Two Worlds

That we in America are co-existing in two different worlds is really no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention at all for the last few years, and certainly since Donald Trump was elected to become President Trump (President for at least one of those worlds; the other refusing to accept him as President).   But, this all really struck me again today as I listened to the House Judiciary Committee’s latest episode of the Impeachment Show.

Today we had staffers – staff counsel – commenting on the hearsay and opinion testimony that had been provided to Adam Schiff’s Star Chamber segment of the Impeachment Show.  It was so clear as I listened to the two different interpretations of the evidence (which we will remember is not first hand accounts of the “offense” under consideration, but accounts of what someone was told by someone else who heard it from someone else who may or may not have first hand evidence).  So, rather than coming closer to the truth we become further and further removed from reality.

But, it is interesting to listen to how both sides hold some of the same buzz words and phrases dear and use them to explain what is wrong with the other side.  For example, each side proclaims how the other does not care about America and is destroying our country by disregarding the Constitution. 

In my opinion, it is ludicrous for the Democrats to proclaim that President Trump does not care about America.  Who in recent memory has done more for our country and its people?  The economy is good, unemployment is low, those disaffected groups whom the Democrats have always pandered to are experiencing far better conditions than under the Democrats who would keep them dependent and depressed. 

There is hope in the country for many who have lost or at least not seen hope for many years.  America is blossoming after having been told for years that we should be ashamed and hopeless.  This is the President’s doing, so it is hard for me to understand how people can say he does not care about America.  But, they live in a different world where they look at life through different glasses.  Glasses that are a complete mystery to me.

The Democrats proclaim that President Trump is all about using his position for self-gain.  Again, I do not see what they see.  The President is trying his hardest to make America great again, for all its people.  He donates his entire salary, making nothing for the hard work he puts in.  His businesses as well as those of his adult children are if anything losing due to being under constant attack by Democrats and the media.  I do not see the self-gain that they see in their world.

As far as disregarding the Constitution, I see the Democrats as the ones who are shredding it daily and since the moment that President Trump was elected.  It is they who refuse to accept the will of the people, who believe that they have a right to overturn the results of an election because the people’s choice is seen by them as not the one that the people should have made.  Indeed, they are disdainful not only of the choice, but of the people themselves.  They have sought since 2016 to overturn the election and remove the President.  Yet, in America, under our Constitution, the losers must accept the will of the people if our democracy is to continue.  At least, that is the reality I know, though apparently not theirs.

Beyond overturning the people’s electoral voice, the Democrats have consistently attacked the President and his supporters and appointees with star chamber like proceedings that deny fairness and due process to those involved whom the Democrats are attacking.  We witnessed this in the Russia probe, in the FISA warrants, and most disgustingly in the Kavanaugh hearing to name just a few.  And, of course, in the current proceedings in which Adam Schiff seems to think he is a king who can do as he pleases, violate House rules, and deny all due process in order to reach a goal that he has already chosen.

Moreover, it is the Democrats who would silence every voice that opposes them.  It is they who are not tolerant and supportive of the diverse views that our democracy demands.  It is they who spew hate at everyone who does not join them in their hatred of the President while at the same time claiming that it is he who is hateful.

Meanwhile, how has the President thwarted the Constitution?  In our system of laws, he has gone to the courts, not made proclamations by fiat in response to seemingly unfair and unjust demands by the likes of Adam Schiff and his gang of Impeachers.  He follows the process.  Perhaps that is why so many of the unelected diplomats who thought they were in charge were so infuriated when the President removed them or at least some of their power.  Apparently, they had forgotten that the people elect the President whose duty it is and who holds the power to make the policy decisions that they thought it was their right to make.  Again, they seem to live in a different reality than do I.

What I see are politicians set in their ways and in love with their power who are angry that President Trump is not willing to support their continued disregard of the country and its people.  They are now dug in and determined to remove him.  Removal is their only goal and they are willing to shred the Constitution and even the country to do so. 

And so, they tell their stories of how the President is destroying America.  How?  Perhaps by not leaving so that they will stop their destruction?  They tell stories of the President’s (and his supporters’) evils – racist, hateful, etc.  How?  The President’s economy is helping minorities, raising them out of the depressed, hopelessness that has been their gift from Democrats.  He enforces laws equally, not based for or against someone on their identity. 

