My Offense at The Salvation Army’s “Wokeness” Is Personal

When my grandfather, an immigrant to America, died, the family received hordes of messages of grief from local neighbors and from foreign heads of state and everyone in between.  The expressions of sorrow on his passing were combined with proclamations of thanks and honor for his humanity and his philanthropy. 

In America my grandfather learned English, worked his way to receive degrees in chemistry and management, worked his way up to a position of Executive Vice President in a large corporation, and, most importantly to him, spent his life doing work on behalf of others including work with the Salvation Army. 

My grandfather was a lifelong Rotarian, serving Rotary both locally and internationally.   As President of Rotary International, he traveled around the world in the years shortly after WWII.  He spoke of the hope he had for world peace as the United Nations was formed. He was decorated by the governments of France and Lebanon.  He served Rotary throughout his life, but he also served his community.  

He was a member of the Board of Education for 25 years and was also briefly on the City Council.  He was President of the Detroit Tuberculosis Society, served on the city convention bureau, Director and Past President of the Convention and Tourist Bureau, was Director of the Inter-American Center and of the Civic Light Opera Association, member of the Area Council of Boy Scouts, Director of the Boys' Club and Director of the United Savings Bank.  He was a member of the city economic club and the Chamber of Commerce and the State Legislature Advisory Council.  He was an active member of his Methodist church, serving on the Board and as its President.  His hometown named a school after him.  

And my grandfather served as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army. In that capacity, he served his community, including helping in the establishment of a hospital and then group home for unwed mothers and their families. I can remember his care and concern for others.  Going to his house on occasion I would find someone there of different nationality and/or different color whom he was personally counseling and helping with some personal issue.  He didn’t brag about what he did, following the idea that the Army’s work is not glorified but rather approaches areas others never touch and “deals with broken minds and broken people to help them find themselves.  Little of what the Army does ever comes to light.”

The Salvation Army conferred upon my grandfather its Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service.  He once said “You always feel grateful to the people and the country that made such a thing [his success] possible.  So, when I can I like to pitch in and help make such things possible for others.”

My grandfather did not have a racist bone in his body.  Yet, if he were alive today the Salvation Army would label him as racist simply because of his color and his faith.

The Salvation Army has new materials titled “Let’s Talk About Race.”  LINK  

Its content essentially puts forth the most racist aspects of Critical Race Theory and other similar programs that would divide us by race and hold certain identity groups guilty for what the theory labels as evils of the past.  The document urges Whites to stop trying to be colorblind (that of course means interacting with one another based on the color of one’s skin rather than the content of their character – a complete reversal of the once lauded goal of Martin Luther King Jr.)

The goals of this new program of the Army include: “to “lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed.”   The resource claims Christianity is inherently racist and calls for white Christians to repent and offer “a sincere apology” to Blacks for being “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the Black community.” 

In an accompanying Study Guide on Racism, the Salvation Army proclaims Whites are racist. “The subtle nature of racism is such that people who are not consciously racist easily function with the privileges, empowerment and benefits of the dominant ethnicity, thus unintentionally perpetuating injustice.” 

My grandfather was not perfect, but he was not ever “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.”  He was not antagonistic to anyone, consciously or unconsciously.  Instead, he treated everyone equally and fairly for the individual that they were.  His humanitarian behavior was in large part formed by his Christianity.  That Christianity was not racist.  Yet today my grandfather would be asked to repent and apologize for his racism and hatred that in reality did not exist.

Because of my grandfather’s commitment to the goals and mission of Salvation Army, I have always donated, both monetarily and in other ways, to the Army.  Just last week I gave them a generous donation and we have a large donation of slightly used clothing and household items ready to go to them.

But those things will not go to the Salvation Army.  Nor will any future donations.  I might assume the Army doesn’t even want them from someone they see as an unrepentant racist.  Would they have turned down all my grandfather’s good works if he did not satisfy their demand for repentance and lament?

My grandfather said of himself that “analysis was his natural bent in his approach to every problem.” I think I inherited that love of analysis from him.  When I analyze what the Salvation Army is currently doing, I am at a complete loss.  Why would a good and humanitarian institution suddenly decide that they have the right to judge and condemn an entire race, not based on any actual evidence but simply on accepting the popular woke theories of racism? 

And how does this help the people whom the Salvation Army serves?  Go online and see how many people are stopping donations.  How is that going to help anyone, especially those who were once served by donations of time and money from the Whites whom the Army has now labeled as evil and in need of repentance?

The answer is that this new wokeness does not serve the mission of the Salvation Army or the people whom it traditionally has served.  It divides people rather than bringing them together.  It serves to feed the hate that is already rampant in our country.

I have no issue with self-examination – of one’s biases and one’s privileges.  But we all have biases of some sort and are privileged in one way or another.  Not all, indeed not even most, use their biases and privileges either consciously or unconsciously to antagonize and hurt others who are not like them.  That the Salvation Army thinks we do, at least if we are White, shows that the Army has lost its way along with its humility, tolerance, and love.

It hurts me deeply as I think of all the good my grandfather did in his work with the Army and his respect for that organization.  It hurts as I think of this man of peace who wanted to bring the world together, knowing that one of the organizations he so respected is now a part of the movement that tears us all apart.  It hurts me deeply to know that this is not some isolated happening, but it is the trend as wokeness takes over our culture.   

Contrary to the Salvation Army’s proclamation, the Christianity that I know, like the Christ upon which it is based, is not racist. I will pray that the racism and equity of wokeness will not survive and that we may soon return to a culture and a country that aspires to tolerance and equality. 

The Silence of the Sheep: A Tragedy

I keep wondering why there is so much silence from the previously vocal and seemingly politically interested folks.  You know, the people who loved to quote the Left’s mistruths about Trump and his supporters.  The folks who voted for niceness and unity. 

I realize that they have in essence been instructed to go silent if they disagree with Biden or the Left agenda.  I realize they may believe such silence is a form of unity (which in the Biden-Left world means silence of all differing views).  But really, how could they be so vocal about even the slightest piece of nothing if it involved Donald Trump and yet remain so silent on even the most outrageous words or actions of Joe Biden?

