Thinking about Rules

ONE:    Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.” 

No, they just don’t get it.  Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions.  It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people.  It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.  

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives.  It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives. 

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people.  And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO:    Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people.  We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore.  Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses.  The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions.  The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones.  No excuse.  No late papers.  Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely.  Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely.  A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)).  These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control.  And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people. 

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today. 

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker.  In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people.  It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil. 

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker.  There are those in power who think they know better.  There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules.  They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people.  But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers.  It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them.  But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created.  Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible. 

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional.  Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected.  To paraphrase Aretha Franklin:  R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone. 

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

Focus on the Rule of Law

This coming week begin the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson to become Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court.  I previously wrote two posts dealing with this specific SCOTUS nomination and the link to each is here:

               1.  Justice Jackson, 2/25/2022. CLICK HERE

               2,  Lady Justice, 1/22/2022. CLICK HERE

I reiterate the importance of the thoughts in both of those posts regarding the fact that this nomination was the first in modern times in which any number of well qualified individuals were excluded from consideration simply because of their race and sex.  

But that discriminatory criterion is what the President chose to use, and we have a nominee set for questioning.  At this point my main concern is that the questioning of this nominee will be rigorous.  Rigorous does not mean acrimonious but it does mean that the nominee must be held to account for past judicial activity and past statements or actions that may be relevant to her ability to serve as a fair and impartial justice on the highest court in the land.

Since she was nominated, I and others have had some time to look into those things.  It is clear that her personal beliefs and agenda are liberal.  That does not disqualify her unless (and this is a very big and important UNLESS) she is unable to set those personal views and agenda aside when asked to hear and decide cases coming before the Court.

Her past record would seem to make the answer to this question uncertain.  Many cases that she has decided appear to rely more on her personal beliefs of what should be the outcome and/or what the law should be rather than what the law is and might mandate.  I don’t know if that is because she is not capable or willing to be impartial or if it is because she lacks a clear understanding of the role of a judge and the legal principles underlying the application of law to the actual facts of a case.  

Sometimes the law mandates an outcome that a judge personally finds abhorrent.  But to allow the judge to change the mandates of the law based on his or her personal and emotional preferences would completely undermine our rule of law.

Which leads me to another point worth pursuing.  We are told that it is important to have a Black woman on the Court and especially this Black woman because her upbringing and life experiences are different.  If you buy into this, it is a great argument for packing the court with nearly as many justices as we have citizens of the United States.  Afterall, don’t each of us have different life experiences?  And within the identity groups to which Judge Jackson belongs and which are the primary criteria for which she was selected, there are many different life experiences and viewpoints. 

But none of that is relevant, because when a judge or justice puts on the black robes, he or she must put aside those personal experiences and feelings and opinions.  She or he must simply understand the facts of a particular case and the law that is relevant to that case and objectively apply that law to the facts to reach a reasonable and legally supportable opinion of what the result must be.

These are the questions that must be put to Nominee Jackson.  The Senate must be assured that she is capable of doing what a judge must do:  fairly decide a case based on law and fact and not on personal opinion and emotion, and most certainly not on what is currently most popular with society or with one or another political party.

This nominee must be pressed.  Her statements that she will be fair, that she understands how to apply law in rendering a judicial opinion must be questioned beyond and below the surface.  These are relevant and no one should get testy over such questions.

I fear that those questioning this nominee will be faced with calls of racism or sexism if their questions become too difficult.  That seems to be what happens if anyone questions a member of a specific identity group or the views and agenda of those supporting that individual.  But if the questions are relevant, even if tough and a bit aggressive, they must be allowed.  Afterall, the Democrats found it relevant to attack a nominee based on false allegations about his high school behavior; certainly they should not oppose questions dealing with this nominee’s adult professional activity and her legal and judicial performance to date.  Those questioning Judge Jackson must not be deterred.

In the end, the filling of this position with an avowed liberal, even if her legal reasoning turns out to be less than stellar, will not make a lot of difference in the outcome of cases.  She will be replacing a solid liberal vote on the Court, and every Justice gets just one vote.

The damage will be not to the specific case outcomes, but to the long term credibility of the Court and with that comes damage to the justice system and our rule of law.  But that damage has to large extent already been done by Biden in using discriminatory and exclusionary criteria to select this nominee.

Justice Jackson

Today President Biden announced the nomination of Black female Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court.  I mention her color and gender not because I think it has any relevance whatsoever to her ability to be a good justice, but because color and gender were the overarching criteria for her selection.

Unlike other presidents who have desired to select a woman or a Black or a person of color for the Court but who opened the pool from which the nominee would be selected to persons of all color and sex, President Biden limited his selection pool to Black women.  This is not only a rejection of the Constitutional and legal guarantees of equality for all, but this denial of equal opportunity specifically based on race and sex is also blatant and illegal discrimination. 

Further, it is demeaning to this woman and to all Black women as it suggests that she and others of her race and sex could not have competed in an open selection pool; rather, that they needed a limited and less competitive pool in order to succeed.  Judge Jackson’s resume is strong educationally and experientially and I don’t understand why the President would not let her fully compete.  Nor do I fully understand why she would allow herself to be a part of this demeaning process designed more than anything to give the President the right to say he appointed the first Black woman to the Court.

In his announcement speech Biden said, “Our courts haven’t looked like America.”  Well, so what?  Since when is justice cosmetic?  (Answer: since the woke took over and everything becomes based on external identity characteristics). 

