Please, not the dreaded DIALOG

As the riots continue to persist, while hopefully dying out, we begin to see calls for “dialog” about race. Letters in the paper: “we need dialog.”  Social media postings: “to move forward there must be an accounting for the past”: “this group needs to accept responsibility for the pain of that group.”   Joe Biden: “I will lead the conversation” (this after he has told us that if you don’t vote for him then you aren’t really Black).  I believe that former President Obama led a few “conversations on race.”

I have been seeing this call for conversation since the 60s.  I spent my young adulthood in Detroit in the late 60s and early 70s.  This was a turbulent time that included the Detroit riots/rebellion.  When it subsided, there were “conversations.”  Back then they were called “consciousness raising.”  They then became “teach ins” that then became “dialogue” which gave rise to “documentaries” and these things continue to become slicker and more political. 

What these conversations have in common is that they focus on the identity of one or more groups rather than individuals who may have that group trait as one of their many own traits.  They put group identity first, individual identity second.  That is, well-intentioned as they are, they will tell us something about the “Black experience” as if every person who is Black experiences the world in the very same way.  This by necessity denies the individuality of individual Black persons.  It in a way makes them less than human.

In a similar way such “conversations” may focus on “White complicity” in injuries to people of color.  Again, while some Whites may be very complicit, others somewhat so, and others not at all, to group all as having an equal and identical history simply because of their Whiteness puts their membership in that identity group above their individuality, again making them less human.

When one focuses on hurt, whether physical or emotional, that hurt and its accompanying pain grows and eventually becomes all encompassing.  People deal with pain in many ways, one way being to hate the cause of the pain.  When we continually place all people with one color identity in one group and continually tell them how a different color identity group has caused them pain, we are certainly likely to create discord if not hate between the two groups.

Is it any wonder that after 50+ years of simplistically defining one group as suffering because of another group that our racial tensions have grown worse rather than better?

Our identity politics have grown far more divisive in the last 10 years or so.  When one is nothing more than a representative of one group or another simply because of their color, what happens is that the individual becomes dehumanized.  It is far easier to hurt a dehumanized being than it is to hurt a three-dimensional human being who shares humanity with you.

Identity politics grows hate.  I realize that many who now begin advocating that we look back and discuss Black pain historically – what it was, who caused it, its repercussions today – have good intentions of helping us to move forward.  But the reality is that this does not help.  Moreover, the product of these good intentions is often co-opted by those who have political ambitions that are furthered by building hatred between groups.

One traditional tool of socialism is to build hatred between the working class and the bosses.  It may allow the socialists to gain power, but that power and that socialism is always destructive, hurting most those whom it promised to help.  It the same way, there are those in this country who use identity politics to build hatred between racial identity groups.  It is simply a tool to their power, to their desire to reform if not totally change our governmental structure.  Like socialism, though it claims to have the best interests of its chosen group at its core, it is likely that group that will end up suffering the most.

The socialists today tell us that this time they will get it right.  Similarly, those who urge dialogs on race assert that this time they will get it right.  They won’t.

If one keeps focusing on a wound it will never heal and the one who is injured will never be able to move forward.  We have been pushing people to see only the bad, focusing on racial wounds in one way or another since the 60s if not before.  And, the recent days show us where that 50+ year focus has gotten us.  It is time to turn around, see every person as an individual first rather than simply a member of one or another identity group.  It is time to face forward and move on.

Talking one on one with your brother – an individual – with his own history, understanding him as an individual, what are his current feelings, beliefs, his goals for the future, and letting him know and understand you – that leads us much further towards a shared humanity than the “lectures” that try to change us by playing with our emotions by presenting us the history or emotions not of an individual but characterized for an entire identity group. 

We will not move forward unless and until we begin seeing a group as only one part of a person’s full identity.  We must stop seeing persons as members of a group first and then as individual second if at all.  Only when we understand that we each one of us has our own separate and very different identity, not only from those who look different but also from those who look the same as us, only then will we truly be able to move forward.

Standing in the way of that forward movement is a constant litany of hurt caused by one group against another.  That group-think, that identity politics, dehumanizes us all.  It pushes us to hate, to demand revenge and retribution.  It puts us in a time warp that not only keeps returning us to the mid-twentieth century, but, even worse, it destroys our individual humanity.

So please, let’s NOT have another conversation.  Not the dreaded dialog.  Let us not fester in festering wounds.  Let us all say that we are more than those wounds whether victim or perpetrator or neither.  Let’s stop the identity politics along with those who would use it only for their own gain.  Let us instead reach for Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream where we see each other not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.  Then, and only then, will we end the cycle that I have seen repeated over and over.  Let us understand one another’s individual pain but rather than stall within that pain let us look up and move on.

