Politics is smothering good Politicians

 The bodies weren’t even cold when the MAGA crowd started politicizing yesterday’s drone attacks by Iran-backed groups that killed three U. S. military in Jordan and wounded many others.  As expected, Trump immediately blamed Biden’s “weakness and surrender.”  Senator Tom Cotton (and Trump supporter) released the following statement almost immediately following the news of the attack:

 “Joe Biden emboldened Iran for years by tolerating attacks on our troops, bribing the ayatollahs with billions of dollars, and appeasing them to no end. He left our troops as sitting ducks and now three are dead and dozens wounded, sadly as I’ve predicted would happen for months. The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief.

 

“On behalf of Arkansans, I extend my deepest condolence to the families of our brave fallen warriors. May God comfort them as He welcomes their loved ones into His embrace. And may God quickly and completely heal their wounded comrades.” 

Nothing wrong with the second paragraph of Cotton's statement, but notice how it comes as almost an afterthought to the political rhetoric of the first paragraph, rhetoric characteristic of many MAGA supporters yesterday.  One would think that someone with Sen. Cotton’s distinguished military service would have more sense.  But no, in the ever-growing insanity of the MAGA cult, politics (i.e. electing Trump) is everything. 

As to retaliation against Iran, there must be a U.S. response, but this is really a very complex issue.  Iran denies it ordered the attack.  We need proof that it did before we respond directly against Iran for that attack.  And whatever action we take must be carefully considered in light of the already potentially explosive nature of the Middle East following the terrorist attack on Israel, Israel’s legitimate response, the prisoners held by Hamas, and the many questions about Gaza.  Just a blind return of fire could cause far worse problems than a delay in order to respond with well thought out action.

But, this inability to think beyond political posturing, rampant on all sides, actually defines the MAGA Republicans today.  Consider the bipartisan immigration bill that was on a likely path to passage until Trump urged Republicans to vote against the bill because he needs to be able to attack his rival Biden over the border crisis. The bipartisan bill would have provided money to Israel and Ukraine in return for Democrats agreeing to several Republican demands that address the border crisis and immigration laws.  As one senator put it, “[Trump] doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it.”

Oklahoma Republican Senator Lankford, who continues to negotiate with Democrats to try to save the bill stated on a Sunday TV news interview:

“It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said: ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in[immigration] law.  And now, it’s interesting: A few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because of presidential election year,'” 

And what does Sen. Lankford get for his efforts at bipartisanship to solve our country’s problems?  The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution censuring the Senator and attacking him for negotiating with Democrats on a potential border deal.  Just more proof that the Republican party cares little for people affected by the issues it campaigns on but rather simply uses those issues as political talking points to achieve its own power.

This is the new MAGA Republican party, and it has frightening authoritarian tendencies.  This party is led by the presumptive (but hopefully not actual) nominee Donald Trump.  While it is true that Trump’s 2016 presidency did much to improve the day to day lives of many Americans, it also had a dark side.   There is no question that Trump’s words were often acerbic and designed to get a response.  The response, beginning immediately upon his 2016 election was a series of never-ending attacks and allegations, many false and pursued out of seemingly pure hate for the man, but some with at least nuggets of truth to them.  While racial and perhaps other divisiveness became apparent during the Obama years, it increased during Trump’s presidency and continues to this day. 

Both parties have fanned the flames of this atmosphere of anger and overwhelming divisiveness since 2020.  The parties and their supporters have become true enemies of one another rather than simply political opponents and all seem ready if not eager to sue, impeach, censure, or otherwise fully attack anyone whose views or policy decisions they do not like.  This does little for the American people but seems to satisfy some political need within our current leaders. 

Since 2020, Trump and his MAGA supporters seem to be the most eager to stir up hatred and discord against any who are not 100% with them.  Since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has a track record of attacking our Constitution and our very form of government.  His claims of a fraudulent election, his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 (which I believe disqualify him from holding office) and his unsubstantiated and continuing assertions that Joe Biden was not elected and is not our real president are now joined by his actions setting up the same claims for 2024 as he currently asserts that the only way he will lose is if the Democrats cheat.  These assertions are all attacks on our elections, our institutions, and our rule of law, core elements of our democracy and the America and Americans which these folks claim to love.

But beyond these election related tirades, Trump regularly debases, ignores, and encourages others to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.  In his many ongoing court cases he consistently ignores the court processes, procedures, and rule of law.  He then verbally attacks the courts, attorneys, and jurors for simply doing their jobs when he does not obtain the outcome he seeks.  Moreover, he uses these serious judicial matters as opportunities for campaigning.  The disrespect (which is  encouraged by MAGA supporters who, for example, urge the Governor of Texas to disobey an order of Stay from the United States Supreme Court), if not violation, of both Constitution and Rule of Law are direct assaults on the core of our democracy.  These disregarders of the Constitution are the same folks who assert they believe in its every word – apparently that’s only when they like what it says.

The MAGA cult wants what it wants, and its political ambitions trump (excuse the pun) any concern for the American people.  Sometimes their needs or desires may benefit, but that is nothing more than coincidence. 