The law, and especially Constitutional law at its highest level, should not be based on superficial characteristics.  Those who decide the law need to be able to put aside their personal biases and backgrounds so as to objectively analyze the law and facts relevant to a particular case.  As more than one justice has stated, a good justice does not always like the outcome of his or her decisions.  That is because the law, when fully reasoned and applied objectively, sometimes does not give us an outcome that we personally like. 

Those who think it is important to have judges and justices who “look like America” assume that people who look a certain way will also decide a certain way.  They assume that judges/justices allow personal feelings and political biases to control their legal analysis.  Yet that is the very opposite of what a good judge/justice does.  The good judge/justice must and will remove such personal premises from their legal reasoning and decision making.

Which leads me to a troubling aspect of this specific nominee.  It has nothing to do with her color or gender but with the number of her opinions that have been overturned on appeal.  “Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning DC. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law” said Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino.

For example, in one case a D.C. Circuit panel composed of majority Democratic appointees concluded that that Judge Jackson had set aside a Trump administration rule when there was no legal basis to do so.   Another overturned case involved an ordered expansion of DHS’s definition regarding which non-citizens could be deported.  Another involved orders that related to the collective bargaining power of federal employees.  She also decided a 2019 battle in which she rejected Trump’s White House Counsel’s arguments that he held immunity from testifying to the House Judiciary Committee.  She wrote, in clear anti-Trump fashion, that “The primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.” 

“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court Justice,” Severino stated. 

While there are different schools of thought on how to interpret law, the Constitution, and precedent, those different approaches all ground themselves fully in legal reasoning that does not ignore the law in order to reach a desired conclusion.  Legitimate legal reasoning demands that conclusions be supported by the law, not by a rejection of it.

The Justices of the Supreme Court need to accept that they must be guided by the law.  Their role is not to institute popular opinions or to decide based on emotion rather than law.  Those whose desire is to rewrite and change the law should be running for Congress.  It is the legislature that makes the law.  While the Court’s decisions interpreting the law become a part of our legal system, this judicial law comes about via interpretation of existing law.  It is not about creation of new law.

I hope that during her confirmation hearings Judge Jackson will be fully and aggressively questioned about her ability to follow the law and to put her personal and political feelings and biases aside as she hears and decides cases.  Her answers to those questions should be the justification for her confirmation or failure to be confirmed.  Her color and gender should have nothing to do with it.

 

Nothing But Big Bullies

 We hear about bullying on the schoolyard and we hear about cyberbullying.  But beyond the schoolyard, bullying can be very sophisticated.  Adult bullies may engage in smear campaigns against their targets rather than insult them to their faces. They might also enlist others to bully a target on their behalf.  Such a bully’s end goal is to humiliate or harm other individuals with the intent of ruining their reputation or harming their self-worth.

Bullies victimize others by using tactics including:  Intimidation, threats, insults, intentional exclusion, spreading rumors and lies.  Cyberbullying is: the use of electronic communication to bully a person.  It includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else

Cyberbullying can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicide. Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Political, religions, educational, corporate, entertainment, and social and news media leaders all claim to oppose and attempt to educate against it.  The Federal Government via the Dept. of Health and Human services even has a web site (https://www.stopbullying.gov/) designed to prevent cyberbullying.  Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Yet, what else but cyberbullying are the lies, slander, and continuing harassment against Kyle Rittenhouse (and before him Niholas Sandmann). 

In August of 2020 in Kenosha Wisconsin there was a demonstration that turned into a riot.  Seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse had attended that protest to help keep the peace (there is no evidence to contradict that statement of his intention).  At some point he legally became armed with an AK-47 as he served as guard for some private property. 

Video tape shows that Rittenhouse was attacked by protestors/rioters – one chased and threw items at him, another grabbed his gun, one stomped and kicked Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and a fourth admitted under oath that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot at him.  Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and wounded a third.  He asserted that he did so in self-defense.  Worth noting is that the people whom Rittenhouse shot were not Black.  Prior to the shooting incident Rittenhouse had been seen, in addition to protecting the private property, to be cleaning up graffiti and debris caused by the protesters with whom those shot were in solidarity. 

Within hours, the Left and the media had decided that young Rittenhouse was guilty of murder, was a White supremacist and racist, was a right-wing fanatic and Trump supporter and should be destroyed.  They had no evidence of any of this and still do not.  Nonetheless, it fit the narrative to turn this boy into an evil scapegoat for all of their hate and anger.

Their rush to judgment was arrived at and as evidence came out that began to prove that judgment false, the media and the Left did not back off or apologize but instead doubled down.  The President called Rittenhouse a White Supremacist and to this moment has not withdrawn that unfounded and slanderous claim.  The narrative of the Left demanded guilt, not truth.

Once charged by an over-zealous prosecutor with several felonies that were not supportable with evidence, Kyle Rittenhouse, his family, his defense team and others associated with the case received numerous death threats.  Kyle was called names and threated on social media.  The news media referred to him as a murderer, and someone who should be put away – hopefully for life.  They named him as the poster boy for racism, hatred, white privilege and every other thing that they like to blame for victimhood. 

Again, let’s remember that those shot were not Black.  The Left’s reasoning apparently goes something like this:  The riot had been the eventual result of protests against a police shooting of a Black man.  The protest/riot was against the police who should be condemned for their systemic racism.  Therefore, anyone who was not protesting/rioting and especially anyone who was there to support calls for peace and/or to support law enforcement must of necessity be a White supremacist – the sort of person we need to get rid of.  Anyone with just a passing brush with logic will see the illogic of this thinking!