Not a peep when Biden makes the most sexist and demeaning remarks or when he makes clearly erroneous statements about important issues about which the facts are undeniably clear.  Little more than a tut-tut when we learn that Cuomo is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of seniors.  No notice when Biden’s AG nominee will not condemn the idea of having a head of the civil rights division who has blatantly declared that one racial group is superior to another, or  that he will distinguish as less important/not domestic terrorism recent attacks on government courthouses and other buildings if they happened at night.  Nary a flutter at the volume of racially motivated actions and appointments coming out of this White House. 

OK, maybe those were not big enough to notice.  How about the full out attack on women’s sports?  How about a Coronavirus package that will add significantly to the national debt, but has very little to do with Coronavirus but instead seems to bankroll extreme Leftist policies?  How about the on-going and ever more aggressive acts of cancel-culture?  How about an immigration “policy” that simply opens the doors without really any significant criteria, no consideration of criminal history or purpose for entering this county, not to mention a total disregard of possible Covid transmission – a consideration that at the same time is denying our children a real education and destroying small businesses everyday due to safety precautions – precautions that apparently do not apply to immigrants, legal or illegal?  How about Biden’s “Equality Act” which the Catholic League has labeled the “most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law”?  Or the indoctrination programs in schools and government offices that are not only filled with misinformation but that teach hatred towards specific identity groups and hence work to divide and destroy our country?

Indeed, every action coming out of this administration since January 20^th (and there are many more than those listed above) seems to be designed to turn America on its head if not destroy it altogether.  And yet there is silence.  Silence on the drastic effect on taxes and employment and simply on the American dream. 

Where are all those people who just last year had such loud voices?  Do they really approve of all that is going on?  Do they know what is going on?  Or are they just sheep, doing as told with no thought of their own?  When told to bleat loudly and angrily they did so.  Now have they been told to quietly and contently baa?  It would seem so.  And like silent sheep, they are being led to slaughter; the tragedy is that they are taking the entire country with them.

Clear as Mud

I recently read an op-ed column that began: “It is clear we have real racial problems in this country….”

Now, as a writer myself I understand that sometimes we begin with phrases like this, often called “throat clearing” phrases, that are simply a way to get us started.  But, that being said, my immediate reaction to this was “No, it is not clear and by the way, do we really have real racial problems in this country?” 

My next thought is, “No, I don’t think so.”  What we do have is a lot of people who don’t have the life that they would like to have and/or who are jealous of some of the lives of others.   We have people who like to blame others for their own discontent.  Those things are, of course, part of human nature.

But what we also have are people who use the discontent of others to agitate and create anger and hate which they then use not to remedy the discontented but to further their own gain.  Indeed, this is the classic tactic of Marxism and Socialism and even of community organizing. Rather than encouraging self-examination or reminding that life is not fair, they will encourage seeing individual dissatisfactions as resulting from a larger, group oppression of some sort. 

Find a common dissatisfaction, find someone to blame, agitate the dissatisfied to attack the one who has been assigned the blame.  The result may improve the lives of the dissatisfied temporarily, but its real goal is to make the dissatisfied indebted to the agitator.

The Democrats have become masters at this.  They create identity groups and then use them until they are no longer useful.  We had the pussy-hat marches a couple of years ago, we had the many LGBTQ protests and demands.  Now we have the BLM organization, pushed by progressives and other Leftists who, seeing an opportunity in George Floyd’s death, have fomented anti-white, anti-law enforcement, anti-rule of law and Constitution, anti-American sentiment, leading to the devastation of many cities in this country.  Their goal is not to end racism but to end the presidency of Donald Trump and to push this country ever closer to a complete restructuring into socialism.

This is not racism.  This is not a racial problem.  This is a political problem created by very skillful politicians.  Now before you come to send me to a reeducation camp, I am not saying that racism does not exist.  It does, it always has, and it always will.  It is human nature to be wary of those different from us, whether in behavior or skin color or dress or any number of things.  Sometimes that wariness will cross the line and become racist.  But that does not mean that the country has a racial problem. 

It does mean that we have fallen into the divisive tribalism of identity politics.  And, if the agitated identity group is a particular race, then that group will see its oppression as racist.  And if their blame target is a governmental system, then they will assert that the system is racist.  But that does not make it so. 

Racism is not just being aware that someone is in some way different from oneself.  Racism is “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”  There was a time in this country, as well as in much of the world, when Black people were considered in some way less than human or at least inferior enough to justify slave-holding.  There was a time when Blacks could not mix with Whites in any way, not even at the drinking fountain. 

In large part due to our form of democracy and our Constitution we were able to move through and forward from those times.  We acknowledged the errors and did what we could to make the way forward better.  We passed civil rights legislation.  We created things like affirmative action.  We integrated schools.  Some people did better with these new opportunities than did others.

But one group who has always found something to their own advantage in Black issues is the Democrats.  As the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s presented Blacks with opportunities to move forward, the Democrats also saw an opportunity to create a permanent underclass of supportive voters. 

By creating entitlements and encouraging Blacks to become permanently dependent on those entitlements the Democrats were able to keep them “in their place.”  That is, entitlement dependence has a way of destroying motivation and independence.  It becomes necessary to keep the benefactor in power so as not to lose one’s benefits.  And, coexistent with this loss of self is the belief that one is somehow “less than” and not able to do as well as others.  One comes to accept one’s fate as somehow second class.

With that second class feeling comes discontent.  Discontent that is ripe to be agitated into anger and a belief that one has been and is being discriminated against.  And that, I think, is what we are really seeing when we say that “it is clear we have racial problems.”

But that is not a racial problem.  Those who have been enticed into becoming an underclass are now grouped into an identity class and directed toward a target to blame for their discontent.  That target is “racism”, now asserted to be systemic and hence anything or anyone associated with or supportive of traditional American institutions.