And, returning to the specifics of the current Impeachment Show,  the president has a duty to investigate fraud that may have been perpetrated on this country by another nation or by individuals within this nation who held power and used it for their own personal or family gain.  So, when the President told Ukraine that we (our country) wanted them to investigate both the 2016 election interference and the possibility that the then Vice President’s son had in some way benefited from the Vice President’s power and position, President Trump was doing his job.  That the then Vice President happens to now be a presidential candidate should not preclude an investigation into what might be at best an unethical act during his vice presidency. 

And, here is what I really don’t understand:  it is pretty clear that the then Vice President in some way used his position for his or his family’s personal gain.  There is no evidence that the current President has done so.  Yet the Democrats would have us ignore the facts, ignore possible ethical violations by the Bidens, and instead claim that it is President Trump who is doing so.  It is like the pop psychology assertion that we see others through our own eyes.  That is, the Democrats seem to be projecting their own behavior upon the President.

It is like Truth and Untruth in 1984: “Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else.”  And, we clearly have two realities coexisting in this country.  I would label them as follows:  The one based on emotion and the belief that if you say and believe it enough, then it will be true.  I assign this to the Trump-haters and the Impeachers.  The other reality based on reason and logic I assign to those who demand real facts and evidence, not innuendo, supposition, and narrative based upon personal feelings.

For some Truth is simply what they want it to be.  They ignore real facts that contradict their fanciful and personal narrative.   This is the approach of The Impeachers.   They, in my opinion, are not rational.  Theirs is not Truth, but UnTruth, an UnTruth designed to suit their own personal ends.   Orwell writes in 1984, “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”  I hope that there are enough of us willing to cling to the reasonable, rational, and factually supportable Truth so that we can keep the country from not only going mad, but from the destruction that the continuing attacks of the Impeachers will cause.

Defining Issues - Thinking

How can we have discussions about important issues – issues that have more than one possible solution – if we can’t even define what those issues are?

This is really a question related to logic, and the reason it is a problem is in large part because a vast majority of people today seem to want to make decisions based, if not solely, at least primarily on emotion and not on clear thought.

For example, recently after the President’s speech announcing his intent to declare a border emergency, a local TV station posed this question to its listeners:  “Do you want a border wall?" Now, that question can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” though such answer would not address the depth of the situation or the answerer's support and reasoning for the answer.  But it clearly asks the recipients of the question to state their position on the wall.  Not on the emergency declaration.  Not on how they feel about immigrants themselves.  Not on what they think of President Trump.  Not on how many Democrats previously have made statements in support of the wall.  Not on what a physical barrier should be called.  Not on whether those who enter the country illegally should be treated differently from those who enter legally.  Etc.  Yet the answers given were often to one or more of these other questions, rather than to the question asked.   If a discussion had ensued between those answering, the participants would have been discussing different issues; like a tower of babel there would be no real understanding and hence no real resolution of any of the issues that individuals thought they were discussing.

All of the above are relevant to the broader immigration debate, but if we are ever going to have such a debate, we must clearly identify the pieces and their corresponding question that go into that debate and are parts that must be resolved before the larger, overall question can be resolved.  We cannot have a discussion where one participant thinks they are discussing one point while another thinks they are discussing a very different point.

Staying within the same general area of immigration and the wall, but with a different focus, people may wish to debate the President's emergency declaration.  But if they wish to have a productive discussion they must understand precisely what they are discussing.  Is it about the 1976 National Emergency Act itself?  Is the question a comparison of this declaration with previous declarations including the 31 still in effect? Is it about the 1982 statute that gives the President a number of emergency powers including the power to authorize and construct military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions?  Is it whether Congress should revise this statute and if so, could that retroactively affect the President's powers under a current declaration?  Is it whether it is a “military construction project” to build a structure that defines at least parts of a country’s border so as to at least in part prevent illegal entry into that country? 