As the case worked its way through the slow and deliberative judicial system where actual facts were brought forth and actual laws reviewed the Left bullies tried to intimidate the jury into condemning Kyle Rittenhouse.  Then, even when the jury of citizens examined both facts and law (as opposed to narrative) and reached their verdict of not guilty on all counts, the press, the Left, and even the President continue their attacks on and harassment of Kyle Rittenhouse.  They seem determined to ruin his life for the rest of his days.  Many seek federal and civil actions against this young person. 

Why do they continue to bully Kyle Rittenhouse?  Not because there is any justification to do so.  Rather it is just because they did not get what they wanted; they cannot accept a verdict that did not go their way.  It is a threat to their power which they seem to believe is, or should be, absolute.

The attacks and bullying were similar in the case of Nicholas Sandmann whom you will recall stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in January 2019, wearing a MAGA hat while a native American activist stood in his path.  Nicholas, who was 16 at the time, did nothing but was immediately determined to be guilty of some sort of confrontation and of course of White Supremacy.  When video came out disproving the narrative of the Left and the media, again they did not apologize or back off but instead doubled down on their bullying of young Sandmann.

In an interview this past week discussing Kyle Rittenhouse, Sandmann stated that he has found it difficult to return to normal life after watching CNN, MSNBC and others report irresponsibly on his encounter with Native American elder Nathan Phillips.  "It was like a car crash you can't look away from, you are not able to look away. My eyes were glued to the TV watching my character get torn apart.”

He further described what bullying at a national level can do to a teen. “Well, it’s terrible, and I’ll tell you why. As a 17-year-old, in Kyle’s case, and mine 16, your mind is still developing, and so, to deal with an overload of stress where you have this feeling that half of the country, hundreds of millions of people hate you for something that you’re innocent of, but how you are painted, it can do a lot to you mentally. It takes a very strong will to be able to resist that and keep a level head. I know that Kyle is probably dealing with that right now.”

If this all isn’t bullying I don’t know what is.  Like school bullies, the media, the Left, the Democrat administration and leaders irresponsibly rush to judgment, condemn, bully, intimidate, and harass, with no concern for the young lives they are destroying.  It is about their power just as any bullying is about power. 

According to the mental health site verywellmind.com,  bullying is linked to power imbalances:  bullies target those with less power than they have.  “People who engage in this conduct: feel powerless, suffer from insecurity, need to control others, and enjoy the rewards they get from bullying.”

This is all about attacking positions and policies that contradict those put forward by the Left, its media, and its politicians.  They would do away with opposition and hence give themselves more power. 

The political bullying of the Left is, moreover, a bullying of our entire country.  We are a nation governed by law.  The refusal of the Left to accept the legal process, to assert a right to attack that very process when they do not get their way, is dangerous not only to those involved but for everyone of us who benefit from the freedoms we enjoy that are protected by that rule of law.

Bullying is wrong.  We all know it is wrong.  We teach school children not to bully.  And we tell those witnessing to speak up and stop the bullying.  Verywellmind states:

Bystanders can play important roles in ending the bullying they see, particularly if they are in positions of power or have the same rank as the bully. Rather than turning a blind eye to bullying, witnesses can call out the bully or report the bully’s behavior to others. Witnesses can also take the initiative by backing up the target’s accounts about the bully. Unfortunately, many bystanders don’t speak up because they’re afraid they’ll become the bully’s next target.

We are all bystanders to the horrendous bullying of the media and the Left.  Perhaps we are willing to tolerate it when the bullying is between politicians.  But when children are bullied because they stand by their values, follow the law, but take a position contrary to the Left narrative, we must speak up.  Yes, we may very well become the bully’s next target (personal experience tells me that will happen) but that should not stop us. 

We cannot turn a blind eye.  The Left has chosen to bully its way to power.  The media has joined that march, giving up any semblance of objective journalism.  It is up to we the people to call out the political bullying that is going on all around us.  Even if done by a party with whose policies you agree, bullying is not the way to support and enact those policies. 

We all know the saying “If you see something, say something.”  We must speak up or the bullies will destroy our country.

Learning From Today’s History

In the past 24 hours I have witnessed two important events in the history of our country.

First, enjoying the power of their one-party rule over this country and the lives of its people, the Democrat House members passed their $1,700,000,000,000 social justice bill that the CBO has told us will cost us far more than that.  Most estimates are in the area of at least $5,000,000,000,000.  It will likely add $750,000,000,000 to the deficit over five years. 

Contrary to the promises of the Democrats, the bill is not fully paid for, it will increase our national debt significantly, a debt that will fall on the heads of our children and their children’s children for generations to come.  It will increase taxes and its provisions will have the most detrimental effects on the middle class.  Its provisions are contrary to many of the core values and principles of America. 

Prior to the partisan vote on the bill, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy gave a nearly 9 hour speech, much of which I listened to, which struck me as a sort of eulogy for the greatness that has been America. He was not wrong in that view of the effects of this bill.

Second, the Kyle Rittenhouse jury came in after 3 days of deliberations and found Mr. Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.  This they did despite overwhelming pressure to render the harshest guilty verdicts possible.  Despite the fact that the Leftist propaganda machine went into overdrive as it rushed to judgment to convict Mr. Rittenhouse, these jurors were able to keep open minds, listen, and objectively evaluate the actual facts and evidence presented in light of the actual law.

What do we learn about our country and its people from the above two events?

I think that one thing we learn is that there are politicians in Washington (and probably in state leadership roles as well) who have forgotten who and what they and their role are.  They no longer listen to and then represent the will and best interests of their constituents, the people to whom the government and future of our country actually belong.  Instead, they have decided that they know what is best for all of us, they will make us into who and what they desire, all while furthering and expanding their own power.