Points of View Are Not Facts; We Need Both and We Need to Understand the Difference

Apparently during a meeting at the White House about funding for the wall last Wednesday, the following interchange took place:

Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: “I reject your facts”

Nielsen to Pelosi: “These aren’t my facts.  These are the facts.”

If people are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone accept given facts, then how can we ever have a discussion, let alone resolve differences or solve important issues?

Unless we wish to discuss apples and oranges as if they were the same thing, we must be willing to accept facts – things that provably exist.  That is not to say that we must have the same opinions of those facts, but we must all begin discussions of issues with an acceptance of those things that simply are.  Then we can express differing opinions about those facts and their significance to the particular issue that we are discussing.  It is during that presentation of differing views that we have the opportunity to learn from those who seem to disagree with us.  It is that sort of discussion that allows differing sides to move forward to a compromise of or solution to their disagreement, a solution that might change for the better facts that exist in the future.

But, if we are unwilling to accept given and provable facts, if, instead of arguing about their significance, we choose to dispute the indisputable, we are unlikely to move forward.  If we dispute pure facts themselves, then the dispute is essentially some version of "I am right and you are wrong" and each side simply tries to convert the other side to their “facts”; when the conversion does not occur, the conversation ends.  There is no solution to such a dispute.

However, if we begin by accepting the provable and certain facts, then we can evaluate those facts from differing viewpoints and perspectives.  We can accept the relevant facts on an issue and also the fact that differing experiences often lead people to interpret facts differently.  That is the beginning of a rational discussion and hopefully a rational resolution to a problem. 

Here’s a quick example.  Let’s say I run a stop sign, and there is no dispute about the location of the stop sign or a nearby tree, that I ran through the stop, and (we are assuming I’m truthful here) that I assert I did not see the sign.  Those are facts.  What we might dispute is whether, given the location of the sign and the tree, I should have seen it, or, whether the city should have placed the stop sign in a more visible location.  Those are interpretations of the basic indisputable fact of the sign’s location.  But if we spend our time disputing where the stop sign was located or if there really was a tree located near it, etc., then we will never get to a resolution of issues such as whether I should pay for damage I caused by running the sign or whether the city should move the sign or trim the tree that may have blocked it.

So, when we discuss immigration, there are certain facts that, while we might not like them, are indisputable.  Things like the numbers of illegals in this country; the numbers crossing our border both legally and illegally, the numbers in custody; the numbers of children; that some are criminals; that some families are separated at the border; that border agents have rescued aliens and that some aliens have died in our custody; that sanctuary cities protect aliens from ICE; that there are a variety of reasons why migrants seek to enter America, both legally and illegally.  These and many other facts can be specifically supported with statistics and other evidence.  Similarly, the laws and their requirements can easily be read.  These are all facts.  If we are going to actually have a productive dialog about immigration, then we must accept the facts that exist – all the facts, whether they further our argument or not -  and discuss their significance to our country in light of varying views and interpretations of those facts.  We can try to understand those views that differ from ours and try to persuade those who hold them to perhaps see some of the facts from our perspective instead. 

But, if we are going to reject those actual facts that don’t support our position, if we are going to turn facts we don’t like into something refutable that belong to the other side of our issue, then any attempts at discussion must go nowhere.  Facts, indisputable evidence, is not something about which we can rationally disagree.  And so statements such as that made by Speaker Pelosi are simply a way of blocking any rational discussion of the immigration issue. 

We can have both facts and points of view on an issue.  Indeed, that is what our democracy relies upon – an acceptance and encouragement of diverse voices on an issue as we move forward to correct problems related to provable facts.  But, we can’t make up the facts.  We can’t choose which facts to accept.  The facts simply are.  It is the picking and choosing of facts to make up a narrative pleasing to one side or another and then an assertion that only that narrative is correct, that creates the impossible animosity that grips our country today.

It is easy to assert that our views are facts.  But, simply, they are not.  And, until people can accept that fact, until they can distinguish the two, there is little hope for resolution to issues and much likelihood of continuing hostility toward, instead of tolerance of, those holding differing views.

Sticks and Stones and Bones and Souls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of the Bands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Suggestion of Mind Reform (Are you being brainwashed?)

“Who is the slayer, who is the victim? Speak.”
-Sophocles

Today on one of my social media feeds someone posted memes implying that our current government is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and asserting that now is the time for people to show what they would have done/will do if given the chance to stop the “Third Reich.”  Memes that imply anyone who does not stand against President Trump or his policies is the guilty equivalent of Hitler or other evils.

In addition to revealing a complete lack of education about or understanding of history (both past and present), these sorts of posts reflect a technique used in classic brainwashing.  The question, however, is:  are those posting, reposting, and otherwise repeating such sentiments the brainwasher, the brainwashed, or both?

