Question 4 - Appearance or Substance? Talk or Action?

This is the 4^th in an intermittent series of questions to think about before casting your ballot in November.

Today I want to encourage everyone to really think about why they are voting for someone. 

Can you vote for someone you don’t like as a person if their policies benefit you and your country (or, can you vote for someone whose policies will likely hurt you/your country just because you like their personality/dislike the personality of their opponent?

This is a critical question this year.  First because the perceptions of the two men running for president differ at the superficial (likability) level.  Secondly, the reality of the actions that each will take as president are substantially different and would have significantly different consequences for this country and the individuals living within it.

I understand that many people do not like Donald Trump’s rough-hewn nature; they do not like his “tell it like it is” way of talking – no couching things in niceties, no euphemisms, no  politically correct terms, etc.  I also understand that many folks like Joe Biden’s “nice guy” image, his big smile, his ability to say what his audience likes to hear. 

I also know that some people object to Donald Trump, saying they cannot vote for him, because they claim to be offended by his “character flaws.”  I don’t believe this excuse because if one is going to be offended by the idea of character flaws  then they would certainly be equally offended by those of Joe Biden:  rape charges against him; verified unwanted touching and hair sniffing of innumerable women and young girls; verified use of his government position for personal and family gain; lying about when he met and began a relationship with his current wife; proven repeated acts of plagiarism to name just a few. 

So, what is it?  Many people say they want their president to act “presidential.”  But what does it really mean to be “presidential?”

We live in an age of appearances.  For many it seems to be all about playing the part, not about who you really are or what you really stand for.  Most of our presidents have been politicians before taking the office;  certainly that is true in the recent past.  Politicians have learned the rules of politi-speak, of how to sound like you are saying something when actually you say nothing, how to talk big but accomplish little.

Donald Trump entered this political world of appearances as an outsider.  He doesn’t fit the mold.  But does that mean that he is not presidential?

Personally, I am far more concerned with actions and accomplishments than with whether someone fits the mold of the stereotypical politician.   What someone does will tell me much more about both the individual’s character as well as what sort of a president he or she might be.  So, with that in mind, let’s look at some of the actions and accomplishments of likeable Joe and rough-hewn Trump.

● Prison Reform:  Biden talked about the need for it for 40+ years, but despite his political influence as senator and vice-president, nothing was done.  Trump got it done – maybe not everything that everyone would like, but a huge step forward.

● Veterans and the VA:  Biden talked about it, Trump got it done.

● Poor economic status and joblessness of minorities:  Biden talked about it, but it was Trump who raised the unemployment status of Blacks and other minorities to the lowest ever in the nation’s history while providing a positive job climate that raised minority economic status to heights not seen before.  While Biden continues to say he will do something, Trump says he will continue to act as he has, continuing to improve the situation.

● Peace in the Middle East:  Biden may have talked about it, Trump just negotiated an historic peace accord between Arab nations and Israel.

● Trade:  Trade deals, including those supported by Biden, were hurting our small businesses, our farmers, and Americans generally.  Trump renegotiated trade deals that are favorable to the U.S.

● Foreign policy:  Biden as part of the Obama administration spoke from a position of apology and weakness whereas Trump speaks from a position of strength.  Trump is fully funding our military and is actually ending the years of foreign wars and bringing our troops home.  He also opened relations with North Korea and likely averted nuclear conflict there.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden was and is using foreign relationships for his own and his family’s personal and financial gain.

● Middle East:  Biden opposed the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.  Trump sent successful missions against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani.  The Trump administration has effectively eliminated ISIS.  

● American Embassy in Israel:  Biden talked about moving it to the capital, Jerusalem.  Trump actually moved the embassy to Jerusalem, leading the way for some other nations to do the same.