While Trump’s rhetoric has always been acerbic, it has taken an extremely dark and un-American turn. When he says that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” (spoken at a New Hampshire rally December 2023) and then doubles down on that statement when given an opportunity to offer some less repulsive explanation, one can’t help but hear the echo of Hitler asserting Jewish blood was poisoning Aryan German blood.  And when his Christmas message is a hope that his opponents rot in hell, one can see that he is not interested in working across the aisle or finding space for all Americans in this country. (Trump’s Christmas rant included the following: “World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country.” The message ended with, “MAY THEY (referring to Biden and Special Prosecutor Smith) ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!”) Such rhetoric, in my opinion, does not belong in America, and certainly not in the mouth of a presidential hopeful.

Trump’s exclusive and authoritarian tendencies are apparent as he tries to push out of the Republican Party any and all who do no swear allegiance to his MAGA regime.  He asserted that all Nikki Haley supporters are now permanently barred from the Republican party which he now refers to as the “MAGA community.”  (So much for the big tent where all are welcome!).  MAGA, in true fascist fashion, does not really care about the people, but only its power and its own ideology. 

And, lest we forget the Democrats, they too are often more likely to attack their opponents as totally evil individuals out to destroy America rather than attack the positions and policies of those with whom they disagree.  President Biden himself has given some pretty dark and angry speeches and his view of opponents as enemy is often apparent.  Expect these type of attacks to become more common as we approach the November election.  

We have a changing world fraught with many crises.  These are not the fault of one person or one party.  The problems and complex and often interconnected.   We need politicians who want to solve these problems, not just use them to blame others for their existence.

The primary political responses to the drone attack simply underscore the overwhelming and devastating role that politics itself has taken in our country.  There are good and bad and mediocre politicians, and we vote in or out those whose policies we do or do not agree with, giving those we choose the opportunity to represent us, the people.  But when it is politics itself that begins governing our country – when decisions are made based not on what is good for the American people but on what effect they will have on the enemy/other party, then we are in real trouble.   This politicization of almost everything smothers the opportunity for real dialog, debate, and solution to this country’s and the world’s problems.

We the people need to begin thinking like Americans who believe in our country and all of its people and who can work together to find solutions to our problems, and we need to demand that our politicians do the same.  We must no longer tolerate a politics that is synonymous with a blood-thirst against those holding opposing views.  And we need to elect politicians who will help us to stand united as one country rather than trying to divide us until we fall.

Horseshoes Anyone? It Depends.

 I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left.  A current example:  I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist.  I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent.  I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified.  I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.

This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it.  The extremes of both sides are dug in against one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than they are different.

Trying to explain this in the context of political discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is difficult.  But recently I was reminded of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect explanation.  Moreover, it leads me to realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.

The Horseshoe Theory

The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum, rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe.  The center of the horseshoe represents the political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each side where reside the Far Right and Far Left. 

You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are really quite similar to one another.

While this theory is often criticized for being too simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with that of one’s own political foes.

What makes the extremes similar while still appearing different?

The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state, work for the common good).  There are of course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by dictator. 

But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete examples. Consider identity politics.  The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, etc.).  The Right complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion, abortion advocates, etc.). 

Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics, but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable characteristics  while the Right’s placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right.  But regardless, the end result is that both Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all those whom they have placed into that group.

For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects the group’s perception of them.  The Left sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as victims of that oppression.  The Right condemns people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs, education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs.  Both Far Right and Far Left reduce individuals to a perceived group identity.

Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far Right and Far Left are more similar than different.  The Left will gladly justify the silencing of those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews.   Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive ideals.  The Right condemns the Left for censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates.  Yet the Right would silence progressive views by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.

Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which they don’t agree.

In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear language to satisfy popular demand.  Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14^th Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.

Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position maintained by that person).  Again, while the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable, plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the other’s right to hold a view different from their own.

A horseshoe?  It depends.

Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are comparing.  If you look at the specifics you can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike.  Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the Sea.”  The words are different, the issue being addressed is different, the people involved are different.  And you may agree with one speech but disagree with the other.

And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more alike than different.  In both cases there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their opinion.  It denies others of hearing that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy: our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe and what they can and cannot say.

Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.

Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context” in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of conduct.  But that is exactly what a good American should say.  As a mentor of mine recently stated:

[S]everal decades of "critical thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the context.   The guy who taught my [children] in the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had heard on NPR on the drive to school.  

Remember my admonition to [pre-law] students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the first instance with two words - "It Depends".   Instead each side gets its thinking orders from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens.  All surface.

In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more, perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof?  If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections of the First Amendment for all Americans. 

It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country.   It does often depend on context.   But core rights such as free speech should not depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered.  Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken. 

That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one.  While their stated goals may be different, their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.

Think

Good Americans think.  They ask why.  The extremes of both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.”  They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.

So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political spectrum.

I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately needs to be had in America today.  People need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites they repeat from their chosen news source.  That conversation can only be had if the conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert.  Otherwise, when their position is countered they likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves.  It is impossible to reason and explain a position that is merely memorized but not understood. 

When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute.   If forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.

The Parties – not for most Americans

The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s own views as well as those of one’s opponents.

Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying principles.  In the end, both sides seek power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and actions would all fall under their control.   While what might be allowed or condemned would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to choose.  That is not American, not traditional and not progressive.

Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good.   That is not America, traditional or progressive.