Brainwashing is an extreme form of the social influence that affects all of us daily.  Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, an early researcher into the area, called techniques of brainwashing “mind reform.”  He identified specific stages in the process of this mind reform.   Looking at the process it is hard not to see it reflected in the anti-Trump rhetoric and behavior that abounds in today’s society.

Brainwashing or Mind Reform begins with assaulting and breaking down the self of the victims in order to convince them that they are not who they think they are.  Victims are berated with assertions that deny their beliefs about themselves:  You are not a true Christian; not a true patriot; not a good parent; not a good citizen; not truly compassionate; not defending freedom.  They are under attack being told: you are wrong; you are stupid; you are racist to think as you do, etc. They are told their beliefs are responsible for suffering, both theirs and others, both past and present. 

Under such constant attack the victims become exhausted and confused to the point that their beliefs seem less solid and they (with the brainwasher’s help) begin to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame for the beliefs that make them who they are.  With this state of mind it becomes easier to change the values and beliefs of the victims. 

The brainwasher will push the victims to denounce family, friends, peers, and others who share the same “wrong” beliefs as the victim.  As the victims begin to separate from their past the groundwork is laid for building a new personality.  As the constant assault on identity along with the creation of guilt reaches its peak and the victims wonder “who am I? What am I supposed to do?”, the brainwasher will set up the temptation for the victims to convert to another belief system that will save them from their misery.  Thus ends the first stage of “mind reform.”

I would argue that the anti-Trumpers are fairly successful at carrying out this phase.  Those who do not hold their beliefs are constantly berated for those beliefs in a way that attacks their very identity.  They are encouraged to carry guilt for any wrongs in the world that they are led to believe are the result of their “wrong” values and beliefs.   Their values and their very selves are demeaned, they are rejected, and as they begin to question who they are, the value system of the anti-Trumpers is held out to them as right, good, and a way to make themselves both right and good.

The second phase of the brainwashing process involves several steps that create for the victims the possibility of salvation from their prior wrongs and from their guilt.  As the victims begin to lean toward the new set of values and beliefs offered by the brainwasher, the victims will be shown kindness and reprieve from the assaults they have been experiencing towards themselves.  They are thus faced with the contrast between guilt and pain versus the sudden relief they now experience.  They will be offered the opportunity to “confess” as a means of relieving their guilt and pain. 

Victims will likely not be able to identify specifically what they are guilty of, but will simply feel a heavy burden of being wrong.  The brainwasher will encourage the victims to attach the guilt and sense of wrongness to the belief system that the brainwasher is in the process of replacing.  The victims will begin to believe that it is the old belief system itself that is the cause of their shame and hurt, and will understand that the new system is, at the very least, a way to escape that agony.   

The idea that the root cause of guilt and pain is an external ideology allows the victims to place blame for their pain and “wrongness” beyond themselves:  “it’s not me, it’s my beliefs that were externally imposed on me.”  The victims can assert that they themselves are not bad and that they can escape their prior badness or wrongness by simply escaping the bad or wrong belief system.  All they have to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system.

This second phase of the mind reform process certainly explains the 100% denouncement and hatred of Trump as well as denouncements of our country, its government, its laws, and anyone who shows any sign of support for those things.  Those who have been convinced that their legitimate beliefs are racist or in some way evil or that they are responsible for the suffering of others, now have the opportunity to release their pain by simply denouncing their former beliefs, including those beliefs upon which this country was founded, and joining the anti-Trumpers.

The final phase of brainwashing or mind reform involves the rebuilding of the Self.  The rejection by the victims of the old ideology leaves a vacuum into which the new ideology can be placed.  That new ideology is presented as the path to good.  The victims are encouraged to make a conscious choice in favor of the new system, and, once that is done, the previous attacks on the victims’ identities that caused the victims pain are replaced with welcoming comfort, collegiality, and a sense of belonging.  In this way the brainwasher reinforces the positive choice of the new ideology:  the new identity is safe and “good” unlike the uncomfortable and “bad” former ideology.  The victims will shed all allegiance to the old ideology and fully affirm the new as they are accepted and anchored firmly into the new order.

Lifton and subsequent psychologists who identify the steps of brainwashing and how it leads to a profound state of suggestibility also discuss why some people are more susceptible than others.  A strong sense of identity and self-confidence along with faith in a higher power can assist a targeted victim from detaching from and resisting the process.  I would submit that in this age of social media and its companion need for social acceptance and group belonging, an age in which social influence has such great power, that taking simple social influence to the next level of actual mind reform is perhaps a not too difficult task for those seeking to do so.  That is, for many the need for social approval and acceptance is so strong and so often accompanied by self-doubt, that their very identities will be easy targets for the brainwasher.

I don’t know where those who repost and repeat the ugly anti-Trump rhetoric are in this process of mind reform.  Are they fully accepted into the cult of anti-Trump, or are they trying to get there?  I do believe they are at least past the first phase and either because they are full members or in an effort to continue assuaging the guilt they feel for their old “bad” ideology, they are trying to impose the same efforts that worked on them on those who still hold those “bad” beliefs. 

