Three Approaches that Make America

Since we seem unable in today’s world to carry on non-partisan political discussions about important policies and societal concerns, perhaps it is time for a new way of looking at things and at our fellow human beings.  Perhaps the following is a way to do this, or to at least assist us all in understanding our society and those who view it somewhat differently than do we.

While the animosity and disruption in our society today is most frequently identified as Red vs. Blue politics, I think that conflict is simply the way something else is manifesting itself.  I think that we are actually seeing a struggle between three different approaches to existence that are all struggling to find their way in the rapidly changing world of today. 

These three approaches are:

1. The Progressives who are for social change.
2. The Conventionals who are for the established institutions.
3. The Populists who are for the people.

The three approaches are actually all interrelated, and we all use all three approaches from time to time, but we generally lean more heavily toward one approach.    These leanings are resulting in support for or opposition to particular political policies and approaches as each approach struggles to become dominant. 

Approach	Progressive	Conventional	Populist
Primary Concern	For Social Change	For Established Institutions	For the People
Role	Starters of Action	Holders of Status Quo	Concluders and Transitioners
Political approaches	·        Socialist ·        Big government ·        Little individual freedom	·        Conservative ·        Democratic republic ·        Restricted freedom	·        Pure democracy ·        Minimal government ·        Individual freedom with minimal restriction
Role	Starter/Instigator/ Visionary/Disrupter	Stabilizer/Inflexible/ Defender/ Institutionalist	Enforcer/Fluid/ Finalizer /Majority
Today primarily	Progressive Left	Traditional moderate Republicans and Democrats	MAGA Republicans
Interactions	Need Populist support to enact social change; if change is effected, need Conventional support to defend and stabilize it.	Will fully embody Progressive vision once convinced to support it and/or once it becomes established.  Slows impulsiveness of Progressives and Populists	Mutability creates vulnerability to new Inspirations. Effectuate/complete a vision and lead transition to new change.

The Progressives

These are the starters, the visionaries.  They have an idea, and they want to see it implemented.  They believe their vision is a good one, though others may disagree with that assessment.  Their goal is to generally upend what currently exists and replace it with what they view as something better, whether that is for society/the world at large or simply in regard to a particular problem.

These are the socialists who seek a bigger government to support and control the societal changes which they advocate.    Socialism, according to Marx, is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.  

But these can also be the Progressive Republicans who would similarly dismantle some of our longstanding institutions in favor of Populist dreams; their method is not socialism but pure democracy which in essence is simply mob rule.   Mob rule, whether in conjunction with or in opposition to a Progressive vision, can upend existing conventions in the hopes of replacing them with something better.

The vision of the Progressives is fragile.  That is, the goal is to demolish what exists and then build anew.  This is not something that people easily jump on board with.  The vision of the Progressives needs the Populists to lend support.  Only with that support will they be able to alter the fixed society of the Conventionals.   Once the Populists take control and convince the Conventionals to support their cause, society will shift as necessary to make the institutional position conform so that the vision of the Progressives can be realized.

The Conventionals

These are the conservatives, not necessarily in the common political connotation, but in the sense that they are reluctant to change.  Rather than jump to support current popular trends or policies, they will instead support longstanding institutions that are a part of the current societal status quo.

This gives stability to a society, but it also encourages a slower evolution as the Conventionals will need both time and strong evidence supporting any need to change that upon which their society is based.  Once a particular society is established with its culture and its underlying institutions, this group will fully embody and defend it.

The problem that the Conventionals face is that once the Populists become the majority, they will either prevail by simple mob rule or, if their populist view conforms with the vison of the Progressives the two will become an almost invincible force.

Today these are the establishment Republicans as well as the traditional moderate or “lunch bucket” Democrats.  While these groups find much to be lacking in our current government, they are more likely to blame the individuals rather than the underlying institutions.  These are often today’s Independents or those who feel that their party, be it Republican or Democrat, has abandoned them.

The Populists

These are the people who believe fully in the individual and oppose large government and/or extensive regulation of behavior.  Populism by its own definition involves a large group of the populace who, by their mere size, are able to sway society.

The Populists are not the visionaries, but they will adopt a vision and bring it to the fore, in essence concluding the work of the Progressives.  As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the Progressives who need the support of the masses.   If their vision is adopted by society at large, it will be the Conventionals who will end up supporting the altered institutions.  The mutable Populists will be ever ready to adopt a new vision and, as such, while they may aid in bringing about changes, they will also be the group that will end one vision and help bring about the transition to yet another new society.