This is false racism, and it is a problem.  Those who are against the traditional American system of government are using the cover of racism to further their own anti-American agenda.  “Racism” is the smoke screen; it is the weapon that is being aimed at America.  But America, while it does have racists, is not itself racist.  And, if anyone would read its history and the words of its founders (before those books are all burned along with the statues), they would see that this country’s founding ideals were not racist.  Even if the racism that accompanied the acceptance of slavery was once a part of the system, it is not now. 

I think the better statement would be, “It is clear we have a real anti-American problem within this country.”  That is, we have a significant group who do not believe in or support our form of government and our Constitution.  Their goal is to entirely dismantle it, in essence destroy the soul that is America, and then remake it into something else.  The “racial problems” are asserted and then encouraged; they are a part of the identity politics which are a key tool in the attacks designed to deconstruct America.

So, while there may be individual acts of racism against which we should all speak out, the bigger and more pervasive problem is the misuse of a manufactured and false “institutionalized” racism to attack America.  And, in a way, that is the real racism – the methods used by Democrats to first create a dependent underclass and then to agitate that group into an identity political battalion being used to further the Left’s quest for power and domination.

 

What is Your Identity?

Recently when I checked out at my grocers I had my typical conversation with the bagger and the checker.  I have been going to this grocer for years, and these two have worked there for years.  In the course of weekly trips to stock my pantry we have had short conversations in which we have learned a bit about one another – our families, our ups, our downs, our hometowns, our sports teams, our likes and dislikes, etc.  We are not really friends.  I refer to them as the tall, good bagger and the checker from the Midwest.  They probably refer to me as something like the old lady who always buys Vernors and potato chips.  I think we all enjoy our brief conversations.  Before and after I enter their checkout space, I sometimes hear them have similar type conversations or joking with one another.

The bagger is Black.  The checker is what one might refer to as a Redneck.  I am an old white lady.  Somehow these external identifying characteristics have never interfered with our jovial and caring interactions.

Until, that is, the Left made it impossible to ignore the dehumanizing and superficial characteristics of identity politics.  About halfway through our most recent interaction, into my mind came the currently unavoidable disruptive voice of identity politics.  I wondered if the Black bagger was thinking of me as some “Karen” type racist or some sort of white supremacist.  I wondered how the Redneck and the Black really felt about one another.  Did the Redneck have a confederate flag tucked away somewhere?  Was the Black man an active supporter of BLM and its lists of demands against Whites?  These and other such thoughts crept into my brain, making me for the first time ever self-conscious as we conducted our banter.  That is, it interfered with our ability to relate to one another as the human beings that we are.

And then I reminded myself that is exactly what we are – individual human beings, each with our own story.  We are not one-dimensional representatives of Left-defined identity groups.  But, then, why would anyone want us to see one another as if we were? I see two possible reasons.

First, it is possible that the Left, who would define us all one-dimensionally based upon the identity group into which they place us, actually see people this way.  Perhaps, because they live in their own one-dimensional worlds, not ever really interacting with those unlike them, they are only able to see others by external and superficial characteristics which they then use as definitions of the entire person of anyone possessing those characteristics. 

The second possible reason is more sinister: dividing people into one-dimensional identify groups serves a deeper purpose of which many Leftists are fully aware.  If you can get people to accept that they are defined by one characteristic only, then create the perception of their identity placement as victimhood,  and then set various defined identity groups against one another, you have a good breeding ground for fomenting some sort of Socialist revolution. 

I think both reasons are valid explanations.  I also think that both are toxic to society and to humanity.  Somehow the Left has managed to convince us that it is OK to define people not as people but as one-dimensional members of one or another identity group.  At the same time they have encouraged the rise of the victim status and its codependent partner – hate for some other identity group.   

People, more and more afraid to speak their own individual minds, thus become more and more defined by the identity group into which someone else places them.  As everyone more and more goes to their own separate corner, it becomes harder and harder to join together as complex individuals each with individual characteristics yet all a part of one human race.

As these divisive techniques and results of identity politics more frequently creep into my brain, I will try to remember the innocent and very human interactions between the Bagger, the Checker, and Me.  Not defined by external or superficial characteristics.  Defined by stories of each’s family and individual history and experiences.  Unique to each of us.  Not one of a group but one of a kind.

These are the interactions that a healthy society has and that it needs.  They used to be fairly common.  But now, overshadowed by the hateful specter of identity politics, they become more and more rare. If we are to save ourselves – both individualy and as a part of humanity – and if we are to save our society and its freedoms, we must cast off any identity that is not uniquely our own and we must see only the full and unique identity of others.  We must stop defining and being defined by group labels.  To the Left that pushes them more and more forcefully upon us we must just say NO.

What Matters?

Here is a thought for the day:

Lives Matter.

If you need to put a color in front of that statement, then you are the racist.

Why do I say that?  Here is the definition of racism: “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

That is, identifying by race just plays into the identity politics that are by their very nature racist.  This is true whether we are identifying particular races whose lives do or do not matter, particular races whose businesses we should or should not patronize, particular races who should or should not receive taxpayer money, particular races who should or should not receive special benefits, or any other type of categorization by racial identity.

Identity politics and its accompanying racism is a tool in a game played by ideologues who are seeking nothing more than their own power.  Racial identity as well as other identity groups are nothing more than pawns in their game. 

Watch this game play out in the proposed police reform bills.  The Democrats quashed the Republican bill that had a good chance of bipartisan support and thus a chance to pass into law. Democrats aren’t even interested in debate on the bill.   Instead the Democrats with the support of their usual propaganda machine (mainstream media and entertainment industry) put forward a bill that has little chance of passage. 

Why, you may wonder, would they not want to debate a bill that might pass?  Why propose something that likely will not pass?  The answer is simple.  They care more about keeping the issue alive for their own election purposes than actually enacting the reforms.  The languishing bill allows them to continue to use racial identity politics against their Republican rivals.

Identity politics is strong and getting stronger.  People are fired, ridiculed, attacked for simply questioning its premises, for wanting to treat all citizens equally rather than singling out one group or another for special treatment or for their “collective guilt.”  I’m sure the statement that opens this post (“Lives Matter”) qualifies me for attack by those invested in the identity politics game.