Regardless of whether they are the brainwasher, the victims, or both, they are filled with either fear or hate of all who do not share the anti-Trump agenda.  Moreover, they are incapable of having any kind of dialog about the varying ideologies that must always exist in a democracy.  Reposting memes, repeating phrases that attempt to assign guilt to those who hold the “wrong” beliefs, makes them complicit in the brainwashing of new victims. 

In nearly any attempt at conversation that I have had with one of these at least semi-brainwashed individuals, rather than carry on a discussion their approach is to repeatedly ask me questions that take this two-part form:  (1) How can you hold that view when (2) it reveals you as racist/a white supremacist/without compassion/stupid/ignorant/without humanity or compassion/etc.?  Such a question presumes that my beliefs are indeed as labeled (e.g. they are racist, etc.).  If the questioner has already determined that, then there is little room for dialog.  I am immediately put on the defensive, expected to feel guilt and shame (sounds like the first phase of brainwashing, doesn’t it?).  If the second half of the question already has an answer (the view is racist) then the first part also already has an answer – I could only hold that view if I am indeed racist. 

And so, the attempt at brainwashing begins.  Sadly, these questions too often find victims that are likely susceptible to the anti-Trump brainwashing.  They will begin to question their identity and their beliefs and are thus well on the way to the guilt and shame that will make them willing victims of mind reform.

A real dialog might instead include questions such as:  “I don’t understand your view, could you explain it to me?”  Or even “I don’t understand why that view is not racist, but I’d like to hear why you believe it is not.”  Anything that would open up a discussion about differing views and differing ideologies.  That is far different than calling something a discussion or dialog when it is actually an attempt to create shame and guilt combined with  a predetermined judgment about a view and anyone who holds that view as being in some way “bad.”

With apology to Sophocles, I ask:   Who is the brainwasher, who is the brainwashed?  Are you a victim?  Are you knowingly or unknowingly assisting in brainwashing others?  Without honestly asking these questions of ourselves and others and honestly answering, there is little hope for dialog or tolerance, two key pieces of a free and democratic society.

Ignorance, Stupidity, or Just Simple Brainwashing?

Do people really believe what they spout, post, and repost?  Do they have any comprehension of what they are saying?

CNN asks the Press to speak with “one voice” against Trump.   That is in complete opposition to the role of the Press in a democracy.  It is in a dictatorship, a place where the people receive propaganda rather than information from the media, that the Press speaks with one voice.  How can anyone who understands our democracy and the Press’s role in it really call for or support such action?  Joe Concha of The Hill got it right when he noted that with its “bash Trump day” the Press is acting “like the opposition party. (http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/402095-with-bash-trump-day-press-acts-like-opposition-party).  We already have an opposition party; the role of the Press is, or should be, quite different!

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College has once again reared its ugly head as those who can’t understand why a pure majority vote did not make their candidate win or at least deny the White House to Donald Trump grasp for reasons to claim that he is "not my president."  They dismiss Trump’s election because it was by the electoral college.  Well, under our Constitution that is how we elect the president – sorry that they and their candidate didn’t understand that, but that does not make Trump’s election illegitimate.

Do these same people understand that in a pure majority rule democracy that the majority can easily completely suppress and silence the views and voices of the minority?  While some might think that a good idea now,  believing their views are the majority and they attempt to silence the president and his supporters, one wonders if they have considered how they will feel when their viewpoint is a clear minority.  We have a Democratic Republic for a reason.  In a Democratic Republic, power is held by the people but exercised through their elected representatives, including a president.  A republic will include certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority. Rule purely by majority is very different:  a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities. (See  this blog dated August 10, 2018, Debating Socialism).  I think that many people either do not understand this or choose to ignore it because it does not fit their narrative and their agenda.

I recently met with someone whom, until that meeting, I had considered to be fairly intelligent.  This person wanted to “understand” a Trump supporter.  While I had hoped for a dialogue, I felt more like a curiosity in a zoo that this individual wanted to examine, not to understand but simply to inform me how ignorant I am, how racist, how uninformed, how cruel, and what an oddity I must be.  This person wanted me to somehow either admit my faults and/or show some remorse for holding the views I do.  Every “question” began “how can you think/say…[ a policy/action/America itself] is good/benefits the country when…[the president or that position is racist/evil/incorrect/etc.] and the positions you support are [evil/racist/etc.]”  There was no dialogue.  Answering the “questions” required me to first argue the asserted statement or judgment about the president/position was incorrect; however, any facts used to support my position were dismissed as untrue or simply not accepted because not within the anti-Trump narrative.  Even if we could have gotten past that part of the question, I then had to defend how I could hold my position with the predetermined judgement that my position was both wrong and racist or evil.  This is not a dialog.  Instead it was an attempt to shame me.  This individual quoted half truths and untruths and, when presented with evidence that these were factually incorrect, nonetheless held to the position they supported. 