Currently, the Populists most frequently identify as MAGA Republicans, yet in many ways the rank-and-file Democrats are working as Populists as their majority supports the various identity groups and causes that the Progressive Left uses to further its Progressive goals for societal change.  Yet, in another way neither group is truly Populist because each supports only a popular majority of one political group.

Interactions

These three approaches and their interaction manifest on all levels from individual to global issues.  While having leanings towards all three, we will primarily exhibit one approach on any given issue. Believing that our approach is the only one is what causes much friction in today’s world. 

Moreover, we may exhibit one approach on one issue while having a different approach on another.  For example, on the environment one might be a Progressive, but on taxation and governmental spending one might be a Conventional or a Populist.

Identifying as any one of these three types of actors is not permanent.  Once a Progressive’s vision becomes the established reality, that individual may then become a Conventional who supports that reality or perhaps will join a new Populist cause that will lead to a transition away from that vision’s reality to begin the establishment of a new vision.

This is where I think we get into trouble.  If one holds a Progressive or Conventional or Populist position on one issue, the tendency is to assume that they hold the same type of approach on all issues and that such an approach is a permanent personality characteristic.  That assumption makes it hard to find common ground on anything.

The strength of the Conventionals

I think that America needs all three types, but it is the Conventionals upon whom we must count to preserve the Democratic Republic form of government that makes America what it is.

America is an ever-evolving country.  Generally its evolution has been slow but positive.  We need the visions of Progressives to push us forward.  But, in the face of those exciting visions, we need the Conventionals to slow us down, make us think and carefully put one foot in front of the other with deliberation as we move forward.  It is the Conventionals who will ensure that we make positive changes without totally upending those institutions that allow us to have visions and to make changes in the first place.

Populism is also exciting.  But as a form of pure democracy, the bottom line is that it is really mob rule.  Again, it is the institutions of our Democratic Republic that have protected the minority from the negatives of a mob rule where the majority gets its way regardless of what that may mean to our institutions or the individuals whom those institutions protect.

We need all three, but sadly today the Conventionals are being lost, crushed by the visions and popular support coming from both sides of the aisle.  The Progressive Left and its Populist supporters would deny and destroy our Constitution along with many of our laws in order to create their Socialist utopia. The Populist Right, in the name of individual rights and popular rule would disband many of our governmental institutions and agencies that, while perhaps currently bloated or mismanaged, are key parts of the Democratic Republic and the America that these Populists claim to hold dear.

If we could only talk with one another, we might find that there are pieces of the Progressive Left agenda that are worth considering while at the same time the voice of the Populist Right needs to be listened to.  And we need the Conventionals to sustain the scaffolding that will hold all this together as America continues to evolve while remaining the America that is the shining star of democracy for the world.

 

Transformation, Reality, and Dreams.

Joe Biden tweeted Sunday that if he gets elected, his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it,”

Seems like I’ve heard this nebulous sort of promise before.  Candidate Obama promised us “hope and change.”  The problem with such a chameleon-like phrase is that it leaves each of us to decide for ourselves what it means. 

Obama’s “hope and change” slogan sounded great.  Was it?  For some perhaps.  For others it meant the rise of identity politics that create more and more discord in our country.  To some it meant continuing to be left jobless and hopeless in the inner cities of America.  For some it meant the rise of the deep state and the ability to weaponize our federal agencies against political opponents.

And who was a part of that “hope and change” administration?  The man who now claims he will transform our country.  The man who spent his life as a political leader apparently making a country that he now suddenly decides must be “transformed.”

Transform it to what?  He says he will not just rebuild.  To rebuild presumes that something was unbuilt that needs to be rebuilt.  In this instance it means that he is with those protestors, progressives, and socialists who would unbuild – destroy – America as we know it so that it can then be rebuilt.  And, in the words of Joe (or his handlers), not just rebuilt, but transformed.  So, it will not be America as we know it.

What will it be?  A dictatorship commanded by those elites or intelligentsia who think they know better than we do what is good for us?  A socialist state which begins with a Utopian sort of dream where everyone will be happy but quickly devolves into horror for all but those in power who, by the way, are rarely the ones who were used to bring the destruction of the old regime about. 