While these politicians will pretend that what they do is for this country and its people, they must know that what they are doing is destroying America and with it the rich diversity of individuals within.  They would have us all walk in lockstep with their plans while our individual beliefs, dreams, goals, lives as well as our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond be damned, as long as the Left gets its way.

Interestingly, the Democrats chose to ignore the CBO evaluation of their bill, stating they liked the White House’s figures better.  No matter to them that those figures are, if not wrong, clearly in question, clearly a threat to the American people.  But we should know by now that facts and reality do not matter to the Left; rather it is all about the narrative –  a narrative structured on lies and omissions if necessary to support their thirst for power and control.

Which brings me to the Rittenhouse verdict and most importantly the jurors.  These are the true people of America.  These are the people who still believe in the rule of law, in facts and evidence rather than opinion and ideology. 

From the Rittenhouse jury we learn about the heroism of everyday Americans.

This jury is heroic in my view.   Not because of the specific verdict (though my understanding of the evidence and the law leads me to believe that no other verdict was possible), but because they sat in the courtroom with open minds and listened to the actual evidence. They listened to the law upon which they were instructed and applied that law to the actual facts.  And then they reached their verdict.   They did this despite ugly, loud, and sometimes violent protests demanding guilty verdicts that could be heard inside the courtroom and the jury deliberation room.  They then put forth the verdict that their deliberations determined to be just.  

This is not what the Left, the media, the President, the mob would have had them do.

The Rittenhouse jurors deliberated according to the law. They did this despite the fact that before the trial had even begun the media had already convicted Mr. Rittenhouse, plastering the airwaves with sometimes false and usually misleading information about the events of his arrest.  Even when exculpatory evidence, some even put forth by the prosecution, was presented, the media doubled down on its condemnation of Mr. Rittenhouse.  Even under instructions not to read or watch the news about this trial, in a 24/7 media madhouse, it must have been hard to avoid it entirely when going home each day from the courthouse.

The media was caught following the jurors home and perhaps taking their pictures.  Various Leftist groups threatened violence if the jurors did not render a guilty verdict.  Despite such attempts at intimidation, the jurors did their job. 

Despite the questionable ethics of the prosecution in relationship to the question of withholding key evidence and of actually investigating the facts and reading the relevant law before charging a defendant, the jury did its job. 

The jurors deliberated according to the law and the facts despite President Biden and his administration rushing to judgment and almost immediately proclaiming Mr. Rittenhouse to be a White Supremacist and racist. Biden and his administration maintained this view through the trial, notwithstanding that there was and remains absolutely no evidence of that. 

These jurors are heroes who taught us how the American legal system works including its fairness and its refusal to prejudge or be swayed by the mob. 

The jurors took their job seriously.  They kept their minds open in this complicated and politically charged case.  They listened to the judge’s instructions on the law.  They applied that law to the actual facts and spent 3 days doing all this in detail in the jury deliberation room. 

Having reached their verdict, the jury then had the courage to bring forth their verdict knowing that the haters and the ideologues would condemn them, the verdict, the defendant, and possibly destroy their city. 

This jury is a profile in courage.   And it is these jurors that represent the people of this country and who and what we are.   America is not the politicians who do as they please without regard to reality and the actual people who live within it.  America is the people who understand and defend the ideas of fairness and justice, of innocence until proof of guilt, and the rule of law. 

As long as we have citizens with the strength and honesty of this Rittenhouse jury, we will have hope for America.  We Americans must, however, demand that our politicians not forget who we are.  We must demand that they hold first and foremost in their policies and actions the sort of strength and honesty exhibited by the Rittenhouse American jury, rather than their own lust for power and authority.  Our nation and the good of its people demand nothing less.

Turns Out, I Wasn’t Buying It Even Then

In my last post I included Solzhenitsyn’s criticisms of the idea of situation ethics or relative morality.  When writing that post I was put in mind of my having read Joeseph Fletcher’s book “Situation Ethics: The New Morality” for a sociology class.  That would have been in the late 60s (the copyright date is 1966).  My memories were that I was swayed by the arguments in that book to look at my views of morality differently.  Turns out I actually still have my original copy (price on cover: $1.95) with my notes from the time.

My notes throughout the book reveal that I seem to have open mindedly considered as well as questioned the arguments and theses of the book, but that in the end I wasn’t sold.  Indeed, I seem to have at least intuited the criticisms spoken by Solzhenitsyn 5 or 10 years later.  The inside cover includes my handwritten comment that reads as follows:

whole book, & idea appears as just a way of rationalizing your sins, and “is trying to get out of it.”

makes us all out to be gods, who can choose to take a life for example, but we aren’t and we can’t.

Seems very slanted.  Only uses a very few Biblical examples over and over.

I don’t recall myself as being that perceptive.  But maybe it takes one looking back with later experience and history to see what one actually knew in the past.  The fact that my memory was that I had a fairly positive and transformative reaction to the book when I studied it is telling as to how the book and this new philosophy of relativism must have taken hold within our culture. 

Now, looking back with what I know and what I see around me today, I find the book truly frightening.  I see how right Solzhenitsyn was when he noted that the Communist ideology of relative (or class and identity) morality was a successful tool in its (and today’s Leftist Progressive ideology) anti-humanity crusade to gain power only for itself and gain the ability to fully manipulate the rest of us.

THE LURE OF SITUATIONAL MORALITY

The back of my copy of Situation Ethics touts it as “a manifesto of individual freedom and individual responsibility, elaborated within an ethic of love, which extricates modern man from rigid, archaic rules and codes.”