Historically, the Democrat party was once the anti-Black party.  It now claims the title of the pro-Black party, the party that will be the Savior for Blacks in America.  What cloak will they next put on?  The answer is the one that serves them best in their quest for absolute power over all of our lives.

So, I will stand against their attempts to turn me into a racist by buying into their identity games.  I will not prefer one race over another.   I will not make decisions about individuals based upon the color of their skin, whether it is what life I think matters or what business to patronize or to whom I might feel guilty.

As I stated in a recent post (LINK):  

Unless and until we stand up to the game being played out in our capital and on our streets, the war of identity politics can and will only increase, and only to the benefit of those who are using it for their own gain.

Here are two essays worth reading:

Commentary from Harlan Hill in Real Clear Politics, Think the ‘Cancel’ Mobs Can’t Get Any Worse? Think Again  (LINK)

Opinion by Megan McArdle in The Washington Post, Where do we draw the line in tearing down statues?  (LINK)

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.

Peace Requires a New Identity – are we courageous enough to go there?

We cannot have peace until we first dismantle the identity groups that are preventing it.

In the context of a different discussion, Jonathan Sacks writes, “When, though, enemies shake hands, who is now the ‘us’ and who the ‘them’?  Peace involves a profound crisis of identity.  The boundaries of self and other, friend and foe, must be redrawn.”  (Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 2002).

If one’s identity is to be the victim of another group, then if the causes of the victimhood are resolved, if one is no longer a victim they have then lost their identity.  The same, in reverse, is true for those holding the victimizer identity.   It logically follows that there must be a “crisis of identity” as the uncertainty of “who am I” unfolds. 

If victimhood via group definition is the only identity that one knows, then how will they reformulate a new identity?  Perhaps the idea that one who identified as the victim of real or perceived white supremacy will now assert their supremacy over that previously victimizing group is not as far fetched as those attacking Terry Crew’s comments would have us believe.  If one’s only identity is the label given them by their group, then how will they know any other sort of identity or behavior?

Here is a personal example.  About 10 years ago the institution at which I taught installed its first female dean.  My feminist colleagues who saw women as victims of male supremacy decided to have a gathering to which no men would be invited.  Rather than simply saying I couldn’t make it, I (perhaps foolishly) chose to stand up and say I believed the whole idea was wrong, that I did not want to do what we women for years had complained about men doing – excluding those of the opposite sex.  The gathering went forward, and from that point on I became somewhat of an outcast by those colleagues:  I did not have the right mindset for redefining the feminist group identity.  I was demanding individual identity and accountability rather than simply assumption of a new group mantle.

The point is that when the end of an identity group conflict makes us ask "who am I?",  we must be brave enough to find our unique and individual identities rather than just redefine our groups and their labels without addressing the hopes, hate, and fears that belong to each group.  If we do not, then the hate and fear is just perpetuated, though redistributed, and the discord continues.

Peace.  If we really want it we must have the courage to break the cycle of identity groups.  The mere existence of one group implies the existence of another - and thus the existence of an "us" and a "them."  

We must have the courage to stand up and say that the only group with which we each will fully identify is the one called humanity.  Beyond that we must be brave enough to say we do not need a group to give us an identity, that we will work against the existence of sub-groups that take away both our humanity and our individuality.  

We must be brave enough to say that we each must and will be defined by our unique individuality.  That individuality is a multifaceted thing that includes aspects of many groups, but in the end is defined by none.

As long as we let groups define and label us we will always have an “us” and a “them.”  When we resolve an issue between identity groups, we must not simply draw new group identity lines.  Rather, we must face the identity crisis that the dismantling of group identities will cause.  We must each be brave enough to accept ourselves and others as the individuals that we and they are.   Only then can we move forward as one united mass of humanity.

“I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one” and other short thoughts on current events

Yesterday I read the story of a police officer comforting a Black 5-year-old who asked if he were going to shoot her.  This anecdote was being used to demonstrate the horror of “institutionalized racism.”  I was horrified – horrified that this child had learned this fear at such a young age.  And who, I ask, likely instilled that fear in her – her parents or other caregivers?

So, I must wonder, can all the blame for hatred go to those whom the victims claim hate them, or might some of it fall on the victims themselves?  For if a child at the tender age of 5 has been taught that police are likely to shoot her, what else has she been taught about those who are not members of her racial victim class?  How much of that is actually true or justifies a fear against a whole group?  With that fear the seeds of hate are also planted. 

And, how can we ever come together and be one nation if one group of us (whether that group is Black, White, or other) is teaching fear and hate rather than love and reconciliation against another group.  No wonder BLM and its partner M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) make demands on those whom they perceive as victimizers rather that reaching out to work with those others together to make a better world.

**

People say they want conversations, but it seems that what that really involves is dueling studies.  That is, each side will have their studies and statistics that “prove” their points and with those in hand seem to close their mind to any real dialog about those studies or diverse views supported by alternate studies. 

One can always find a study or data point to support their position.  Using them as a sort of “in your face” to those with opposing or differing views does nothing to resolve divisions.  What actually might resolve hatred and division is urging others and opening one’s own mind to understand that we are all part of one humanity that can work together to make a better world.  But we will never do that if we focus on our divisions and feel some need to prove that our position is always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.

**

There is a difference between peaceful, lawful protests intended to make a point relevant to policy and urge changes in policies that the demonstrators are against, as opposed to riots, or revolts, or revolutions that simply focus on destruction.  Those who say that all are the same are actually siding with those who favor complete destruction.  

Those who would take away all police power, all lawful authority are in the process of destroying our democracy.  We do not have a first amendment right to riot and destroy other people or their property; it is the duty of our law enforcement and our leaders to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts.  

If we cease to have a safe democratic state that can only lead to having instead a safe authoritarian state.  Such a state would not even allow the peaceful protests that are not only a part of but a necessary piece of our democracy.