In any other area but Trump, I still believe that this individual would be open to hearing other positions, would fully investigate facts, would not just parrot soundbites from CNN, Facebook and Twitter.  So, it is unlikely that this behavior is stupidity.  There is some ignorance involved, but this individual would not allow such ignorance about any other topic of discussion.  I don’t know if it is true brainwashing, but something has caused this individual to completely shut off the input of any thoughts or facts or ideas that might conflict with the narrative and sound bites that were repeated to me throughout the course of the 3 hour “discussion.”

If people have reached the point where they can only blindly hate Trump and anything he does, along with anyone who supports him or any of his actions, then there is really little hope for political dialog in this country.  And that may be the reality that at least some people want.  After all, real dialog is difficult.  One must actually think and think deeply and critically.  That takes energy and effort and it is not easy.  One must question not only the thoughts, facts, and ideas put in front of them, but must also question their own ideas and positions and be willing to alter those positions if their thinking and investigations lead them to do so.

Some people seem to be perfectly content to sit back and be told what to think, whom to like and whom to hate.  It’s easy; they don’t have to think.  It's also easy to paint with a broad brush and once you have determined you dislike someone to characterize absolutely everything they say or do or support as evil. (He's a bad guy, so everything that he touches or that is connected with him must unconditionally be bad).  Then one doesn't have to grapple with complex concepts and issues.  They can live in the moment without thinking about things like long term consequences of their actions or inactions.  They can look at the world as if it is all just entertainment for their pleasure and they can allow themselves to be consumed with hatred of any who do not spout and conform to the narrative that they have memorized and preach.  They have also placed themselves in a position in which they are easy to manipulate and likely to be used to further someone else’s agenda.

Perhaps this is the zombie apocalypse:  these people are not living but are sleepwalking zombies.  I don’t know if it is ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing, or something else that has really stopped so many from thinking, from using their brains.   What I do know is that for the good of our country and the future of our world I want them to wake up!  They may not like the president, but he is not their enemy, he is not the devil, he is not evil personified.  They need to stop believing and parroting every hateful meme and instead educate themselves about this country, what this president is and is not doing, and what previous administrations have and have not done.  They need to give up the hysteria and hyperbole, use their brains, educate themselves about issues so that they can intelligently take a stand for or against positions on those issues rather than simply judging and name calling those with whom they are told to disagree.   They need to open themselves up to dialog.  They need to use their brains and THINK! 

Words, Phrases, Clarity, and Understanding

I frequently notice that attempts at discussion are often marred by confusion of key terms used by the participants.  Understanding of and precision in terms used are essential for good dialog. When a person is using a term that actually means something else, or that another participant in the dialog simply thinks means something else, the ability to truly understand one another tends to evaporate and the discussion often devolves into argument or worse.  And, indeed, when participants are involved in a discussion of hotly contested issues, one may actually have a strong argument for a particular position, but that argument will not be convincing if it is based on or supported by misused words.

So, in the interests of clarity, here is a chart, listing some pairs of words we often hear, but whose definitions seem to have become confused.  (Most of the definitions are taken from Merriam Webster or similar dictionaries)  Please do not use the following words or phrases interchangeably; the terms are not equivalent with one another

Law A very complex topic, but basically, the definition is: A system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.	Policy Contrary to popular belief, policy is not law.  It, too, is a complex topic, but its basic definition is: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.
Melting Pot This term is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society.  It is defined as: a place, or the people of a place, where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.	Multicultural This is a society where diverse cultures co-exist and manifest diverse customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.
Capitalism (Also referred to as “free enterprise.”)  The classic definition is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.	Consumerism This is not a governmental form.  It is: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; it also refers to preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.
Immigration This is simply the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.   It does not necessarily mean the immigrant will integrate.	Integration Simply an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.  It is not immigration, though immigration might lead to integration.
Legal Something is legal if it is based on, concerned with or permitted by law. Not liking something does not make it illegal.	Illegal Something is illegal if it is contrary to, forbidden by, or in violation of law.  Wishing an illegal act were legal does not  make it so.
Personal Belief That which someone personally holds to be true and which governs personal behavior.  One can hold personal beliefs that are different from required professional actions and still carry out those required actions.	Professional Action Action one takes in accordance with the requirements of one's profession or career.  Most can competently carry out required actions regardless of one's personal beliefs or preferences as to required professional actions.
Dialog A conversation between two or more people, often to resolve a problem.	Collusion Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Confusion of the above terms, assuming that one equals the other, leads to confusion in discussion and lack of clarity about one’s own or another’s position.  We should all try to be more careful and precise when discussing issues that are of importance.