● Health care:  Biden of course was part of the Obama-Biden healthcare plan that resulted in Obamacare.  The mandates (taxes) under that plan were untenable for many.  Penalties required those who did not want insurance to pay anyway, often outrageous amounts for insurance they did not want or need.  People lost the ability to choose or keep their doctors (despite promises to the contrary).   Biden has said he favors national healthcare and has also said he doesn’t, but it seems clear that he is likely to support at a minimum an Obamacare type plan, a plan administered by government bureaucracy.  President Trump has managed to remove some of the most burdensome parts of Obamacare and expand options and quality of affordable healthcare.  He indicates a desire to do more to provide more affordable choice to Americans.

● Prescription Drugs:  Biden talked about problems of cost and availability.  Trump has reduced the cost of prescription drugs, made them more available, and has given terminal patients the Right to Try Act.

● Immigration:  Obama-Biden actually did put kids in cages but did not even-handedly enforce immigration laws.  Trump enforces the laws on the books (his duty as president), is clear about the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, has taken many actions (including the wall) to reduce illegal border activity such as child and drug trafficking, and is working to improve access to immigration based on merit.

● Black colleges:  Biden talks about the importance of Black education.  Trump restored funding to Black colleges. 

● Race relations:  Biden believes in identity politics and their divisive effect.   Like many on the Left he likes to make promises and even throw money at minorities, but he rarely shows respect for them as individuals.  Trump’s policies do not pick winner and loser identity groups; instead they equally apply to all Americans. 

This list could go on and on.   I suspect that since the media is more concerned with providing superficial pictures of a likable Biden and an unlikable Trump that some of the above may come as a surprise. 

There are indeed many more that suggest how busy our President is and how much he has gotten done for this country and its people in just 3 ½ years.  His actions have angered some, but, not being a typical politician, he is not in it to be liked, he does not play political games, he just gets things done.  He has kept just about all of his campaign promises. 

Beyond actions, the policies supported by each candidate and his party are important and, in this election year, if not polar opposites, they certainly reflect vastly different views of this country and what it will become.

President Trump’s actions suggest that he believes in the capitalist system, he believes in America and its Constitution, and is generally a conservative.  He supports policies that provide equal opportunity to all Americans, he believes in individual responsibility and choice, he is pro-life, he believes in small government and follows the Constitutional limits on the federal government respecting the rights of the states and their governors to make decisions about such things as using the national guard to quell riots or mandating masks. 

Joe Biden’s actions in the past have suggested that he believes in big government and is willing to accept significant government control over the lives of the populace.  He believes less in individual responsibility and choice and more in government regulation and direction over individual lives.  Like many on the Left he believes that he knows what is good for you and that you should simply leave it up to government to both provide for you and decide what you should say, believe, and think. 

If not a socialist, many of Biden’s handlers are.  There is little doubt that what he now has referred to as the Harris administration will heavily lean socialist.

In a capitalist democratic republic, one is free to make their own choices and to become the person they were meant to be.  In a socialist world, the government makes the choices and the individual will only become the person that they are allowed to be.  It is a significant difference.

So, back to today’s question.  It is unlikely that you are ever going to actually meet Joe Biden or Donald Trump, let alone sit down with them as friends.  So why does it matter whether you like one or dislike one as a person?  Shouldn’t it be more important to look at the actions of each, not what they say or how they charm you?  Wouldn’t it be better to make your choice based on the America that each foresees for your future? 

Joe Biden is a charming talker.   But in 40 plus years of public service he has done little to better the life of Americans or to further the stature of America itself. 

Donald Trump does what he says he is going to do.  In the process he may not be the likable charmer that most politicians are.  But he is direct and honest, whether you like what he says or how he says it.  And his actions in the short time he has been in office have done enormous good for the country and its people. 

As I have said previously, I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  So, for me it is about substance, not superficial appearance when I consider what makes someone “presidential.”  

Superficial Appearance or Substance.  While for many Joe Biden may win the superficiality contest, when I look at the substance the scale tips heavily in favor of President Trump.  He has my vote for another 4 years.

 

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.