomes harder and harder for someone to reach out to those with differing positions to try to have a conversation, to try to listen and learn about differing views.  Many on the Left seem unable to deal with differing views.  Simply stating one’s position or asking a fair and legitimate question is often perceived as some sort of attack.   It is far easier to just label those views and those who hold them as one or another form of deplorable.  In the true form of identity politics so favored by the Left, that allows the dehumanization of those holding other viewpoints; and, when dehumanized, one needs no longer be tolerated or understood and harassment or worse of that dehumanized identity group becomes perfectly acceptable and often even viewed as necessary (not unlike the sorts of dehumanization that has led to various forms of “public cleansings” in the past and that is often the justification in one’s mind for hate crimes).

Sadly, fewer and fewer of those whom I once called friends are a part of my life today, simply because they will have nothing to do with one who does not walk in lock step with their views.  I can count on one hand people who hold distinctly diverse political views from mine who still interact with me as a true friend, and, our means of doing so in most cases is not to share and discuss and learn from our diverse political ideas, but to have an unspoken agreement to simply not discuss them.  Yet, without dialog and discussion with those who are not just mirrors of ourselves, we cannot grow as individuals or solve problems that face our community and our world.

It would be easy to retreat to a bubble where I would only interact with those who think just like me.  Sadly, that is what many people do.  I will not do that.  For that only furthers the division of our country into differing identity groups – tribes at war with one another.  Instead, I choose not to be dehumanized by those who would place me into one or another identity group.   I will not be silenced. I will not be erased.  I believe that I, like every other individual in this country, have a right to express my point of view.  I also believe that I have a responsibility to listen to the views of others.  That is a basic premise of our democracy, a premise with which the dehumanizing of opposing views is in direct conflict.

In America, we aim to tolerate and respect one another.  That includes one another’s differing political views.  We listen and we argue and in so doing we learn and we grow and we and our country move forward.  Expressing one’s views is not an act of aggression, it is not something for which one should be attacked, shamed, or silenced.  The unstated premise of those who would do so is that they prefer something other than the democratic republic that has served us well for the past 242 years. 

The Deeper Meaning of the Blame Game

The Tree of Life massacre was the act of a person filled with hate.   He alone is responsible for his horrendous acts.  Similarly, the person who sent the bomb threats did so due to whatever was going on in his own twisted mind. 

No one representing the Left or the Right condones these horrific acts.  But some choose to turn their focus from the acts and the individual perpetrators; rather than mourn the dead and injured, they look for ways to turn tragedy into political gain, often by placing responsibility not on the perpetrator, but on their own political enemies.

To attempt to blame someone else (as the Left is blaming Trump) is to deny that people have control over their own behavior – that they have individual responsibility.  Yet, that is exactly what much of the Democrat policies do – take away both the rights and responsibilities of the individual, implying that the individual is dependent on some Other for his or her behavior.  So, no wonder they immediately find someone else (in this case their nemesis Trump) to blame rather than the actual individual who conceived and carried out these heinous acts.

There is harsh political rhetoric on both sides.  This is not new; it has existed as long as our Country, though the actual language used may change with the times (and in our current times harsh, obscene, offensive language abounds in every venue, not just politics; such language has been with us long before the 2016 election cycle).  Similarly, an irrational hatred by some against Jews is nothing new.   Today, in our media glutted world, we are all bombarded with words of all sorts.  We all grasp onto some of these words to encourage and support our own behavior.  But the words are there for everyone; it is the individual who choses what to listen to and how to incorporate that into his or her own behavior.  That is, we each are responsible for our own acts; to think otherwise is to deny the individual.

The acts of violence should be condemned, and the individuals perpetrating them should be condemned.  Not just those that make the news, but the lesser acts of political violence that occur daily.  When someone seizes the hat of someone and destroys it just because it endorsed a political rival, the acts of that person should be condemned, not cheered or excused.  Yet, sadly, we hear Democrat leaders condoning, encouraging, and excusing acts of harassment and violence against Republicans.  This is very different from the heated political rhetoric that will always be part of a democracy in which opposing political parties are able to seek election.

I am saddened that rather than mourn the dead and condemn the killer, Democrats have chosen to weaponize the Tree of Life massacre as just another piece of their arsenal against the President and his supporters.  Yet, what else might we expect from those who deny the power of the individual and believe that the state has the power to control all.