**

Let’s say that we: clear the nation of all confederate statues; put a large chunk of money for “reparations” in every Black person’s pocket; make it illegal to use any terms, phrases, or express any feelings or beliefs that the Black protests/demands deem to be racist; defund and dismantle law enforcement; send millions of dollars to Black communities.  Will the rioters be happy then or will they continue to: teach their children to hate, especially those who look different or think differently than do they; blame anything that is not perfect in their lives on a problem with the “system”? 

Racism will only really be resolved when each and every one of us is willing and able to take individual responsibility for our lives and when we hold individuals rather than identity groups accountable for their bad acts.  Only when we are all equally outraged at the unjust treatment or murder of any person of any color will we actually have moved forward. 

**

Identity politics is in large part responsible for bringing us to this point.  For the past 50 years mostly Democrat leaders of areas with large Black populations (especially large cities) have, despite their promises, done little to help raise Black people to a better existence, but have instead used identity politics to convince the Black population of their victim status.  This was useful for those politicians who could then claim that this underclass needed them and hence would demand their votes to keep them in power. 

Their power required this underclass and, in the name of helping our neighbors, they encouraged all of us to help to create it.  We reinforced mantras such as “you are not good enough on your own”; “you can only go so far”; the Whites/rich/republican/[fill in the blank] are out to get you and you must fear them”; and of course “you need the state, things like welfare, to survive because you cannot do it on your own.” 

Messages such as that are far more racist than demanding that Blacks simply be accountable.  Those who listen to those messages will always be victims full of hate at their perceived oppressors and ready to serve as tools for anyone who wants to “revolt” against the “system” usually for their own power, not to help those whom they see as their tools.

**

Gratitude is a key to joy.  Being filled with envy and hate destroys joy.  It also destroys one’s self.  It destroys one’s ability for self-motivation – why be motivated if others are all against you and likely will not let you succeed?  Instead of being the one in charge of one’s own life, falling victim to identity politics allows others to control your life and indeed your very identity. 

**

I am being urged to buy from Black retailers and Black business owners in order to show my solidarity with the “fight against racism.”  Well, to seek out or award someone simply because of their color seems pretty racist to me.  I tend to think the best individual should always win based on skills necessary to the contest, not simply because of a color of skin.  When I want to buy something, I will purchase from the retailer that best suits my needs be that price, quality or variety of products offered, convenience and quality of service, etc.  That retailer may be Black, White, or purple.  I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one.

If Democrats' Response is One of Hatred, then What?

After the President called for a sensible, multi-phased, and bipartisan attack against the violence and hatred in America, what was the Democrats’ response?  To unleash more partisan and vitriolic hatred against the President, his supporters, and his suggestions. 

Sen. Corey Booker:  “Such a bulls—t soup of ineffective words.”  Rep. Tim Ryan:  “Fck me.”  Responding to his call to stop the glorification of violence and including as one of his points to look at mental illness, Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded, “White supremacy is not a mental illness. We need to call it what it is: Domestic terrorism. And we need to call out Donald Trump for amplifying these deadly ideologies.”  [We should note here that Trump condemned racism and white supremacy along with hatred.]  Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said, ““President Trump’s words today are meaningless.  We know his vile and racist words have incited violence and attacks on Americans.”  Presidential candidate Julian Castro accused the president of serving as a “national spokesperson” for white nationalism. 

Trump commented on the media’s responsibilities; the response of filmmaker Ava DuVernay was, “Nah. News coverage has got to start calling you what you are. A traitor. A liar. A racist. A coward. A fool.”  The Washington Post found criticism in counting of words: “The president used 105 words of his speech to call out the Internet and social media. He spent 80 words condemning racism and hatred.  He also used only 53 words to address access to guns, compared to 62 words on mental illness and evil.” 

The above are just a few of the comments that have occurred in the 3 or so hours following the President’s address this morning.  More will surely come.  And, they do not include the post address commentary by the media and pundits, most of whom decided that the President was lying when he denounced racism and white supremacy, reverting back to their narrative that he is a racist and he is personally responsible for the two tragedies in Dayton and El Paso.  Others focused on the one mistake in an otherwise fine speech – a one time use of Toledo, a different city in Ohio, when it seems that the reference should have been to Dayton.  Note, there has been no similar ridicule for candidate Biden referring to Houston and Michigan where it seems he meant El Paso and Ohio.

These reactions are in complete contrast to the virtue signaling of the Democrats.  They present themselves as warriors against a hate-filled society that is the sole creation of the President.  Yet, since the day that Donald Trump became president, we have heard a constant barrage of hate-filled words directed at him and his supporters.  We have seen Democrats encourage and some act out violence against the President, his supporters, and essentially anyone who does not stand fully with the Democrats.  Even before 2016 it was the Democrats who were using identity politics to foment hatred among the people of our country.

The Democrats have one solution to gun violence – more gun regulation.   While that was one of the points included in Trump’s plan [and, one must note here that Trump’s administration has done more than others to tighten gun laws as well as ban bump stocks], Trump astutely noted that "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."  This statement (which underscores the reasons for the other points in the President’s plan of attack), seems to be especially offensive to the Democrats.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar said it was Mr. Trump’s attempt “to avoid truth.”

Apparently, for the Democrats it is easier to banish the means rather than to actually address the problem of causation.  Those that do consider causation at all are content to conclude that Trump is the sole cause; they seem to have forgotten the mass shootings and violence that occurred pre-2016, not to mention the hatred and gun violence that occurs daily all across America.   

The Democrats love to virtue signal that it is not them but the hated conservatives who foment hatred in this country. But the Democrats and their supporters call for hatred and violence daily.  They turn everything into a political weapon against Donald Trump.  The President is correct that beyond gun ownership there is a cultural problem, a social media/internet problem, a mental health problem, and a lack of unity or ability to address issues in a bi-partisan way for the good of the country. 

The Democrats do not want to work together to try to solve underlying social problems that lead to tragic violence such as we saw this past weekend.  They would rather use the violence to condemn a president they do not like; it simply becomes another weapon in their arsenal in their war to remove him from office. 