Is this the transformation we are to look forward to with a Biden presidency?  Will he tell us?  Or will he, like Candidate Obama, use some words that have the potential of conjuring up positive visions in the mind of the hearer but which may not be the actual intent of those words at all?

Wake up.  Everyone who fell for the unsubstantiated and dreamlike promise of the Obama-Biden candidacy should see the truth underlying Biden’s campaign promise of “transformation.”  Repeat the words:  fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Do not vote for the unstated destruction, then the rebuilding with transformation unless and until you are absolutely sure what those words mean.  Demand specifics.  What will be destroyed?  What will be rebuilt?  What will be transformed?  And how?

Do not assume you know what those words mean.  And do not assume that even if they do mean what you want them to that the promise is possible:  consider what must be given up to make it possible.  For example, let’s say you believe that transformation means a perfect world in which we all are happy and healthy and have all that we need and want.  The socialist or Utopian dream.  But what would you give up to have that dream?

In Episode 24 of the original Star Trek’s first season, the crew of the Enterprise end up on a planet where everything is perfect – health, happiness, love abound – it seems a true Utopia.  Seems, but is not.  Captain Kirk realizes that things are not as they seem, the crew is under the spell of some strange spores, and that strong emotions will counteract the effect of the spores.  Once everyone is freed from the spores and have left the planet, the following conversation ensues:

Dr. McCoy: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.

Captain Kirk: No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

In many ways this exemplifies the American spirit, something which needs America in its present (though always improving) form.  The American spirit is not a pretty Utopian creature.  It is the spirit of someone who is not dealt a perfect hand, who has missteps and misfortunes and is sometimes stepped upon, but gets up and moves forward. It is the spirit of someone who dreams beyond what is, who fights and struggles to make things better, always moving up, always improving, never perfect.   It is the spirit of someone who believes that he can, of someone who works hard for what he wants and needs and takes individual responsibility for his successes and his failures.  It is the spirit of someone who is real in a real world, someone who is not content to live statically strolling to the lute.

I can easily equate the spores in this Star Trek episode with the unrealistic dreams purveyed by those who would turn this country to socialism.  Socialism is nothing more than a dream of a perfect world.   Sometimes it is presented with specific images, sometimes with ambiguous words like “hope and change” or “transformation” that suggest your own dreams.  But those dreams are not real.  They are sold by those whose own dreams, not yours, are the goal.

These dreams require that one must give up the American spirit that allows one to be their own individual.  That Utopian dream has only the “music of the lute.”  It denies to us the other passions and emotions that make us human.  It requires us to suppress all that makes us each the individual that we are and instead bow to the behavior, thought, speech, and very being that the Utopian leaders, the spores, mandate.  No drums, just the lute – their lute.  No real emotion, just that which is approved.

Utopia is not freedom.  It is a cage.  And to achieve the socialist dream, to “transform” our current America to something different, relinquishment of individual control is necessary.  The leader of the Utopia will decide what thoughts, words, and, behavior is allowed.  There will be no dissent.  No contrary emotions allowed. 

And, be very clear, the class or identity group that is used to fight for socialism will not be the ruling class of the socialist state.  The workers may have been used by Lenin to destroy the old order and bring his Marxist socialism to power, but the new state was then "rebuilt" from the top down; the workers were not the ones who ruled its brutal Communist state for 75 years.  The workers in Venezuela similarly bought a Utopian dream, but that dream become a nightmare for them once their usefulness to those in power ended.  And, after Obama’s election, the voters who had bought his promise of “hope and change” and given him victory, languished in the same inner cities of crime, unemployment and hopelessness.

The American spirit is sometimes rough and hard and not pretty.  Its music is seldom that of the lute, but more often loud and sometimes discordant.  But it is also full of energy and hope and, perhaps more importantly, it is never static but always growing.   Think hard about whether that is really something that you want to destroy (unbuild), rebuild, and then transform.

We are not just pretty lute players.  We are also drummers and dancers and shouters and singers and inventors.  We don’t all have one idea, but we create new ideas and inspire new and diverse thoughts with our ability to speak and think and behave as the individuals that we are.

The current demonstrations are of course a product of this freedom.  And if they were simply about creating an even better place in which the American spirit can thrive, I would likely support them.  But, they are not; they are about destroying and then rebuilding America into something else, something that it is not.

And I am offended that a presidential candidate would use the already fomented discontent to essentially further urge a destruction of America to be replaced with some sort of unattainable Utopian dream.  A dream that by necessity must destroy the American spirit because individual thought does not work when your goal is to make everyone move in unison to the sound of your lute.  Perfection does not allow for dissent because any dissent is seen as an imperfection.