I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on others.  But we have given those Americans (including myself) nowhere to go.  If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than work together for solutions to serious problems. 

We need a middle party.  A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to be.

2024

It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe.  It could come from a third party or it could come from one or both of the major parties.  Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive stance of both parties today.

We can only hope.

Pink’s Politics Philosophizes: The Real Enquiry

This post does not address a particular issue but rather the bigger picture of what, philosophically, is going on in our world right now.  I do not have any extensive formal training in philosophy but do enjoy reading the philosophers, both ancient and modern, and considering their points of view and how they might be playing out in our world today.  This post expresses some of those thoughts and is not intended (nor is it) a thorough analysis of the philosophies and philosophers discussed. 

 

We may think that the division in this country is political, but that is only because we are looking at what is going on through the traditional political lens.  Similarly, this is not a moral war.  While that may be closer to the truth, it still does not hit the mark.

What we are in the middle of in this country and perhaps the whole world is a war about humanity itself and against the abolition of mankind.   What we are in the middle of involves the consequences that have resulted from denying value systems that have sustained us for centuries and a belief that mankind has the power to create itself into some more perfect entity.

The old solutions (compromise, reasoned thinking and rational argument, faith in facts rather than narrative) do not work because this conflict is about more than individual ideas and policies; it is truly about who and what mankind is and what it should be.  And ultimately it is about ultimate power.  Recognizing the truth of what is happening is the first and very necessary step in reaching any sort of solution.

What is a Man (mankind)

Mankind is defined as “the human race: the totality of human beings.”  Human beings are “a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

Mankind is also traditionally believed to be graced with a soul.   Soul can be defined as “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life” as well as “the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.”  

It is the brain as well as the soul that has traditionally distinguished mankind from other organisms.  Mankind is made up of individuals who, because of their individual brains and their intangible “souls” are each unique.  Each has individual – and yes, unequal – strengths and weaknesses.  Those, combined with the varying and sometimes unfair circumstances of life, mean that individuals may experience feelings of jealousy and dissatisfaction about their life circumstances in relation to others.

The concept of moral values

Throughout history mankind has been guided by a set of moral principles.  These principles are often religion based; indeed, the moral values upon which this country is founded are based in the Judeo-Christian belief system. 

For a moral structure/code of ethics/set of rules to work, there must be a belief or understanding that there is something beyond or outside of mankind that guides and enforces these principles.  That belief system usually also includes some form of immortality or life beyond this one; that life beyond is the carrot/stick that encourages mankind to conform to the value system it has adopted. 

When Nietzsche declared that God is dead it provided a means to remove moral codes.  As Kant had already asserted, “morality cannot do without God, freedom, and immortality.”

Nihilism

Nietzsche saw nihilism as the end of Christianity.  Once mankind declared God to be dead, there would be no moral codes based on immortality or on something greater than mankind itself.  These higher values, said Nietzsche, devalue man.  In nihilism man reaches a truth that “nothing is true, all is permitted” and thus contemplates the abysmal emptiness at the core of that truth.

Nihilism is defined as “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.”  Nietzsche, however, saw this as only one step on the path toward perfection of the Übermensch which in Thus Spoke Zarathustra he portrayed as the new race of super humans – a new aristocracy that would become the future rulers of earth.

Following the realizations of nihilism, Nietzsche saw man as moving to a new source of values, a new and truer life force: “a will to power in which life sacrifices itself for power.”   Nietzsche saw an admission that God has been murdered as a necessary prelude to the consummation of human power.

Dissatisfaction, alienation, hopelessness

Nietzsche lived and wrote in the latter half of the 1800s, concurrent with the industrial revolution and the overwhelming effect it had on the way of life throughout the world.

As industry, science, technology grew man became more and more able to control his world and his life.  While this had many positive consequences, it also helped to further if not full-blown nihilism, a sense of alienation and the meaninglessness of life.  Man was often seen as more of a cog in some vast industrial machine rather than an individual with unique talents, hopes, and dreams. 

Mankind became alienated from itself.  As dissatisfaction festered, secular ideologies stepped in to assuage the pain.  Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and other authoritarian and totalitarian systems presented their visions of a more perfect world. 

These visions, of course, were proven to not be the reality of what was offered.   Rather, what they did was to drive man to more despair and unhappiness.   Thus, we have reached a point where, as David Walsh has put it, “The age that began with the glory of the Renaissance, the bright expectations of the Enlightenment, and the energies of the scientific, industrial, and political revolutions has devolved into the horror, vacuity, and mediocrity of the [21^st] century.”

The false promise of science and technology

Yet, mankind continued to strive for that better world.  Technology could seemingly do anything as it continues to ease the hardships of living.  And scientific advancements seemed to make real the vision of better, if not super, humans.

Man could control life:  organisms were altered and created in labs; cures and treatments for previously deadly diseases prolonged life; clones of previously living entities were brought to life; infertile women were implanted with children to whom they could give birth; invitro surgeries could alter and preserve life.  It seemed that man did not need God.

Man believed he could and should have it all.  Every selfish desire could and should be satisfied.  Mankind began to believe it had a right to always be happy.  Indeed, man began to believe that he had a right to have and be whatever he desired.  If he was not happy it could and should be fixed.  A lack of happiness and satisfaction in one’s life became a source of anger at outside forces.  No longer did mankind see a need to search its own soul, no longer did man accept a reality that included despair.  Rules and moral codes that interfered with that belief were seen as old-fashioned and archaic. 