The President’s address this morning raised some valid points, issues and questions that deserve serious thought and consideration.  He is right that the country needs to come together and work bi-partisanly to address the hatred and violence.  But, when the reaction of the Democrats is to immediately begin spewing more hatred, then one wonders why even bother?

The Elitism of Historical Enlightenment

There are those today who would judge every historical event by today’s standards. This is an unfortunate form of elitism.

Societies, including ours, evolve.  As they evolve they gain both scientific and social understanding that may prove that previous beliefs or actions were incorrect.  People once thought the world was flat or that the sun and stars moved around the earth.  Science later proved these beliefs to be wrong.  Yet we do not judge as stupid those who appropriately held those beliefs at the time they were considered to be accurate views of the physical world.

Similarly, as we evolve sociologically we learn that some of the beliefs that we had about the capabilities of women or other cultures or races were incorrect.  As we evolve sociologically we learn to be sensitive to diverse views and cultures.  We learn that behaviors that once were accepted actually were cruel or hurtful to others.  Yet, that behavior was at one time accepted as valid, justifiable, and expected. 

Just as it is not fair to judge the ancestor who believed the earth to be flat, it is not fair to condemn historical social behavior based on today’s sociological and moral understandings. To do so is a form of elitism – the attitude that those doing the condemning are somehow morally superior.  It is a form of snobbery which, in the case of historical enlightenment, is unjust.

With that in mind, let us consider the yearbook photo on Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page that he initially admitted but now claims is not of him.  The photo shows a person in blackface standing with a person dressed as a member of the KKK.  The yearbook is from 1984.  That is 35 years ago.

By today’s standards the photo is at a minimum culturally insensitive, and by most standards is racist and perhaps worse.   By today’s standards the behavior and the photo are unacceptable.  But, what were the standards in 1984?  As I recall that time it was not uncommon to hear comedians recite jokes that made fun of and caricatured races and cultures.  I don’t know what time of year the photo was taken, but I can assure you that if this were perhaps Halloween, few would raise their eyebrows at such costumes.  Indeed, Halloween was a time of all sorts of culturally offensive costuming, most of which has now been banned as we as a culture come to realize how offensive cultural appropriation and cultural humor can be.

I would like to think that Gov. Northam, in either wearing one of the costumes or in simply choosing to put the photo in his yearbook felt some sort of discomfort about his choice.  But I would also not be surprised if he did not, given the different atmosphere and racial understanding or lack thereof that prevailed 35 years ago.  

I cringe when I see this photo.  And if Gov. Northam put it before our eyes today, I would be the first to call for his resignation.  But to condemn him for an act that was in all likelihood not worthy of condemnation 35 years ago and also likely not done with malice in the atmosphere of 1984 seems to me to be unjust and an act of elitist superiority based on some sort of historical enlightenment.

Such elitism can be very dangerous.  If we are only going to live by the values of today, then I expect that we all are candidates for condemnation based on our acts of the past.  And, as history and cultures move forward, those elitist moral police of today may very likely be subjects of condemnation tomorrow.

It would be nice to think that we would all be prescient enough to understand the science and the sociological mores of the future.  The historical enlightenment elitists apparently expect us to have that capability and hence to have every statement and every action of today live up to what we will know and believe years into the future.

That is simply ridiculous.  Let us expect people to acknowledge the things they have done in the past that may have been accepted then but now are unacceptable.  Let us learn from those past actions.  Let people not do those things today, or, if they do, let them suffer the appropriate consequences.  But let us not condemn them for doing or saying things that were not considered unacceptable at the time they were done.

And let us not use this elitism of this moment in time to score political points.  Gov. Northam currently supports policies, including those on abortion, that are strongly opposed by others.  It is easy for the opposition to use this 35 year old event to call for his resignation.  Personally, because of some of his current policies I would be happy to see him gone.  But, I will not call for his resignation because of this 35 year old photo. 

And, on the other side of the aisle, there are those who generally support the Governor’s policies but are now calling for his resignation because of the photo.  I can’t help but wonder if this is simply their own self-promotion – a way to show their supporters that they, by condemning this action regardless of when it occurred, makes them somehow morally superior. 

While the current news story of Gov. Northam’s yearbook photo has been my example here, this is not an attempt to defend the Governor.  Rather, he is simply my example of the way in which many currently judge history by today’s standards, without context or any attempt to understand the context of historical times.  Perhaps this should not be surprising as so many in our society seem to want to live only in the moment, to erase, ignore or deny history. 

But that snobbery, that belief that now we know everything and are justified in condemning everything and everyone who is not us today is a very dangerous approach.  We are our history.  To condemn everything that is not us today is to condemn our very selves and to set the precedent that tomorrow’s selves can condemn, destroy, and deny all that we are today.  We become a people with no past and no future, just a hopeless and fleetingly elitist present.

One Can Prefer One’s Own Culture Without Being Racist

Liking, even preferring, one’s own culture does not make one racist.  Racism is: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.  In that vein, a white supremacist is a person who believes that the White race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.  But, and this is mightily important, simply preferring one culture over another does not necessarily mean that one believes that culture is superior, it does not make one racist, and, if that culture is white, it does not mean that one is a white supremacist.

Let’s think about holidays.  Various cultures celebrate holidays in various manners.  In this country’s melting pot, the traditions of some cultures may have been assimilated into the cultures of others.  Nonetheless, those of particular ethnic backgrounds will celebrate a particular holiday primarily with traditions that reflect the ethnicity of their ancestors.  They prefer to celebrate that way for a variety of reasons, most of which do not reflect any sort of animosity toward the ways in which those with other ethnic backgrounds may celebrate.  It simply represents their particular preference.   Really, this is no different from someone preferring to live in the city or in a condo while someone else may prefer to live in a house or a tent or an RV.  The preference does not automatically reflect prejudice against those who prefer to live differently.