It would also be useful to clarify definitions of specific governmental forms:

Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Dictatorship: an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Social Democracy:  a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Republic:  a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democratic Republic:  a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Lastly, there are some additional terms that merit clarification.  These are terms that are often used in the name calling that is so prevalent today. Even if the views of someone are repugnant to another, it does not necessary mean that the person holding those views is any of the following.  Using charged words to label an opponent does nothing to further a productive discussion.  The definition of each term is followed by my comments (in italics) about the use of the term in current dialog.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

          Being against immigration as currently practiced, or against illegal immigration, or for enforcing immigration law does not necessarily mean that one is racist or anti-immigrant.  Disliking the acts of someone who happens to belong to a particular race, or simply being of another race, does not make one racist.

Fascism
A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.  A Fascist is one who follows this belief.

            Because Fascism is often based on racial identity, before throwing this term around one ought to consider who it is that plays identity politics, who it is that shouts down or otherwise silences opponents.  But, even that does not rise to the definition of Fascism which was exemplified by Hitler.

Nazi/Nazism

A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy.  Nazism is the ideology associated with that party.  Beliefs include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

            This term is often used as an epithet against those holding positions with which one disagrees. Mere disagreement, even when strongly advocated, does not make one a Nazi.

Holocaust

Technically this word simply means “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”  However, as usually used it refers to the totality of actions by Hitler against the Jews, including extermination of over 6 million.

            Temporary separation of families pursuant to valid immigration law is not a holocaust.  To call it such cheapens what happened to the Jews; by so loosely using this term for anything one finds unpleasant or even abhorrent, reduces the acts of Hitler to being something similarly merely unpleasant, and not the horrendous evil that we should never forget.

Real conversation requires understanding and precision in the language one uses.  The above is a start at defining some essential terms. Hopefully this may help those who are tempted to use these words to use them more carefully. If we all would be sure we understand the meanings of words that we are using in our conversations, then perhaps those conversations would be more productive acts of understanding ultimately leading to resolutions to the divisiveness that is destroying us.

Depth of Thought – The Cake Case

For years many have been watching and arguing about the case of the Colorado baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The case has been wending its way through the courts and outside of that process the arguments have, for the most part consisted simply of a re-articulation of one or more of the following phrases: “gays are protected/gays have rights”; “religion is protected/its expression is a right”; “gays are good/bad”; “religion is good/bad.” The line between two sides was well marked and as a result there was no hope of real communication or understanding, let alone any resolution.

Enter the Supreme Court of the United States and its final decision in the case issued this morning.  While the decision may not resolve the entire debate, and I am sure that folks will now begin a debate about the opinion itself, what that opinion also does is give us a good example of depth of thought and understanding.

Here is a link to the full opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.   I encourage everyone to read it.

Actually, the full opinion/decision consists of several opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote and delivered the opinion and judgement of the court with which Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.  Justice Kagen also wrote a concurring opinion (an opinion which agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the majority, but for different or additional reasons) with which Justice Breyer agreed.   Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion with which Justice Alito agreed.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part and concurred with the judgement; Justice Gorsuch joined that opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (one which disagrees with the holding/ultimate judgment of the court) and Justice Sotomayor joined in that dissent.

This may seem like a lot of opinions about one case and one might wonder why, instead of 59 pages the Court can’t simply state that the bakeshop won 7-2.  

We need these 59 pages for many reasons.  Following is the one that is the point of this blog.

These opinions, while displaying a depth of thought about and understanding of the issues involved in the case, also underscore the complexity of those issues.  Each opinion explains the basis of the author’s position and why, in that author’s opinion that position is superior to other differing yet also reasonable positions.  They reveal each author’s attempt to understand the complexities of the issues involved as well as to understand the reasoning behind each position on those issues.  These opinions are, in effect, a written dialog between the members of the court in which they present their understanding and support for their positions while listening to and respectfully responding to differing understandings.

This decision puts to rest the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but, this and other debates over this and other issues will undoubtedly continue.  What we all can learn from this opinion is that issues are far more complex than day to day rhetoric and sound bites allow.  In this opinion we have an example of the depth of understanding that we all should make an effort to achieve on all issues. 

It is only with respect for and understanding of opposing views such as we see displayed in this decision that we can ever have a true dialog which, if not able to completely resolve an issue at least allows us to continue a reasonable, respectful, and rational dialog rather that simply engaging in hate-filled debate.  Taking sides and throwing about rhetorical solutions solves nothing.  Depth of understanding and an open dialog which includes both explanation of the support for one’s assertions along with an open-mindedness to understanding of opposing reasoning is the only way that a free society can truly move forward and ultimately resolve the many issues with which it is faced.