I am delighted to accept an imperfect world if it means I can be who I am, think what I think, experience all my emotions, and walk in unity with people who are not all like me but are each and everyone their own unique and diverse being.  I do not want that world “transformed.” 

The imperfect democratic republic in which we live is the best place for our full humanity to thrive.  The American spirit and the America in which it lives can and will always find ways to improve itself.  And anyone who believes that it should be destroyed and “transformed” either does not understand who and what this country and its people are or is willing to sacrifice them to achieve their own (not America’s) dream.  Like the crew of Star Trek, we need to banish the effect of the false dream and walk away, “on our own” from Biden and the Left’s “transformation.”

Identity Politics and Victimhood vs. Liberation and Sovereignty

Black Lives Matter leader and Greater NY BLM Chapter President Hawk Newsome stated, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” (Video Interview on The Story, June 24, 2020).  And what is it that Mr. Newsome and his BLM want?  At the end of the interview he stated, “I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Let’s think about that.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free.  I think that was celebrated just a few days ago on Juneteenth, the celebration also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.  Juneteenth celebrates and commemorates African American freedom.

So, to what liberation does he refer?  Perhaps he has liberation confused with some idyllic Utopia where everyone has everything they want, perhaps even without having to work for it, where no one is biased, where everyone has everything that everyone else has, where no one ever has to compete for and sometimes not get the job, or house, or friends, or family, or whatever else that he wants.  Perhaps he refers to that Utopia that we all know can never really exist.

We will come back to these thoughts in a moment, but first let’s look at the definition of his other key word:  sovereignty.  Usually used in referring to a state, country, or similar entity, the word sovereignty means supreme power or authority; the right to be self-governing.  No, the identity group Black is not a self-governing state and if he seeks it to become so then that idea is quite radical and will indeed require burning down our system as well as our country. 

But, perhaps by sovereignty he intends to mean the right of Black individuals to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions and chart their own individual courses in life.   That of course requires choices and decisions and in the real world everyone makes some very good decisions but also some very bad ones.  In either case, when an individual governs oneself that individual must be prepared to take the consequences, both good and bad, of those decisions.

And, if that is the sovereignty to which Newsome refers, then Black individuals received that sovereignty along with their emancipation.  If that is BLM’s demand, then BLM already has what it wants.  So, let’s explore why they feel so oppressed that they must protest and riot for “liberation and sovereignty.”

The key here is identity politics.  It does its best to deny Black individuals the freedom to be individuals.  That is its point and how it serves as a tool for those who seek power via division and, in classic socialist tradition, pitting one group against another.  As the Left has fueled the flames of identity politics for the last many years, Blacks have been pushed and cajoled to see themselves not as individuals but as members of a victim group. 

With Blacks as the oppressed, and Whites or the System as the oppressor, the oppressed Blacks are urged to blame the oppressing Whites for everything within their lives that is less than the Utopia of perfection that we all dream of.  Anything less than perfection is not the fault of the oppressed, but of their oppressors.  The Utopian dream would be possible if the oppressed were liberated from their oppressors.  This is the fairy tale of identity politics.

“Systemic Racism” is nothing more than a false narrative that is used to solidify victimhood of all who are deemed members of that identity group known as Black.  It is a byproduct of identity politics – a means of dividing us to further a progressive quest for power.  To proclaim that some sort of systemic racism is the force that keeps Blacks from being liberated and sovereign is simply another way of claiming, underscoring, and maintaining victim status for an identity group.  

Identity politics, not plantation owners, is what now keeps Blacks enslaved.  Group victimhood diminishes self-worth and destroys individuality; with that comes a lack of motivation and a dependence on those who have convinced these “victims” that they cannot live without the assistance of their victim-makers. 

If liberation is necessary, it is not from the “system”, not from “institutionalized racism” but from politicians who push a victim narrative promising to save those victims, while at the same time turn those “victims” into an underclass of dependent voters who will keep their victim-makers in power. 

Yet no one forces Blacks to be identified by a group narrative.  They, like any other individual in this country, have the freedom to create their own narrative, one in which they are free to see themselves not as victims but as individuals who can take responsibility for their own lives and in so doing enjoy the fruits thereof.  They can do this without envy of or hate for or dependence on some other group.  But this requires accepting the fact that the life they create will in all likelihood not be perfect – there is no Utopia.