Battle of the Bands

So much is going on in politics these days, so you may wonder why I have not written – about the upcoming election, the Democrat mobs and Republican jobs, immigration, Khashoggi, and the wealth of other issues currently in the news.  It is not that I am no longer interested.   I am what some might call a political junkie or obsessed with politics, but mainly I follow these and other stories with a passion because they have a significant effect on the country that I know and love.

So, why haven’t I written?  Well, actually I have.  You can scroll through the last couple of years and find blogs on immigration, MeToo, abortion, various political races, the courts, socialism, lack of civility, lack of communication, education, the constitution, the economy, jobs, Democrats, Republicans, the Left, etc., etc.  So, I have written and what good has it done other than to allow me to vent my opinions?  Those who agree may think I have articulated their thoughts well, but they have those opinions already. 

Those who hold other views likely do not read these blogs, or, if they do, likely dismiss them as the ravings of a crazy deplorable.  Why do I say that – because that is the reaction from the Left whenever it is revealed that I do not hold their viewpoint.  Revealing one’s “deplorable” status to a “friend” who holds Leftist views is a good way to lose that friendship (but, then, was it really ever a friendship if it ended when it was no longer an echo chamber for the supposed friend’s views?).

And the issues persist; the blogs from past days/years could just as easily be written today.

What we need is not more blogs or blog posts; what we need is actual interactive conversation between individuals who are willing to listen to one another, use their minds, think, ask questions, and not pre-judge based on memorized memes or otherwise simplistic characterizations of complex issues.  Written conversation is very different.  One can imagine blogs by different authors as various voices in a conversation, but those voices are not interactive in the way that an in-person conversation can be.  Rather, they are more like speeches directed outward, with no openness for hearing other views and no ability to question and alter positions in light of new information or other views that might prompt a second look at one’s own thinking.

So, we have blog or opinion piece upon opinion piece, like a battle of the bands, each shouting its own sound from its own little space.  But, sadly, even in person conversations these days are more like that battle than an actual interaction and thoughtful exchange of ideas.  I have previously written blogs about such conversations.  I had yet another today, this one about immigration. 

When my lunchmate in an otherwise to that point pleasant, non-political, and non-controversial conversation suddenly said she believed we should just let all 7000 migrants coming our way into our country without question, I said I disagreed.  I was immediately called a racist.  I suggested that I simply believed in immigration laws while she believed in open borders and that those were two distinct viewpoints but that holding a view against open borders did not necessarily make one racist.  That comment prompted her to call me inhumane and ignorant; I was told that I did not understand that people want to come here because it is better than their country.  I agreed America was a better country than many and asked if, since America is better than most countries, would she let everyone in?  If not stopping at 7000 would she stop at 20,000?  100,000? Where would she draw the line, if ever?  And if never, what would she do when this country reached a population that meant it simply could no longer be the country it is today?  She did not answer these questions, nor did she want to know why I held my position.  She was not interested in discussing the pros and cons of open borders vs. those with laws limiting immigration.  Instead, she told me I was crazy, an idiot, stupid, uneducated (no matter my graduate education), and other names I will not here repeat.  That was the end of the discussion, the lunch, and most probably our friendship.  It was not a conversation.

If people are inclined to just yell epithets at those who hold different views (in the above case, the preferred epithet for those not in favor of open borders was racist, followed by the more general epithets of various forms of stupidity), then there can be no conversation, no understanding of differing views, and no road to compromise and resolution of difficult issues.

So, the question then is what does one do when one is opinionated on certain issues and wants to have a discussion with others who may or may not hold the same views in order to better understand the many different ways that always exist to look at complex questions?  A battle of the bands may be a fun diversion on a warm summer night, but using that model for what should be difficult but productive conversations is not a way to encourage the tolerance and understanding necessary for a free democracy.

So, as this blog evidences, I will continue to write.  I will put my opinions out there and maybe they will prompt someone to think more deeply about why they hold a similar view or someone else to understand why someone would hold a view that is different from theirs.  Perhaps they can be a model that deeper thought than simply repeating party lines or memes is necessary to understand and solve the complex issues with which our country and our world are faced today.  I can always hope.