So, read the opinion.   Whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision in this particular case, read this opinion as an example of how one can support one’s position with more than simple buzz words and phrases.  Read the opinion as an example of the sort of explanation and support that gives strength to the assertion of any particular conclusion. 

We are not all Supreme Court Justices, but we can all use this opinion as a model for our own discussions with others on issues and as a model for the type of understanding that we should strive for before asserting a particular position on an issue. When faced with someone with whom you disagree, try to emulate the sort of respect, discussion, and understanding that is apparent in the opinion.  Obviously, it requires work to reach this level of understanding about any issue, but that work is far more productive and positive than simply shouting down and not even listening to those who disagree.  Let depth of thought be our goal for it will lead to understanding and real dialog.

Victimhood, Group-think, and Identity Politics: “MeToo” for Everyone

I have been thinking a lot about victimhood lately.  I have come to believe that we in large part encourage and have indeed become a society of victims.  This victim mentality seems to have merged with identity politics and together they seem to be pushing us to a place of superficial group-think that is a danger to our democracy.  Let me explain:

A victim is someone who is harmed or injured as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.  We have all been victims of something at some time in our lives.  There are many ways that one can deal with victimhood.  One can ignore the harm or injury completely – hard to do if it is much more than a stubbed toe.  One can seek an appropriate remedy for the injury – legal recourse, medical treatment, perhaps just an apology – and then move forward.  Or, one can bemoan one’s hard luck for a day, a week, or perhaps even a lifetime.   It is when one chooses to assume that permanent label of victim that they begin to demand attention beyond that which the actual injury merits. 

There are individuals who relish their victimhood; perhaps they emphasize or even exacerbate it simply as a way to get attention and special treatment (we will leave it for the psychiatrists to determine what was lacking in their childhood or their psyche that gave them this need for attention).  I suspect that these individuals are not very happy; I know that they can disrupt as well as make demands on the happiness of those with whom they interact.   But, what happens when we have a whole group, if not a whole society, filled with victims?

Identity politics seems to have co-opted the victim mentality.  Every group has its grievance and that grievance, they believe, gives them a permanent victim status with rights of special treatment for past wrongs. This does not mean that the original harm or injury was not real or that an identifiable group did not suffer some particular harm.  But, what groups seem to do is to choose not to seek redress and then move forward, but instead to assume the permanent label of victim seeking continuing and ever-more redress.   All those within any particular group are required to buy into the victim hood of the group or be cast out from that group identity.  Thus, we have blacks or gays or women who choose not to proclaim permanent victimhood being condemned by their respective black or LGBT or feminist groups. 

This group-think is important to the politics of identity, as is the inherent victimhood.  If one wants to use a particular class of people to one’s own advantage, one way to do so is to make those people unite in dependence on you and in opposition to some enemy.  This is a classic technique of community organization:  rile a particular community up against a caricatured evil enemy, make the community a victim of the oppressor.  Identity politics labels people according to group.  One must think and behave exactly as all members of one’s identified group.  Thus, group-think becomes required within the groups one supports and is assumed of all members of groups which one opposes. And, if a particular leader is seen as the advocate or savior of the aggrieved group, that group’s dependence on that leader will sustain the leader’s power.

Group-think is certainly an easier way to approach interactions with others than getting to know individuals.  It is also far more superficial and in the end very dangerous.  Victimhood combined with group identity and its incumbent group-think completely destroys dialog between individuals; it does not allow for differing viewpoints.  When one disagrees with a victim, they are often accused of challenging or attacking the victim.  This becomes a way for a victim to assert his or her position and/or demands without any push-back.  Because the victim is a victim their every need should be acknowledged, believed, and attended to.  Facts become irrelevant as the victim’s feelings become all important.

Here is an example from current events.  A woman claims she was a victim of sexual assault by current Senate candidate Moore when she was 14, nearly 40 years ago.  When Kellyanne Conway suggested in an interview by Martha Raddatz that we should wait for and look at the evidence, she was accused of calling the woman a liar and the conversation effectively ended.  Yet, one should be able to question allegations and seek further evidence without that being an attack of the person claiming victimhood.  This is especially true when the event alleged is 40 years old.  It is common science today that our memories are memories of memories.  One can fully believe that their recollection is accurate and as such it is true for them, but facts could prove otherwise.  That is, our memories can and do alter historical reality.  We are in a very dangerous place if the mere claim of victimhood means that anything one says or does must be accepted as true and tolerated without challenge or even discussion. (And this is so for either side in a he said-she said situation).

Permanent victims claim an inability to handle not only the past harm, but any and all future harms.  They become overly sensitive to any real or perceived words or actions that might harm them or that they find in some way offensive.  Because there is no opportunity for dialog about this, because we instead are asked to cave into every demand of the victim, we instead provide safe-spaces, trigger warnings, and try to avoid even the least micro-aggression.  We all walk on egg-shells trying to protect the victim from future harm or upset of any kind.   This does nothing but encourage more victimhood.