Truly accepting one’s own liberation and personal sovereignty requires no small amount of courage.  It is easy to sit back, take no risks, and let others create things that you would like, whether that is a physical creation or the fruits of one’s labor, or a state of mind.  It is easy to accept the narrative that you can do no more than be dependent on others for your well-being.  And, when your life is not what you would choose, it is easy to be prompted into a mindset of victimhood. To break free of that mindset takes courage and independence.

This is not to imply that no people have biases or do not act in a way that is or can be perceived as racist.  That, however, does not prove systemic or institutional bias.  There are hundreds if not thousands of anecdotes about a Black person being somehow slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is due to racism, sometimes it is not.  There are just as many anecdotes of non-Black and indeed White people being slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is because of their color, sometimes it is not.  Some people will choose to see these as the individual occurrences they are; others will choose to see everything through the glasses of racism.

George Floyd’s murder was horrendous.  But what proof do we have that it was racially motivated, that it occurred because he was Black?  How do we know that his accused murderer was not just a cop who was drunk on his own power?  He had, with police union help, been allowed at least 17 prior times to abuse his power; those abuses were not labeled racist.  Perhaps this was just a bad man who felt like killing that day; do we have any proof that the blackness of Floyd’s skin was the reason?  And if we do, how does this horrible murder in any way prove the existence of systemic racism?

Far more realistic than systemic racism is the existence of identity politics and its use by the Left to turn Blacks and others into a dependent sub-class.  Repeated assertions that some specter known as “systemic racism” is to blame are useful to solidify the identity group and hence keep them as a class dependent on those who proclaim with both words and actions that only with their help can the group break free of its dependent status.  Yet, such promises and their accompanying handouts do nothing more than to keep that class dependent. 

It is this political and progressive if not socialist game that threatens the liberty and sovereignty of every individual who accepts as their own the uni-dimensional identity of a group.   The “victims” are nothing more than pawns in that power game.  Their only use to the victim-makers is the color of their skin; their human individuality has no merit and is of little concern to those who are using them as pawns

The system has already worked to grant to those who choose to take it the freedom and the sovereignty Mr. Newsome and BLM demand.  It is identity politics and its accompanying demeaning of the individual that are the threat.  This key tool of the socialist warrior is being wielded well by the Progressive Left who would indeed tear down the system – the very system that has already given BLM what they seek.

So, I would encourage Mr. Newsome and BLM to reevaluate things.  If liberation and sovereignty are what you want, then I suggest that you already have it.  Victimhood and its oppression are just one of many choices available to you.  Do not take the coward’s way forward, blaming others for the imperfections in your lives and life in general.  Within you is what you need -  the courage that it takes to stand up and be responsible for your own lives, to throw off the dependent victimhood identity and choose instead your own individual, multi-dimensional,  and independent narrative.

Let’s Just Grow Up

When I was six and in first grade my older brother would teach me about what he was learning in school.  Often his Jr. High learning went well beyond my first-grade curriculum; nonetheless, I loved learning about the many different things that he knew. 

I can remember when my big brother taught me about our First Amendment freedoms.  I was fascinated by this aspect of our democracy.  I grasped only a very basic idea of the complex concepts that my brother tried to explain but I couldn’t wait to tell my best friend about them.  The next morning I ran onto the playground, found my friend, and told her that we lived in a free society and we could do and say and think what we wanted.  She looked at me like I was a bit nuts, and said, “That’s not true.  I had to pay for my Popsicle yesterday.  It wasn’t free, so we don’t live in a free society.”

That’s pretty good logic for a 6-year-old.  But I knew she was wrong, that living in a free society was somehow still true, despite the cost of Popsicles.  I just couldn’t express why.  I didn’t have the understanding that my brother did, so all I could do was just repeat the “sound bite” from his lecture that had stuck with me: “Yes we do live in a free society.”  I didn’t have the depth of knowledge or related education and learning sufficient to explain what that meant.  So, after a few repetitions of “yes we do” and “no we don’t” our dialogue ended.

We never discussed this again, and we remained friends, but I think that interchange to some extent changed the relationship between us.  I thought she was stupid because she didn’t understand me, and she thought I was an idiot for claiming our society was free when it clearly wasn’t. 