Here is, then, another key word:  Tolerance.  This is a word that seems to have been forgotten by many today.  It is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.  Preferring one behavior, one course of action, or even one culture does not mean that one cannot be tolerant of those other behaviors, action, and yes, even cultures.  But, tolerance does not require that one like or approve of those things with which one does not agree, nor does it require that one change one’s own preferences to agree with those that one is tolerating.  And, sometimes, behaviors that are being tolerated cannot coexist; hence, in some instances, those preferring differing behaviors will self-segregate – into different communities, or even different countries.

So, when someone says related to both illegal and legal immigration that “in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” or that “how radically in some ways the country has changed” (see comments of Laura Ingraham 8/8/18), she is not necessarily making racist statements.  There are those who prefer the traditional Judeo-Christian western European culture of America.  Immigration of different cultures bring changes, and in some areas those changes are indeed drastic.  Some may not like those changes because they include the existence of beliefs or behaviors with which one does not agree.  One might prefer to be surrounded by cultures that reflect their own ethnicity rather than that of other ethnicities.  There is nothing racist about that.  It becomes racist only if one seeks to discriminate against those other cultures based upon race.

One can be against immigration and not be a racist.  Immigration is a complex issue that involves far more than the culture or color of those who seek to immigrate.  There are economic issues; there are issues of safety; there are resource and environmental issues.  There is the question of assimilation vs. coexistence.  There is the issue of a country’s basic existence as a country, a place with cohesive shared values and goals.

The United States has always had, and still has a most generous immigration policy.  But it is not wrong for one to expect those who seek to join this country to have some appreciation for its values and yes, its culture.  One does not expect an immigrant to want to come to a country and then to change the essential characteristics of that country.   America has always welcomed immigrants who appreciate the core values and characteristics of this country.  But, an unspoken piece of that welcome is that those joining our society will be tolerant of its existing culture just as they can expect a tolerance by the citizens of their own cultural backgrounds.  What I do not think they can expect is that the current citizenry necessarily embrace (as opposed to tolerate) their culture or give up their preferences for their own culture and traditions.

Today many Americans see an effort to completely remake their country, leaving no room for their own values.  When David Brooks seems to disparage whites who think being white is “part of their identity” (See PBS Newshour 8/10/18) he is condemning them for something that he and other progressives uphold and encourage in other races and cultures.  Imagine if we were to condemn Blacks for thinking that being Black is part of their identity –  we would certainly call that racist.  But apparently it is not OK to hold that same thought if one is White; rather, to do so labels one as white supremacists.  It is that sort of hypocrisy that offends many.

There are, indeed, many Americans whose heritage and culture are what is often referred to as White.  A pride in that heritage, a preference for the traditions of that culture does not make one racist or a white supremacist.  A demand that those with other traditions, backgrounds, or cultures tolerate rather than seek to abolish that “white” heritage is not an unreasonable demand.

I realize there are those who will see the above as some sort of code advocacy for white supremacy.  It is not.  White supremacy is not a tradition or value of white European heritage.  Yes, there are those whites who do hold racist or supremacist beliefs, just as there are those of every color and culture who hold such beliefs about their own race or culture.  But, the vast majority of whites simply want to be able to retain their traditions; they are fully capable of doing so while being tolerant of other traditions.  I am not sure that those progressives and others who love to condemn everything white are capable of doing the same.

On Speech, Values, and Roseanne

I stopped writing this blog about 6 months ago in part because a busy life got in the way and in part because I assumed that after a year people could see the things I was observing and writing about for themselves.   Well, that assumption proved erroneous.  So, while the busy life continues, I return to the blog in the hopes of waking even one person from the stupor that lack of independent and critical thinking creates.

Today is about free speech or lack thereof along with a definition of racism.  Let’s begin with that definition:  Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”  Someone is a racist when the show or feel “discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another”.   Disagreeing with an individual of another race is not racism, although of course someone who is a racist might disagree with a particular of another race.  But, it does not follow that everyone who does so is a racist.  Similarly, name calling does not necessarily prove racism or that someone is a racist; it is often simply a reflection of someone’s poor judgement or bad behavior.  That is so even when the name-calling includes words that are racially sensitive generally or to the particular individual against whom the name is directed. 

Now that those definitions have been clarified, lets turn to the topic of free speech.  It is on my mind today because of ABC’s cancellation of the show Roseanne for the star’s personal tweet which the network called  “abhorrent” but which social media labeled “racist.”  The tweets addressed both Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s aide) and Chelsea Clinton. While it is not clear what is being called racist, I am assuming that it is her statement that Jarett is like “the muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby.”  Ugly, yes.  I personally don’t see this as a racist statement, though I guess that some will find the word “ape” in any sentence associated with a black person to be racist.   (Of course, the Apes in planet of the apes were pretty intelligent, one might recall).  Perhaps it is instead the reference to the Muslim brotherhood since Jarett was born in Iran?  Roseanne almost immediately apologized for making a “bad joke about her politics and her looks….my joke was in bad taste.”  Yes, it was. 

But was it really any more abhorrent than Jimmy Kimmel making fun of Melania Trump’s accent – not as a private individual but on his ABC television show?  Wasn’t that not only a “joke” about Melania but also a derogatory statement about all immigrants?  Kimmel also later apologized for his “bad joke.” 

So, we have two “jokes” attacking individuals associated with a political perspective contrary to that of the person making the joke.  One puts her joke on Twitter, then almost immediately apologizes.  The other broadcasts his joke from his TV show and then doubles down on it before ultimately apologizing.  One “joke” was clearly directed at (the parentage) of just one individual.  The other was arguably directed at an entire group of people. Both individuals have shows on ABC and the Melania joke was broadcast on that ABC show.  One gets fired, the other doesn’t.

There are some differences between the two “jokes”, but they are similar enough that one would think that ABC’s treatment of them would also be similar.  Yet, Roseanne’s show is cancelled, Kimmel’s is not.  In cancelling Roseanne, ABC stated that Roseanne’s Twitter statement was “inconsistent with our values.” I am at a loss to understand why Kimmel’s on air jokes about Melania are not also inconsistent with the network’s values along with his and many other ABC personnel statements that make personal attacks about those associated with Trump (I am not referring to attacks on the substance of policies, etc, but rather to personal attacks on appearance, etc., or simply unfounded name calling). Perhaps I just don’t understand ABC’s definition for its “values.”