That was the 60s.  Think how enlightened that sounded.  “Individual freedom and individual responsibility”: isn’t that what people of the 60s were discovering – their ability to be themselves, to not conform and be like everyone else?  “Elaborated within an ethic of love”:  love one another was a sound and phrase of the times, how could that be bad?  And with these positive slogans we will “extricate modern man from rigid, archaic rules and codes”:  those would be the absolutes, the good and evil that served us well since civilized time began, the absolutes whose removal, Solzhenitsyn notes, leave us with nothing but the manipulation of one by another.

On page 56 of the book one finds a summary of the six propositions on which its philosophy of situation ethics rests: “The first one pins down the nature of value.  The second reduces all values to love.   The third equates love and justice.  The fourth frees love from sentimentality.  The fifth states the relation between means and ends.  The sixth authenticates every decision within its own content.” 

According to the author, “The new morality, situation ethics, declares that anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation.”  The author declares this new morality is not new, but is Bible-based and, like so many false prophets before and after him, he takes selected quotes from the Bible out of context to justify his philosophy that essentially comes down to:  do what feels good for you – if it feels good, it’s OK.

WHERE DID IT LEAD US

I think that in the 60s most who considered it didn’t notice the possible consequences of what embracing situational or relative morality might mean.  It is, I believe, a part of the lives of most of us today, and the Left has fully embraced it.

I think most everyone today will ignore otherwise rigid rules in at least some situations.  And probably people have always done this to some extent (is there anyone who has never told “a little white lie”?). 

But when there are absolute rules of right and wrong, good and evil, the breaking of these rules is less prevalent and is accompanied by some sort of guilt and understanding of one’s own wrongdoing.  When those “rigid” rules are gone one is ultimately left to do whatever one wants, regardless of what may be right or wrong for others.

Today, beyond more prevalent acceptance of excusing rule breaking in some circumstances, there are those who seem to believe that there really are no rules – they truly believe that a situation itself is the governing body in all circumstances. 

How else would we find people justifying theft and robbery (because they are just taking what they need), justifying the killing of police (because they are allegedly systemically racist), justifying violent riots called protests when they claim to serve a popular cause, even when they hurt or kill innocent bystanders, businesses, and government buildings (BLM riots after Floyd killing) but demanding severe punishment, even death to those whose protests violated the perimeter of the Capital building for a cause out of favor with the Left?

How else would we find people justifying the silencing of opposing viewpoints that they find uncomfortable, the disinviting of conservative speakers to college campuses because their views are offensive to Left-leaning students and faculty, the justification of harassing, namecalling, and sometimes physically attacking individuals who speak out in opposition to Leftist causes (most recently those who oppose CRT)? 

How else would we find the entertainment business and the elite and progressive individuals who profit from it justifying a daily diet of “entertainment” that sexualizes women and children while then acting as if they are horrified when someone whose politics are contrary to theirs commits even the slightest “MeToo” violation?

How else would we find the Left asserting its support for women’s rights and equal opportunity, then undermining those assertions when a biological male wants to compete as a female?   

How else would we find people believing that they can claim to be a devout follower of Catholicism yet be pro-abortion (a mortal sin in that faith) and demand they still be allowed to participate in the holy eucharist which requires adherence to the Catholic liturgy?

How else would we have a President requesting that social media censor and ban any posting that does not speak the truth, yet giving no criteria for what is “truth” or who will decide if a posting meets it, resulting, for example, in the idea that any suggestion that the Wuhan Virus came from the Wuhan lab should have been banned as untruthful, even though that now is the prevalent scientific theory?  How can science and humanity progress if no one is allowed to question or to present alternate ideas and theories?

THE RESULT OF EMBRACING RELATIVE MORALITY IS NOT PRETTY AND IT IS ANTI-HUMANITY

The above list could go on and on.  It includes just some of the examples of situation ethics in action that immediately come to mind.  I am sure every reader of this blog can think of many others.

We are destroying ourselves while believing that we have raised ourselves to some higher level of love.  Self-love seems to be the guiding principle – open any lifestyle magazine, any Sunday supplement, any self-help blog, any TV morning-show type supplement and you will hear about the importance of “self-care.”    That is where situational morality has taken us – to place the self as a god and the center of one’s universe. 

That’s fine if you live alone on some mountain top, but when two or more people come together who believe the situation and their feelings govern all even to the extent of justifying murder of the other, someone is going to have to determine whose self-love is superior. 

Once people have been manipulated into giving up absolute moral values, they need someone in power to decide what is OK in this or that situation.  That is where the progressive Leftist philosophy comes in.  They believe they can and should decide for each and every one of us, not because they know or care what is best, but because their philosophy requires and entitles them to do so.  They will take away humanity and replace it with manipulation and indifference.  As Solzhenitsyn so aptly noted, their goal is to destroy our social order.  The back cover of the Situation Ethics book essentially admits that as its intent.

My 1960s notes on Situation Ethics were more accurate than I understood at the time. I didn’t buy into it then, even though I thought I had.  Perhaps you didn’t buy into Situation Ethics either when you were first introduced.  But when there is what Solzhenitsyn calls a “constant dinning” and what we would today call propaganda with a daily barrage of one viewpoint taught from almost birth, it is easy to lose what one knows to be true and to buy into what we inherently know to be a mistake.   

We are not gods and relative morality, no matter how honorable and humane and even holy it may sound, is nothing more than a way to destroy the human essence and individuality and replace it with an ugly and oppressive power wielded by an elite and selfish few.  Each one of us who has let this destructive situation ethics into our lives needs to exorcise it immediately.

The Verdict

I am troubled by the Derek Chauvin verdict, though I will not second guess the jurors.  My concern is that the circus atmosphere of the trial puts our entire justice system at risk.