The problem is, that perfection is not a reality in this world.  It can be an aspirational goal, but one must realize it cannot be attained.  To believe otherwise is to deny the humanity of man.

The incredible nature of technological and scientific advances has given mankind a belief that it can indeed create its own reality.  With such a belief there is no need to look to some source outside of mankind for guidance and morality.  If one is unhappy they can just create a different self and a different narrative for that self.

And so, as we move forward with this approach, we begin to even throw out the truths of science.  If one is not happy with their sex, they can simply claim to be another one even though science contradicts this belief just as science denies the now common assertion that men can be pregnant and give birth.  Pre-born individuals whom science asserts are living humans can be disposed of at will.  We can create the reality we choose because without anything but ourselves we can create any world, any narrative, and any moral system that we choose.

Except that we can’t.

Of Science and the Soul

When mankind becomes nothing more than an object of experimentation, just another organism in the vast scientific universe, it loses its humanity.  Humanity is made up of unique individuals, individuals with unique souls as well as the biological organs and systems that keep them alive.  Humanity was not created by mankind and it is not a toy for mankind’s use and experimentation.

When man does not need God, man does not need God’s rules.  When man can create himself then he does not need a creator.  And when man can create, then man can create his own truth.  When man believes that this is true, then he does not need, or no longer has a soul because he no longer believes in something beyond the worldly manifestation of the mankind that he creates.

And without the soul that makes him man, mankind has effectively destroyed that which made mankind unique and human.  Mankind, in altering itself in pursuit of an idealized perfection, indeed destroys its own humanity.

The real problem

Our problem is two distinct philosophies that support two very different world existences, two different views of what mankind is or what it can and should be.  There are those who want to retain or return to “traditional values” and those who assert that humanity must move beyond those for the sake of things like equity (which is a code word for human beings with all individuality, freedom, and their very humanity removed). 

We treat these as a political divide.  But they are actually a philosophical chasm that reaches the existence or lack thereof of a human soul.  On one side of this gap are those who, for lack of a better word, believe in the soul.  That is, they believe that there is something outside of and beyond mankind and that gives mankind both a reason and a a basis for a code of morality

On the other side are those who believe that man is or can be fully in control of both what mankind is and of its own destiny.  To them the thoughts of man as a spiritual being, as beyond simply a living organism, is somehow archaic and a hurdle that must be removed from mankind’s progress toward some brave new world where mankind alone creates man.

It is this abyss between two very different views of mankind that is the underlying cause of our discord.  These views are not really reconcilable, but recognition of their existence may help us to find a way forward. 

It’s about power

We like to think that everyone is trying to better humanity.  But the truth is that those who turn away from mankind as it really is and instead embrace a concept of its hypothetical perfection are not seeking to better humanity’s actual existence in the real world.  Rather, they are seeking to enhance their own power.

When there is nothing outside of or beyond to exercise a moral authority over the desires of mankind, then there is no moral code beyond an unlimited belief in and desire for one’s own power.  That very belief is itself anti-human as it leaves to those with the most power the ability to determine what kind of humanity to create, what is to be considered good or true.  It leaves those with most power the ability to destroy the actual humanity, individuality, and uniqueness of mankind.

The questions that need to be resolved

The questions that must be answered are not about the immediate policies of Left and Right.  The questions that must be addressed and discussed are about the soul:  What is the soul?;  does man have a soul or is he just an organism more complex than but not really different from an amoeba?; and, most importantly, if mankind is its own creator, then who shall make decisions about what we will create and what, if any, moral code will be followed, and why?

If the power is to be fully granted to man rather than something beyond, then we must recognize that power is often selfish and includes the power to do evil.  We may be able to alter biological and superficial aspects of man, but we cannot alter the often selfish desires that drive any biological organism, including man.

This is neither a moral nor a political war.  It is a war about the very nature of mankind and whether we will acknowledge our limitations or, in refusing to do so abolish mankind itself.  This is the question that must be addressed if we are to resolve the current dystopia that envelops the world.

 

The Story Does Not Have to End Badly

ONCE UPON A TIME

Once upon a time people took responsibility for their own lives. If they felt unhappy, suffered a setback, were hurt physically or emotionally, they might ask for temporary help or consolement, but would work towards, and then would, pick themselves up and move forward. Not diminishing the hurt and pain, but learning from it, working to see that it did not repeat itself.

Once upon a time, people were honest, or at least tried to be. When they made a mistake they would admit it, take responsibility, face the consequences, and, again, learn from it.

Once upon a time, people did not blame all their problems on others, without taking any responsibility for themselves, without acknowledging that sometimes life just isn’t fair, that things happen.

Once upon a time, people actually believed that things happen for a reason; reasons that mere mortals may not understand at the moment.

Once upon a time, people did not live only in the moment, needing immediate gratification and resolution. Instead, they had and respected the concept of patience, understanding that things take time to evolve and to come to fruition.  Understanding this, they were also willing to work for their and society’s goals without receiving immediate gratification or compensation or awards for their efforts.

Once upon a time, people did not need scapegoats for their or their nation’s problems.  They did not villainize based on first impressions or political agendas.