In our group-thinking identity groups every member of the group is encouraged to proclaim their own victimhood.  They are on the look-out for the slightest affront to which they can proclaim “me too.”  Thus we have women finding solidarity with their sisters who were raped by claiming “me too” for a cat call heard when walking down a crowded street, or a person of color claiming “me too” when they were looked at a little too long by a store clerk, thinking this gives them solidarity with a black man unjustifiably beaten because he was black.  This group-think victimhood has become a way of belonging, of joining the in-crowd instead of being left on the sidelines. 

And what this group victimhood does is perpetuate the group’s status as victim, creating anger, fear, and hatred against those outside the group who are the perceived victimizers.  Must all women hate all men because some women have been victims of sexual harassment or assault by some men?  Must all people of color hate all whites because some people of color have been victimized by some whites?  Must all Muslims be feared and hated because some Muslims have committed atrocities?  The list goes on.  But identity politics tends to force an affirmative answer to these questions. 

Those groups and those answers are useful to those seeking power through politics.  And that is why this culture of victimhood combined with identity politics is so dangerous.  Our democracy is based on education, dialog, and compromise.  All of these require free speech and none of these are possible when speech is foreclosed because someone might be upset by it.   In addition to ending the dialog necessary for democracy, victimhood can lead to a frightening police-like state that allows punishment based only on a victim’s claim, effectively destroying our justice system.  Again, Martha Raddatz in her interview with Kellyanne Conway urged an articulated standard of guilt it the court of public opinion.  Apparently, from Raddatz and other political and media urging in regard to the allegations against Moore, the claim of a victim alone should be enough for a verdict of guilty. Imagine how this can only encourage false claims of all sorts in order to remove individuals from positions of power (this is not meant to imply that the claims against Moore are necessarily false).

Group-think victimhood and its silencing of dialog and free speech also results in a superficiality that perpetuates rather than solves problems.  Take gun-control for example.  Every time there is a mass shooting the claim is for gun control, as if simply taking away the guns will solve the illness within our society that is the ultimate cause of the ever-increasing numbers of killings within our country.  We have become a society of victims and with that victimhood comes an alarming increase in hatred of those outside our victim-group, those seen as our group’s victimizers.  Taking away guns won’t fix this, though those who perceive themselves as possible victims may nonetheless believe they have the safe space they seek.

So what do we do?  First, let us stop encouraging victimhood.  Think of the child learning to walk who falls and scrapes his knee.  His mother can pick him up, brush him off, add a bandage if necessary, give him a hug, and then encourage him to get up and move on.  Or, she can fall all over his victimhood, teach him to never run again lest he be hurt again, and essentially send him the message that he is sadly unable to run like other children and needs a safe space along with all the benefits that those who are able to run, who are not victims, have.  Of course, that might be easier than getting back up and learning to run, but which would you choose for your child? 

In our society there are many individuals who have suffered a variety of wrongs.  In some instances, these individuals can be identified as belonging to a group – for example, Blacks descended from slaves who did suffer the injustice of slavery or women who have been denied equal pay.  There were unquestionably injustices and victims involved.  But permanent victimhood is not the way to respond.  And encouraging victimhood as a way of belonging to a group is also not the way to respond.  Looking for a safe and protected space where one will never be hurt again is also not useful (and probably impossible).  Better is to help victims to deal with their victimization appropriately and in a timely manner, resolving the situation, and then moving forward.  In the case of individual harm, this might mean a lawsuit, a complaint of some sort, medical attention, etc.  In the case of an injustice directed at a particular group, for example refusal to pay women equally, the remedy may involve both individual and class lawsuits, lobbying for laws or regulations, etc.  But in all cases the point is to promptly deal with the harm and then move forward, not wallow in one’s victimhood.

If society consists of perpetual victims always looking for their next injury, no matter how slight, then we will be stuck in a world where all dialog is silenced for fear of affront, where everyone demands their own safe space, where feelings, especially feelings of hurt are the driving and ruling forces, countered by fear and hatred between groups.  The individual will become lost in the group-victimization-think, as will our intellect, reason, and judgement.  Easier as it may be to fall and cry for others to pick you up while crying “woe is me,” it is more rewarding to pick yourself up and move forward.   Politicians seeking power would rather keep others as victims so that they will be dependent upon the politician’s power to carry them.   We need to see the danger of all this and stand up, each and every one of us, and refuse to support a society of victimization and divisive group-think.  Instead of crying “woe is me” we need to scream “we can be” – we can be ourselves, we can be problem solvers, we can work together with those unlike us, we can listen, we can think, we can be!   In the democracy that is America, the democracy that gives us our individual freedom, the “me too” victimization and group-think of identity politics is not for everyone; indeed, it should not be for anyone.