Let’s review a few facts about the circumstances surrounding and leading up to this trial which took place nearly a year after George Floyd’s death.  During that year we have had a continuing barrage of not just laments over Mr. Floyd’s death, but of Black deaths in general, and especially police shootings of Blacks.  There have been riots not only in Minneapolis, but across the country supportive of Black Lives Matter and Police Reform, Defunding of Police, and allegations of systemic racism in both policing and the justice system. 

The jurors, unless they were in a coma for the past year, had to have been subjected to the repeated assertions by the media that George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin and subjected to showings and re-showings of a short but ugliest portion of the video of the entire somewhat lengthy event and incidents surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death.

The jury for the trial, once selected, were not sequestered though they were cautioned not to listen to or read stories about the Chauvin trial.  Well, these jurors left their homes each day and traveled through streets with protestors and national guardsmen, went through heightened security at the courthouse each day, and traveled home again.  There is a 24-hour news cycle that blasts around us daily.  That news cycle had for the most part already tried and convicted Derick Chauvin of murder.  If those jurors were not aware of the threats of violence surrounding the case they were hearing, then again, they must have been in a coma.

They were not sequestered when new riots broke out over a different police shooting with more assertions of police racism.  They were not sequestered when pig’s blood was smeared on the former home of a Chauvin defense witness.  They were not sequestered when threats were made of riots and worse if the verdict was not guilty.  They were not sequestered when the city settled the Floyd family case for $27 million during the trial with the surrounding narrative that this must mean Chauvin is guilty.  And they were not sequestered when Rep. Waters uttered what was essentially a threat for the rioters to “become even more confrontational” if the jurors did not return a guilty verdict. 

The jurors were sequestered at the end of the trial for their deliberation, so they did not hear the President’s admonition that the evidence was overwhelming, and he prayed they would get the verdict right, nor did they hear the news of his call to the Floyd family to support them.  But by then they had heard enough. 

The jurors had significant but limited knowledge about the events before they became actual jurors.  They swore to render their verdict only on the law and the evidence presented at the trial.  Much new evidence came out at trial that the media had not shared – evidence that might raise reasonable doubts about the narrative.  But was it, after a year of daily hearing the media’s narrative, too late to look at new and contrary evidence objectively?  Was it too late to honestly determine there might be reasonable doubt about that narrative?  We don’t know, and perhaps even the jurors themselves don’t know.

Was the threat of violence to their city, their hometown, even their own homes and their families a factor in the jurors’ deliberations?  We don’t know and they may not really know that either.

And that is the problem.  This trial was turned into some sort of proceeding on the state of social justice in America.  But a trial is not about a concept or a cause.  A trial is about a very specific incident and the facts and law that are exclusively relevant to that incident.  When one tries to make a trial about something else then those involved in that trial’s proceedings do not get justice.  And the irony here is that if you don’t have justice then you can’t have social justice.

We know that the jurors were bombarded with publicity that included information, misinformation, and disinformation about George Floyd and his death for close to a year before the trial began and that the publicity continued to surround them throughout the trial.  We know that they deliberated for only 10 and a half hours which did not provide much time to review three weeks’ worth of evidence and to make sure they were looking only at that evidence and not the year’s publicity. 

We know that despite the complexity of the laws involved and legal interpretations of terms therein, that the jurors asked no questions of the Judge during their 10 and a half hours of deliberation.  We know that it took the jury only 10 and a half hours to elect a foreperson, to review the law and evidence, and render unanimous guilty verdict on 3 counts, all requiring different criteria be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said at the start, I will not second guess the jurors, but it is hard to have the confidence in this verdict that I usually have in jury verdicts.  My experience as a lawyer and a legal observer has generally been that jurors try their best to follow the law and the facts and reach a fair verdict and I will trust that is what the Chauvin jurors did.  But was that possible given the circus that surrounded them for the year prior to and then during this trial?  We will likely never know the definitive answer to that question. 

And that is why this is so troubling.

Because, if you cannot fully trust our legal and especially our jury system, then you cannot trust the law.  And if it even appears that a jury can be swayed by media narrative or by threats of violence then that is what we can look forward to in future litigation.

When we look again at the specific defendant in this trial, there is more to trouble us.  Derek Chauvin is a police officer.  I know that he is entitled to a jury of his peers, and apparently the lawyers and the court were satisfied with the jury, but I don’t know if there was even one police officer on the jury.  I do know that defendants who happen to fall within certain identity groups often demand that their juries consist of members of that same identity group.

The fact that this was the trial that resulted due to actions of a police officer during a criminal stop and detention means that the verdict here will have ramifications that will affect police behavior in the future, especially if there is the possibility or perception that this was not a just verdict.  If police feel that whenever someone is injured during a difficult arrest that they can be tried, possibly unfairly, then they will hold back on some actions that are necessary for them to do their job and keep the people of their jurisdictions safe.  This does not serve any of us well.

The ramifications of this verdict will also resonate with the social justice warriors.  We already have assertions that this trial has proven that systemic racism exists.  Just a note:  this was the trial of one police officer for one action; it was not the trial of whether or not systemic racism exists.  Yet apparently those calling for remaking or removal of police generally, see this verdict as a hefty bonus to their cause. 

Many believe that their demonstrations, rioting, and threats of violence are what resulted in this verdict.  Even the President suggests that it was the people coming to the streets that gave us this verdict (of which he approves).  Essentially this is a belief that the mob, not justice, won.  President Biden now calls on the country to continue to “listen to the activists” who have protested about police brutality since George Floyd’s death.  