Once upon a time, people did not rush to judgment but instead waited for facts and evidence which they then weighed to arrive at their own well-thought-out decision.  They did not simply repeat conclusions delivered to them by others.

Once upon a time, people paid attention to rules, laws, authorities.  They did not do as they pleased but rather were guided by laws created by the society in which they live.  They used non-violent civil disobedience to voice displeasure with laws or their outcomes rather than violent and destructive riots (which they call “peaceful protests).  They also believed that laws should be enforced equally, rather than based upon where the violator falls on the political spectrum.

Once upon a time, people cared about things bigger than just themselves – family, country, God.  These concepts helped them to live and join together for a common purpose and good of all, even when they might differ about their own personal beliefs.

Once upon a time, people believed that people were more than the color of their skin or their political party and they could treat one another as individuals rather than cardboard cutouts of this or that identity group.  They saw humanity as One, rather than a bunch of separate warring groups and their “Intersectionalities” constantly urged by those seeking power to hate one another.

Once upon a time, people were tolerant of their differences one from another.  They were able to live together despite those differences, form families, communities, and a country, and work together and with patience to ever better their society.

THAT WAS THEN.  THIS IS NOW.

Today, too many people expect that every moment of their waking (and sleeping too) life should be happy and enjoyable.  If it is not, there is no looking within, but rather an unending need to blame others for every problem.

At the same time, these people demand others take care of them, believe that everything that they want is simply a “human right” to which they are entitled to be provided – by the government (which really means by their neighbors who pay the taxes that will pay for their gifts), by those who have worked hard (and perhaps just been lucky in the face of life) and acquired more than the people making demands, by those who their political leaders have labeled as oppressors or other villains.

Today, too many people demand immediate gratification; they are without patience.  They are willing to jump to judgment on any issue without examination of facts or consequences of varying forms of actions.  When their initial judgment is proven to be in error, rather than admit as much they will double down with hate against those whose truth has proven them wrong.

Today, too many people think that laws are nothing but a suggestion at best.  If useful to attack someone or something they find displeasing they will go all in  with legal approaches, but if they find those laws displeasing, standing in the way of their pleasure or their desired actions and policies, then they will just ignore the rule of law (which, by the way, is a core foundation of this country, the disrespect and disobedience of which will surely destroy America as we know it).

Today, too many people do not care about God or country or family; rather, their focus is exclusively on themselves and their own pleasure.  That prohibits them from working with others for the better of all humanity; but that does not matter to these people whose primary, if not only concern is simply their own satisfaction.

Today, too many people think that everyone should think as they do, that all should march in lock step to their singular belief structures.  They easily label those who are different, whether in thought, appearance, class, or other distinction, to be something evil, something less than they are, something that one should have no remorse about destroying.

Today, too many people are caught up in a superficial self-absorption that is moving at rapid pace to destroy individuality, individual freedom, family, country, society, and ultimately the world.

WE ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK - CAN WE CHANGE TRAINS?

"Train" seems an appropriate metaphor since Joe Biden loves to use the train as his symbol.  He wanted us to switch to his train in 2020, it promised a good ride for everyone, a ride full of love, peace, and happiness. 

That was a lie.  Indeed, one of the first things we learned about Joe the conductor is that he is a pathological liar. He has told lies about every major policy action of his administration:  Afghanistan; Inflation; the “infrastructure” acts, their cost, their content, their intent; taxes and the middle class; illegals in this country; the border; his opposition; his interactions with school unions and CRT; he and his family’s relations with foreign oligarchs; his travel; his health; his Vice President; his appointees; the economy; US independence from foreign oil and other needs; Coronavirus; and many many others.

Even when he makes a statement that is false and the proof of that falsity is placed squarely before him, Biden nonetheless doubles down on the lie rather than admitting his mistake.  Then he begins finger pointing to set the blame and responsibility anywhere but on himself.

Our conductor is not only a liar, he has no respect for the rule of law.  He repeatedly proclaims guilt and innocence (e.g. the border agents & allegations of whipping that were proven false; calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist and murderer before any trial).  He ignores law and court rulings that contradict his position (e.g. going ahead with the OSHA vaccine mandates even after a Federal appellate court declared this overbroad and unconstitutional).  

Indeed, making judgements in several politically sensitive cases before or during trial removes the jury’s duty, obligation, and right to make such decisions, as well as very possibly affecting the outcome.  Doing what he wants despite the law and legal processes is authoritarian behavior that is a clear attack on democracy and its rule of law.

Our conductor Biden also has problems following laws of his professed religion that he doesn’t like or which are not politically convenient for him.  That is a problem between he and his God; nonetheless, it does give us further refection of his true character.

There is a selfish, “let them eat cake”, attitude within this administration and its supporters as they suggest that in light of the huge inflation that it would be good for our health to simply eat less.  Tell that one to the mother of a couple of teenage boys whose food bill has nearly doubled along with the gas she needs to buy to get to the grocery store and to her job (if she still has one) where her paycheck buys less due to higher prices across the board along with higher taxes.  And with what little spending power she may have left, she has to deal with empty shelves due to supply chain issues - issues that our conductor Biden tells us are actually good for us and the economy.