This immature reaction is normal for a pair of 6-year-olds faced with a discussion about something beyond what they at that point are educated to understand.  It is not appropriate for mature adults. Yet, sadly, this is the sort of reaction we are likely to encounter when presenting a political opinion to someone holding a differing view. 

Had we 6-year-olds had a deeper comprehension of what we were addressing, a better understanding of the word “freedom” in the context of our democracy, we likely could have engaged in an actual discussion of the questions raised by each other’s assertion.  We could have both listened and explained to one another.   We would have been able to, without name calling, understand each other’s viewpoints and the issues raised.  Differences, rather than resulting in insurmountable obstacles and irreconcilable name calling would have produced a constructive sharing of information and working together to resolve differences.

That is what mature people do.  Immature people, people who are making statements about things that they don’t understand, act like 6-year-olds.  Because they often are simply parroting someone else’s rhetoric without any real understanding of the complexities of the issue or viewpoint, they do not have the ability to grasp and understand a differing point of view.  They have simply adopted a point of view (or sound bite) superficially, and when that view is not agreed with or is challenged, they think there is something wrong with the one challenging it, and often see it as a personal attack and then respond with either attack or complete dismissal of the challenger. There is no tolerance.

This is not only unproductive; it is dangerous.  When people are willing to accept assertions without their own investigation or critical thinking, without even attempting to hear, let alone understand another viewpoint, there can be no resolution of differences.  Instead, the “conversation” will be some form of my 6-year-old “yes it is; no it isn’t.”

It is only when one really understands the viewpoint that they are professing that they can openly listen to other view points and critically assess those views against their own, understanding the position of the person holding the alternate view point and honing in on where there are places for agreement as well as disagreement.  Only by exploring one another’s viewpoints and rationale behind them can those who seem to disagree come to any sort of mutual understanding about issues raised by those viewpoints.

Similarly, only when one truly grasps the depths and nuances of what they are professing can they explain their position to another.  Until then, disagreements become attacks as mere soundbites are simply thrown back and forth.  Disagreements generate not learning, but name calling or even more violent responses as the 6-year-old type responses escalate into what might be akin to playground violence or rock-throwing.  These are typical responses when one does not have the education or maturity to deal with what one does not, or is not willing to, understand.

It is not unreasonable that two six-year-olds would not be able to have a conversation about different viewpoints when the underlying subject was more complex and profound than they were ready to handle.   But it is less reasonable to tolerate such inability from adults who consider themselves educated, informed, and mature. 

Our political discourse these days is like that of 6-year-olds.  People spout their party line.  If disagreed with they name-call the one who disagrees with what they see as an appropriate epithet:  bigot, racist, deplorable, etc.  I, personally, have been called most of the epithets in vogue by the Democrats simply for holding a position on one or another issue that is contrary to theirs.  I have yet to find a member of the Progressive or Socialist Left who is willing to sit down and have a rational and mature conversation about why we might favor different policies towards an issue that is of concern to us both. 

Had my family not moved, I suspect that at some point my friend and I would have studied the Constitution together in school, developed a better understanding about it and the principles of our democracy, and had another discussion.  I would like to believe that we would listen and learn from one another, rather than simply reacting with complete negativity to the one holding a different view.  I also believe that in this particular instance, once we defined what we meant by “freedom” in the context of our societal principles that we would find that we were not really standing in opposition, or even very far at all from one another.  And any differences we did have would not be insurmountable obstacles to our ability to work together to resolve any issues presented by our differing views.

Such conversations require tolerance.  Tolerance of viewpoints that differ from one’s own.  They also require a desire to reach a common goal – in my example conversation it would have been to understand freedom in the context of democracy, its meaning and its limitations.  Our goal might have been to resolve issues we saw within those parameters that would make are freedoms clearer and more secure.  We would need to understand one another’s viewpoints to do that.

When we have a Democrat party that is focused not on having a dialogue with their Republican counterparts to address and improve problems facing our country, but is instead singularly focused on removing President Donald J. Trump from office, it is impossible to have anything more than the equivalent of the 6-year-olds’ dialogue.  We see this playing out in the impeachment.  The Democrats have their narrative – facts be damned.  If you counter their narrative, if you oppose them in any way, Adam Schiff tells us “you will have your head on a pike.”  Said with the maturity of a 6-year-old.

If we want this country to survive, we must remember that its greatness requires tolerance, wisdom, and maturity.  There is not much of that going around these days.  It is time to grow up!

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.