And, within the broad topic of immigration, underlying all questions about the wall and border crisis are the bigger policy questions of whether or not to have open borders and if borders are to be controlled what is the best way to do so and what requirements and restrictions should be placed on those wishing to enter the country.  Answers to those broader questions direct answers to more specific questions and so must be defined and debated as their own issues.

Complex issues have many complex sub-parts.  This is not only true for immigration.  It is true for any question that has more than one possible answer or solution and about which people wish to discuss and debate those possible resolutions.  Before the broad and bottom line question can be resolved, its many sub-parts must be addressed and resolved.  To do that, people must be informed about and understand the facts, laws, and other relevant information about each piece.

And, there is the problem!   When people make decisions emotionally or based on prefabricated conclusions, there is no need to consider facts.  There is no need to be fully informed or to use the mind to consider the many significances of varying interpretations of facts and the many possible consequences of varying ways of addressing those facts.  It is much easier just to react with a sound-bite and conclusory stance on an issue.

Here are some recent examples.  

     It feels good to say we will let everyone come on in to America, that we are thus caring about humanity.  Hence, one takes a stand against a wall or for open borders or against an emergency declaration without full consideration of the relevant facts or the likely real world current and future consequences of those positions.

     It feels good and conforms with the progressive script to say Amazon like all big corporations is evil, so kick it out of your town without any consideration of the people who might have found a good income from new jobs created (never mind a total misunderstanding like that of Ocasio-Cortez of the fact that a tax break is not money in hand that can be handed out to people  - see Meet the Press interview with DeBlasio in which he explains that Amazon would have brought in 27 billion in jobs and revenue and out of that Amazon would have received a 3 billion tax break, but that none of that money currently exists, contrary to AOC’s assertion that the city already had and has 3 billion to give away HERE ). 

     It feels good to say Trump should be removed from office, so never mind the fact that the 25^th amendment is not the way to go about it (Constitutional Law Scholar Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly explained that invoking the 25th Amendment to remove would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.   See HERE ).

     It feels good to denounce Trump supporters as racist and homophobic, so don’t wait for facts before attacking them and blaming Trump for an alleged attack on Jussie Smollett.  Then follow Pelosi’s example of quietly deleting your tweets and statements once the allegation becomes questionable.  (see more generally this blog dated January 23 “Quietly Delete”  HERE )

     And, more broadly, it feels good to denounce Trump and his supporters without actual consideration of their actions, of the President’s actual accomplishments, the facts on things like unemployment, the economy, foreign relations.  It is simply enough to not like the President’s looks or demeanor, or to simply accept assertions and conclusory sound-bites of anti-Trump media and Democrats without individual thought and objective consideration of evidence.

When we react to problems with emotion, based on a preconceived and generic conclusions, we don’t think.  And when we don’t think about such things as understanding all the evidence and all the consequences of various courses of action, then we end up making poor decisions often with unforeseen and negative consequences.

Our form of government, a Democratic Republic, requires people to be informed and to use their minds to critically consider options and courses of action.  It does not demand that emotions be excluded from consideration, but emotions are simply one facet of a problem which should be considered objectively with all other evidence as one uses one’s mind to think about and fully understand an issue.  We cannot react to and make decisions about important policies based simply on a gut reaction or by mere acceptance of someone else’s conclusion without our own examination of relevant facts.

This of course takes work.  Our form of government takes work.  It is easy to have a simple democracy of mob rule where the voice (and rights) of the minority and the individual can be silenced; it is easy to have a dictatorship where one is simply told what to think; but our form of government recognizes, appreciates, and protects the individual. (For more on forms of government see this blog dated 8/10/18 Here)  

Our Democratic Republic assumes that the individual will be a responsible member of the community who will do the work necessary to be fully informed and will do the mental work necessary to understand that information.  Only then can one understand the many facets of an issue and have a productive discussion with others about that issue and how best to resolve it.  In order to continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections of our form of government, we must all do this work.

We, today, are faced with many complex issues.  We can continue to address them with emotional anger and reaction, or we can do our job as citizens of this Democratic Republic and become informed about the many complexities of important issues and discuss those complexities with rational thought and understanding.  By doing the latter we increase our odds of arriving at solutions whose consequences are positive both today and in the future.