So, this leads me to more general comments on the idea of free speech. 

First, yes, there is a right to free speech, but that does not mean that it is always right to exercise it.  Common decency should cause one to restrain oneself from uttering every single speech that might be allowable under the Constitution.  There is no need to make fun of how someone looks or talks, and it is simply polite not to do so.  There is no need to make fun of everyone one disagrees with, no need to hold up the severed head of the president, even jokingly.  There is no need to use the right of free speech to attack everyone and everything that one disagrees with.  It would be far better to instead use speech to open a dialogue with those with differing views.

Secondly, the right of free speech does not just pertain to accepted or popular speech.  It does not pertain just to politically correct speech.  Many today seem to think it is perfectly OK to shout down or otherwise censor speech with which they do not agree.  Yet it is that free market place of ideas and opposing views, freely spoken and discussed, which are the mark of a truly free society.

So, back to ABC.  It seems that they have chosen to punish someone who speaks from a point of view with which they do not agree, yet if not reward, at least not punish someone whose political positions reflect their own.  If these are the values that ABC lauds as its justification for the cancellation of Roseanne, then they are, in the opinion of this author, worthless and false morals that do not reflect the ideals of this country but which instead support the denial of free speech that moves us ever further from our freedom.

The Politicization of Truth

We seem to be living in an era where one’s ideology determines what one’s Truth is.  How else can you explain the assault on the medical report issued by the doctor who examined President Trump, as well as, it should be noted, President’s Obama and Bush?  Because some so want to believe that the President is not fit for office, either physically or mentally, because that truth does not fit their reality, we have them questioning the physician as well as making their own pronouncements of the President’s ill health despite the report and despite the fact that, unlike the report’s author, they have conducted no examination whatsoever of the President.

 

Similarly, how can one explain that while Sen. Durbin is the only one who claims to have heard the President utter the word S***hole during a meeting, and despite the fact that at least 4 others present assert that the word was not uttered, those whose agenda the remark supports, including the main stream media, continue to take the word’s utterance as a proven fact. 

Let’s consider some examples of ideology rather than truth controlling our political narrative since Mr. Trump became President Trump.  The Democrats, as well as some Republicans and others were so stunned they could not accept the election results.  Thus began a multitude of attempts to unseat President Trump from office.  Hence, despite no evidence in over a year’s time, we are still hearing about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as if it were truth. The digging for evidence goes on and far outside any fields with any relevance to such collusion yet the Democrats hang on, because collusion supports their ideological goals.  But, when that story failed to unseat the President, those who were and are determined to do so had to look for other “truths” that would lead to their desired result.  We have had the stories about the President’s mental health – now disproven by an examination by a competent doctor.  Nonetheless, the belief that he is mentally ill remains a truth for may whose ideology it suits.  (I hate to tell these people, but just because someone behaves in a way they don’t like, or holds views and values different from theirs, or supports policies contrary to their own, does not make someone mentally ill).  We also have the allegations that the President is a sexual predator or the story that the President is a racist.  I have yet to see any concrete proof of either.  The President, unlike some of his opponents, does not single out individuals based on their race, but tries to treat all Americans equally.  Nonetheless, those whose ideology is served by having a racist president, will see their view as “truth.”

Let’s consider how asserting that President Trump is racist serves the current Democrat ideology.  The Democrats assert their concern for Dreamers (I’m not sure they really are concerned, but appearing so is part of their political and campaign strategy).  If a deal were reached that gave some sort of permanent status to Dreamers, but also compromised in a way to give some of the other immigration demands of Trump and Republicans, Trump might actually get some good press from the Democrat’s base.  They don’t want that.  So, instead they can push Durbin’s story, say they can’t work with the President because he is a racist, and either leave the DACA situation unresolved (and blame Trump) or demand that to prove he is not racist he must sign a non-compromise bill that only gives the Democrats their demands on this issue.  This is just part of their political strategy.  And in my opinion, it is sick if not un-American.

Let’s just assume for a minute that the President did refer to Haiti as a S***hole country.  So what?  That, my friends, is not a racist statement.  And, following that statement with the comment that we should let in more Asians and people from Norway also does not support a charge of racism.  What it does support is the idea that we should look to what those seeking immigration have to bring to our country.  Maybe that idea could have been stated more eloquently, but there has never been an argument that Trump is an eloquent speaker.    Again, failure to be eloquent is not proof of racism, or mental illness, or Russian collusion, or sexual predation, or any other of the many narratives that the Democrats try to put forth as a reason to end the Trump presidency.

We now have some legislators, lead by Rep. Lewis, announcing their boycott of the State of the Union address because the president is racist.  As noted above, that is their truth, based not on fact, but on their ideology and what they simply wish were true.  In their minds it justifies their refusal to work with the president, but in the end it is simply disrespectful of the Office and of our democratic Institutions and system of government.  It is not helpful to the country or to the American people whom these legislators were elected to represent.  Instead, it is a betrayal of their constituents as they place their ideology and their lies created to support it above the good of this Country.

What I would like to see is the Democrats, along with the main stream media, be fair and honest with themselves and with the country.  Admit that while they don’t agree with Trump’s policies, that he is the duly elected president deserving of bipartisan support.  Acknowledge the many good things that are the result of the Presidents actions, most notably a more thriving economy including lowest unemployment in years for minorities, successes against ISIS and in other international issues, an end to the office of the president being a supporter of identity politics, to name a few.  I would like the Democrats to understand that being the loyal opposition does not mean fomenting hatred toward the president, but means supporting him in his efforts to do right for America, while opposing those policies with which they don’t agree.  It does not mean constant ad hominem attacks against a man whom they personally may not like.

In Communist societies, ideology regularly overcomes truth.  People are imprisoned or worse for not holding the Party’s ideology – its Truth.  That is not our tradition or our history in America, even though many Democrats would make it so.