Our conductor also, rather than giving us a ride of unity and peace, is dividing us into different cars based not only on external identity characteristics and political beliefs, but also on our core beliefs and values.  Not the gentle, kind “Uncle Joe” as was promised, our conductor is full of hate for all who do not agree with him and his policies. 

It is possible that there are those today who are fine with all of the above, those who, because they are not personally affected by any of the above (YET!) ignore what is going on or simply accept it.  These are the people who are helping our conductor, shoveling the coal (or the clean new energy) into the engine, allowing our conductor to keep us on his track.

This train is chugging along at a faster and faster pace.  It is headed for a crash. 

If this were a country and not a train, we would call that conductor authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Oh, wait, it is a country and that conductor is our president.  And he is moving with enormous speed to destroy America and society as we know it.

WE NEED TO GET OFF AND FIND ANOTHER TRAIN.

First step:  the majority need to admit that they were bamboozled by the brochure and picked the wrong train. ( If they still think they are on the right track they may want to get their heads out of the sand or listen to something other than CNN, or they are simply completely self-absorbed without concern for the society around them).  

It’s hard to admit mistakes, but if they are to be corrected, that is the first step.

Nest step:  the majority need to stop blindly accepting what they are told - by the President, by the politicians, by the media.  Everyone needs to instead start asking for all the facts, questioning those facts, considering conclusions and their consequences, and making up their own minds.

Next step:  the people need to speak up and do so civilly as a democracy allows and requires.  Speak to friends, but also to leaders and politicians.  Make everyone's' voices heard.  Ask the questions that need asking of the people who will be making the decisions that will ultimately affect the lives of all of us.

Next step:  become educated about our government and our political system.  Read the constitution.  Read about the three branches of government – who each is and what each’s role is and what are the limitations on each.  Understand how the three branches serve as a necessary system of checks and balances on one another.  Learn this from an objective standpoint, not from someone with a biased political agenda.

Next step:  Vote.  Not based on party.  Not based on what one is told.  Based upon investigation of the individual candidates, their role within their party, the role of the seat they are seeking within our system of government.  Understand what things that role can affect, how the individual candidates will carry out their role, and the effect that person’s decisions will have.

Begin your education today.  Consider what sort of train you want to be on.  Every election is an opportunity to change trains, but in order to choose wisely you must be prepared with knowledge and the ability to think critically about what you are told.  That preparation cannot wait until the trains are in, or about to leave, the station.  It is up to all of us how our the story of our journey ends.

Sometimes a Mask is Not Just a Mask

CoVid.  Here is what we know:  it is an easily transmittable, airborne virus that has no cure and no vaccine and unknown long term effects; it can kill you or you can have it and be completely asymptomatic.   Given that bottom line you can assess its risk to you in any given situation in the same way that you assess other risks that you face every day.   And we do face many other deadly risks every day.  So why the obsession and continuing hysteria about CoVid?  I suggest that it is not really much about CoVid at all, but a lot about using CoVid as a political football. 

Marco Rubio correctly states that having a rational response to the virus “will be hard to achieve as long as we have a heavily politicized narrative that demands you to pick one of two views.”  He defines these as:

A.      The virus is the apocalypse and everything must close

B.     The virus is being exaggerated and will go away on its own.

Certainly these are decent descriptions of the two narratives, neither of which, by the way, is factually accurate.  But let’s consider the reasons behind these two narratives and what each represents.

From the very first notice we got of the virus and that it had reached our shores, the Democrats, never ones to let a crisis go to waste, saw it as something to be used against President Trump and his supporters. 

In January, our economy was at record levels, Black and minority unemployment at its lowest ever, new businesses and industry were thriving, things were looking pretty good.  I suspect that the possibility that this might end caused some anti-Trumpers to salivate. 

The President stopped travelers entering from China, then Europe, then elsewhere.  His opponents first attacked that move as racist, then complained that he had not done it soon enough.  Democrats began their calls for investigations or even another impeachment for the early handling of the virus. 

CoVid was indeed scary.  No one knew much about it except that it could be deadly, especially for older people or people with underlying conditions.   Those seriously affected would need ventilators and hospital beds and we would need a seemingly endless supply of masks for medical personnel.  We wanted to test everyone.  We needed to avoid a surge of the virus so large that it would overtax our resources. 

So, while the administration went to work ramping up the manufacture of needed supplies (many of which had been allowed to deplete during prior administrations) and setting up military field hospitals (many of which have gone unused), people were urged and/or ordered to stay at home in order to  “flatten the curve.”

The President had daily briefings with his CoVid team during which the doctors and other officials could inform the public of the actual facts about the virus – facts that properly evolved daily as more information was constantly being acquired.  The Democrats objected to these briefings, asserting that they should not be covered or carried live by the media (apparently they did not want the people to be informed from the sources, but only to hear their edited and often misleading takes on the briefings).

The stimulus proposals that had been and continue to be put forth by Democrats contained many items that went well beyond what was necessary to deal with the short term effect of a closed economy and were actually part of their Leftist/Socialist wishlist.  That’s not to say that the Republicans didn’t also see these stimulus measures as a way to gain favor with small businesses and other key members of their base.