But this was a trial.  It was not a judgement about the message of activists. Activists have their role.  But that role does not include swaying a jury trial.  Indeed, attempts to do that are usually considered to be jury tampering and subject to severe penalties.  Yet when even our President, with his encouragement of following narrative not fact, shows us that he does not understand the separate roles of activist and  juror, then we can certainly expect more demand for mob rule and less respect or support for the rule of law.

There were only 12 jurors at the Derek Chauvin trial, and I was not one of them.  Nor was the media or the President.  I did watch parts of the trial and I am left with some reasonable doubt.  The jurors have told us there is no such doubt and we must respect that verdict.  But no matter how seriously those jurors took their oaths of objectivity and to follow only the law and evidence presented at trial, given the year long circus leading up to and surrounding this trial, I question whether it could ever have been fair.

I will always wonder if Derek Chauvin was truly guilty of the crimes charged or if he was simply the sacrificial lamb that had to be slaughtered to assuage the guilt for the systemic racism that allegedly exists.  But anyone who thinks that with this verdict the anger and violence, the hatred and claims of racism will end is dreaming.  My fear is that this verdict will add to increased belief in and reliance on mob rule while justice and the rule of law become the ultimate victims. 

Rules, Choices, Consequences - updated

We live in a country governed by the rule of law.  That law comes from many sources – the Federal Constitution, state constitutions, legislatures, regulations, city ordinances, executive orders, etc., and even restrictions imposed by state governors during a health pandemic emergency.  These are the rules that govern our behavior in our society. 

Basically, the rule of law provides that a society and the individuals within that society will be consistently governed by a set of legal codes and processes.  Our “rule of law” is based in our Constitutional form of government.  Countries not governed by a rule of law include a variety of authoritarian regimes as well as those devolved into anarchy.  Aristotle proclaimed, "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

When someone does not like or does not wish to obey a particular rule they are faced with choices, three of which immediately come to mind:  obey, challenge, disobey.  Each of these choices comes with consequences attached; those consequences should be part of one’s consideration in making the choice.

If one chooses to obey a rule they do not agree with, the consequences are twofold.  First, they will not be penalized for failure to obey the rule and secondly, they will likely have to change their behavior or desired behavior in some way to do or not do something they had wanted to and otherwise would or would not have done. 

The second possible choice is to challenge the rule using our judicial system.  That challenge might be based on such things as whether or not it is constitutional or an abuse of discretion or power, whether it is duplicative or ambiguous or unfair in its application, etc.  One might also ask for an exemption to a particular rule based on their own personal circumstances.  Such challenges of course take time; one will not get immediate gratification, but must instead wait for a ruling and perhaps a challenge to that ruling and also must understand that in the end the ruling may not be the one they hoped for.  But that is how a country governed by the rule of law (rather than personal or mob demand) operates.

The third choice that one can make when faced with a law they do not like is to disobey that law and simply do what they want.  Murderers do this.  Illegal border crossers do this.  Jay walkers do this.  Anyone who makes this choice on any level should also be prepared to face the consequences which may include criminal penalties including fines, jail or, in some cases death.  Sometimes people making this choice will determine that it is necessary to disobey and take the consequences in order to make a broader social justice point – for example participants in lunch counter sit ins during the civil rights movement.

In our current pandemic times we have many examples of people choosing to disobey their governor’s restrictions.  They often claim they are justified in doing so, asserting that any restrictions on their “rights” are unconstitutional.  First, that shows an appalling lack of understanding of our Constitution.  But, even if that were a reasonable argument, the thing to do is to challenge those restrictions that they argue to be illegal in a court of law.  Some individuals in some states have done so (for example churches seeking permission for drive-in services) and have either obtained exemptions or seen modifications to the rules.  Others have not won their arguments against the rules.

As an aside here, I will note that the governors do indeed have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions during a time of health emergency.  One has the right to challenge the reasonableness of a particular restriction.  If one does so, one must be willing to accept the decision of the court or courts to which they bring their appeal.  That is how the rule of law works.

What we see, however, is an alarming refusal to follow the rule of law when it comes to such health emergency restrictions.  I happen to believe that governors are doing the best they can with data that changes daily and with concern for both their state’s people and its economy.  People who think they know better than their governor probably do not; at a minimum they do not have access to all of the daily information that governors receive.  I suspect they have not taken the time to understand the purpose behind those restrictions which they do not like.  And yes, some governors are probably getting some things wrong, but blanket refusal to acknowledge their very power to issue restrictions, along with blanket disobedience of those restrictions is a frightening disavowal of our very system of government.

In the end, what I see is too many people who, like young not yet socialized children, refuse to not only follow reasonable rules but also refuse to take personal responsibility for their disobedience.  Let’s take for example the Texas salon owner who was sentenced to a week in jail for failure to follow her governor’s restrictions.  Here was a woman who made a choice and should have been willing to accept the consequences of her choice which included criminal penalty including jail.  She was happy to choose to disobey, but seemingly unwilling to accept the consequences of that choice, believing that her personal reasons were enough to allow her to break the rule and open her salon.

Rather than make her choice and accept the consequences, the woman, like a small child, did what she wanted.  Before being jailed or even arrested, she was given a cease and desist order – which she tore up.  This is the point at which she might have instead requested an exception based on her personal circumstances if she really believed those circumstances warranted the rule not being applied to her.

Once charged for opening, in court she was given the option of taking “this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live” and then being given a fine only.  She refused and instead made excuses:  she wasn’t selfish but needed the money, ostensibly to feed her family (essentially asserting that herself was more important than society and the public good).  She refused to close her salon and told the judge to go ahead and send her to jail.