As things seemingly came under control and active cases began to level off, there were calls to open back up.  Complete closure could not continue.  It was devastating to the economy as well as to the psyche of many.  So we began a slow opening – too slow for some, too fast for others.  Each governor determined the rules for their state (this is their power and right under our system of government).  Here is where I suggest it really became far too political. 

The hit CoVid took on the economy erased the incredible numbers that the Trump administration had achieved.  So, is it really surprising that many Democrat states maintained far more shut down restrictions than those of their Republican counterparts?  Surely at least in the back of their minds was the thought that if we can keep the economy down and unemployment up it will hurt Trump in the upcoming election.  At the same time, Trump and the Republicans wanted to get things moving again and were perhaps more willing to throw some caution to the wind in order to revitalize the economy.  Both were looking somewhat at the science, but also at the politics of the situation.

The governors’ restrictions quickly became both ridiculous and hypocritical.  Science often did not seem to match what was and was not allowed.  The New Mexico governor said breweries (where beer is both brewed and then served in a bar-like atmosphere) could open, but bars could not, nor could the VFW halls which serve beer.  She noted that it was a different kind of clientele at the breweries (could she mean good hipster Democrats vs bad redneck Republicans?). 

The height of hypocrisy came when those governors who had begun mandating or at least encouraging masks cheered on protestors who gathered and said nothing about nor enforced the mask requirements.  In New York the virus contact tracers are not even allowed to ask about protest attendance.   At the same time as the protests were applauded for gathering large groups, Trump’s rally was condemned because it gathered people together.  This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

When the rules are applied to some but not to others, one can’t help but wonder if the rules are really necessary.  Statements of the dire nature of the threat and hence the need for dire restrictions does not match the fact that many restrictions are not enforced or are simply excused for the favored groups.  This credibility gap is sure to make one wonder about why one should believe any call for any regulations.  And, in our current climate it is not surprising that people should begin to suspect political motivation.

Then we have the reporting about the virus itself.  We now have much more data available, but sadly what that means is that only pieces of that data will be put forward depending on one’s political agenda.  If one wants to keep the country and its economy suffering you can surely find numbers that will support a demand for another complete shut down along with its damage to the economy and hopefully your political opponents.  If you want to see the country fast tracked to normal then you can find data that supports that as well.  Not only can data be found to support varying views, all data is subject to interpretation, and political interpretations are now the flavor du jour.

Not many people have the time or the education to fully read and then assess the data.  They rely on the news media for their information.  The news media seems to enjoy sustaining as much hysteria as possible.  It is probably good for its ratings.  It is also generally good for the Democrats whose political views the media tends to support.

Masks seem to have become the epicenter of all of this.  As we learned more about the virus, data more and more showed that the spread of the virus was in most instances via droplets spread through the air and not from surfaces.  Studies also began to teach how far the droplets could generally travel – somewhere around 6 feet in normal situations (more in other types of situations where a greater force is used in expelling air).  It also became apparent that the more time spent together and the larger the crowd, the more that one’s risk of being infected became.

The science clearly supports the fact that wearing a mask inhibits the possible spread of the disease by the wearer.  Wearing masks is done not for the wearer but for those with whom the wearer comes into contact.  The protection is not absolute, but it is significant.  One would think that just as one does other considerate gestures for his fellow man, one would wear a mask.

But, this is not about health and masks and civil behavior.  Mask wearing has become the representative of how much one will allow government to mandate certain behavior, of whether one is for or against big government, and probably a fairly good predictor of how one will vote in November.  For some reason the health requirement of wearing a mask is seen by some as a complete abolishment of all their rights.  They think that if government can tell them to wear a mask then government can tell them everything, including what to think.  And, when many Democrat leaders waive any suggestion of masks for BLM and other anti-government protestors, it is easy to see that political motivation has overtaken health concerns, even those that have scientific support.

This is a political battle that has become completely disconnected from the CoVid threat.  With that in mind, with their disconnect from science, governors have lost any credibility or authority to impose or enforce regulations.  In New Mexico, one city mayor simply called his prohibited 4^th of July parade a protest since the Governor had banned parades but endorsed and allowed protests.

With their credibility gone, the Governors (and some of the medical professionals) need to stop calling winners and losers in regard to what can and cannot open and what people can and cannot do.  We all know the risk.  Bottom line is we could die.  That’s the science and if we are given the actual science without the hyped and conflicting narratives, each of us individually can decide what in our life is worth taking that risk.

As to masks, I do believe we should wear them when in public just as we should all make the effort to social distance when possible.  I don’t think it is unreasonable for there to be, for the common good, some sort of mask requirement.   It is not fair to open everything, tell me it is my decision to take the risk, but then to make that risk greater than it should be by eliminating even the suggestion of masks.  That is, if a theater is open to full capacity, I can decide whether or not to go.  But, if no one there will be wearing a mask, it becomes unreasonably unsafe for me to be there and so, by removing even the suggestion of mask requirements I am actually denied more rights than those who would go maskless.

If we can assume that our fellow citizens will act responsibly – including wearing a mask not for their protection but for the protection of others – then we can indeed open back up and people will go where they choose depending on their individual risk assessments.  This is no different than when I make a decision to drive:  I understand that others on the road are expected to follow certain driving regulations that they may not like but that exist for the common good.  I of course know that some few will not, but I expect that most will and with that I am free to drive or not based on my assessment of the risk to me.  But, if I know that there are no driving regulations or that they will never be enforced or that a significant number of other drivers will refuse to follow those regulations, then my risk assessment and my freedom to drive is vastly diminished.   It is no different with masks.

But, it’s really not about any of this at all.  It’s about making a political statement.  That is what CoVid has become – nothing more than a political tool, a set of statistics to throw back and forth, a mask with which to stake one’s righteous political claim.   And, while we play these political games, the reality is that the apocalypse is not here, but CoVid is, and some people are in fact dying.

Why Cautious Reopening is the Right Choice

No one can be certain about anything when it comes to corona virus – the term Novel Virus is certainly appropriate since, the adjective “novel” based on the on Latin novellus refers to something that is not only new, but also original, fresh, and unique.  We are still learning about this virus, probably will be for several more months if not years, and thus, cannot be certain that decisions we make based on what is known at a given moment will, in retrospect when we know more, have been the best actions to take.

Nonetheless, when the virus first arrived on our shores, we saw that it spread easily and quickly, infecting large numbers, and that the consequences of infection could, at least in some people, be highly severe if not deadly.  So, to avoid completely overloading our healthcare facilities we shut down our economy.  People were encouraged if not ordered to stay home and, by shutting down they had no place to go anyway.

It worked.  We flattened the curve.  We did not overload the healthcare system.  The shutdown was never thought of as a means to destroy the virus – it could not do that – but simply a way to make more manageable the care of those infected.  We now can take care of the virus at its current rate of spread.  The reason for the shutdown no longer exists.

That does not mean that we can just run out and completely overnight return to normal.  The opening needs to be cautious.  The shutdown, never intended to completely eliminate the virus, did accomplish its goal of slowing the spread.  And we can continue to keep it from returning to its initial overwhelming spread if we open with precautions.

To be clear, people will continue to get the virus regardless of what we do.  And yes, the more that people are together the more chance of becoming infected.  But we can take reasonable precautions that can minimize the virus’s potential devastation.

We need to open for many reasons.  Small businesses need to restart if they are to avoid facing certain bankruptcy and closing.  People need to get out of often suffocating and sometimes dangerous home situations.  Individuals need to return to work for income as well as for their own self-respect. 

A measured reopening means things like social distancing, limited and slowly increasing occupancies, and masks.  Yes, masks.  These little pieces of cloth seem to have become of mammoth significance in the reopening debate.

As an aside, masks alone will not prevent the virus.  An individual virus can easily penetrate a mask.  But the virus attaches itself to droplets (spread by cough, spit, talking, etc.) which are larger, and the individual virus molecules themselves group together as a larger unit.  A mask won’t stop everything, but it can help and perhaps stop that one that would otherwise get you or that one that you are expelling that would infect someone else.  And, of course, you and others will be in a position to be assaulted by more of those molecules the longer time that you and they spend in the presence of a person or people who are infected and the longer you spend in one place or in a place with inadequate ventilation and air circulation.

Cautious reopening should be a simple and reasonable concept to put into practice.  But, of course, in our currently politically divided nation it cannot.  Instead, the commonsense reopening has become a politically charged weapon, seized upon by both sides of the political aisle.

The Left would keep everything closed indefinitely.  They claim they are advocating this to save lives.  It may do so.  But what it will also do is tank our economy and, since economy is often an issue high on voters’ minds, the Left sees a poor economy as helpful to their political chances in November.  Closure also will require more huge CARES Act type bills that will in many ways further a leftist or socialist agenda in the long term:  make people comfortable with the idea of depending upon government rather than themselves; creating a larger tax burden that then leaves people with less money and therefore more need of government support – the cycle can go on forever; and, providing incentives for unemployment creates an unemployed class dependent upon a government that will continue to provide for them.  Creating underclasses dependent on another's political power is selfish and in the end careless of those others one claims to be helping.

The Right demands immediate and complete reopening with no limitations on the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to social distance, whether to wear masks, whether to open their shop for limited or full occupancy.  Conservatism and patriotism never before included the concept of needlessly endangering your neighbor and fellow citizen just to prove a political point that you have individual rights that you believe someone else is threatening.  Yet this has become a rallying cry for the Right, perhaps because they see the Left’s use of this virus as a way to promote a Socialist agenda and therefore the Right chooses to promote the precise opposite position as a defense, allowing that to become more important than any thought of one's neighbor.

There is a middle ground between these two positions, but, like everything else in our charged political environment, it is hard to get people to go there.  It seems easier to simply throw criticism, hatred, and of course more investigations, at the other side.  Yet all that proves is that no one anymore seems to have that basic American value of caring about their neighbor and their country as a whole.

We need to put politics aside.  We need to accept that we do not know everything about this virus and that whatever we do may be proven to have been the wrong thing when we have more knowledge.  In the meantime, we need to do the reasonable and responsible thing.  Slowly move forward in reopening.  Take reasonable precautions – social distancing, limited occupancies, avoiding large gatherings for any sort of extended time, and, yes, mask wearing.  Let’s see how it goes.  As we see that socially conscious Americans can do this, we can move forward – increase occupancies, increase gatherings, and yes, maybe less mask wearing. 

We need to join in support for, and individual participation in, a cautious reopening of our country.  We are one country and one people and, without politics to urge us otherwise, we can do this.