Her behavior is not unlike a small child who defiantly refuses to follow rules.  But what may be worse are the other adults in her community and beyond who are acting like parents who excuse their children’s bad behavior.  Rather than perhaps helping her with her personal circumstances, they are making the excuses of why she “needed” to disobey the rule.  Some are even offering to take the blame or even the punishment for her.  They have raised several hundred thousand dollars for her because of her failure to comply.   In essence they are justifying her illegal behavior.  

This really is simply another example of avoiding personal responsibility and of others excusing that avoidance.  When we can do whatever we want, obey only those rules that we choose to or which are agreeable to us, when rather than accept personal responsibility for what we do we instead make emotional excuses that are accepted by others who then excuse us, when this becomes the norm then we no longer have a nation governed by the rule of law. 

ADDED NOTE:  Once the rule of law was followed, the Texas Supreme Court just now ordered the woman freed and the governor banned jail as penalty for failure to comply with this rule.  Following the rule of law indeed provided a remedy for this woman.  

This disobedience and excuse is not new with the current pandemic; rather, the fact that people are having their lives and routines disrupted for the public good has revealed the extent of the self-centeredness that exists in this country.  That self-interest abundantly extends to a belief that one only need follow those rules which they choose.  With this absorbing self-interest comes a lack of patience and hence too many believe there is no need to question via our judicial system – just disobey and get whatever immediate gratification is sought. 

Sure, we see the daily stories of those who act selflessly to serve others during this pandemic.  But that goodness seems to be outnumbered and overwhelmed by those who cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate desires.  This has been a part of our society for some time; it is just more visible now.  And it should give us all pause as we consider what happens if we allow ourselves to become a nation where personal responsibility is excused by self-interested narrative, allowing individual citizens to make their own rules so that the rule of law is no longer the governing principle in our society.

In Defense of My President

It is, or should be, clear by now that the Democrats cannot accept a peaceful transition of power; at least when that transition picks a leader they did not choose and whom they cannot control. 

One can see why Democrats favor socialism – the transition of power in socialist countries is rarely peaceful.  Our Democrats, especially those with socialist leanings, are perfectly content to destroy the entire country if that is what it takes to remove Donald Trump from office.

They spent 2 years tearing at us with their assertions based on the Mueller investigation.  From that report and Meuller’s testimony, we have a clear conclusion that Donald Trump did not collude or conspire with foreign powers to sway our election.  Mueller further testified that his investigation was not hindered (obstructed) in any way.  He and his staff carried the investigation to its conclusion and he then resigned of his own volition.  No interference.  No obstruction.

Yet, still, Democrats will not have it.  They are focused (like the proverbial laser beam) on removing our duly elected President from office.  The Democrats have no interest in what the people want.  Indeed, they believe anyone who voted for or supports President Trump is an idiot – many have said as much.  They seem to believe that not only are they better than anyone who does not think (or vote) like them, but also that it is both their right and privilege to think for us all as well.

The Democrats condemn Donald Trump not because he has committed any crime, but because he has not done so, and that fact makes their attacks and attempts to remove him from office more difficult. 

Donald Trump is not a perfect human being.  No one is!  But the Democrats will try to convince us that somehow simply Donald Trump being who he is constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor” sufficient for his removal from office.  I must disagree!

I voted for Donald Trump, but even if I had not I would (and do) support him.  First, as an American who believes in our system and laws, including our electoral processes, I will always support whomever is elected, even if that individual was not my choice.  I may disagree and protest specific policies or actions, I may work against that person’s reelection, but that person will be my president and I will support him or her and the office.

Once we have a duly elected president, that person is the president of our country – he or she is all our president, not just the president of those who voted for him or her.  That understanding is how we have peacefully transferred power for nearly 250 years and how we have been able, as a unified country in that regard, to accomplish so much. 

Without that understanding, when people believe that if they didn’t vote for the winner of the presidential election then that person is not their president, then we create a situation in which it is much more likely that those who deny their duly elected president will also feel empowered to deny and disobey laws which they prefer not to obey.  That is, we are taking a giant stride in the direction of lawlessness.  And, since we are a country of laws, since our laws hold together our fragile democracy, then acceptance of lawlessness can easily destroy our country and all that it stands for.

But, beyond that, I happen to think that Donald Trump is doing a very good job as President.  And, no, I don’t agree with all his acts, nor am I a fan of his Tweets; but I also know that it is unrealistic to think that anyone, without being brainwashed, would agree 100% with anyone who sits in the Oval Office.

I realize that the mainstream media fails to report most of President Trump’s accomplishments and those they cannot ignore are usually colored less that favorably toward the President.  But, if one actually and objectively finds and reads the news, and complete factual accounts, one might be amazed at the many positives that have come from this President.  The economy and jobs, of course, especially for groups that historically have had high unemployment, but also things like prison reform, recovery of a number of political prisoners held by foreign nations, more favorable trade deals, VA accountability, highest median household income,  manufacturing jobs growing at fastest rate in 3 decades, combating opioids, a number of foreign policy wins and accomplishments, and the list goes on and on. 

This President is getting things done.  He is keeping his campaign promises to all Americans.  You may not agree with all that he is doing or perhaps you would prefer a different manner in accomplishing them, but President Trump is doing what he was elected by the people of this country to do:  he is working to improve America for all its citizens and he is keeping his campaign promises.  And, he is doing this in the face of daily, 24/7, attacks on him, his family, and his supporters.  He is doing this is the face of an opposition party that hopes daily to see him fail, even if that failure hurts Americans.

I am a proud American, often referred to as an idiot, deplorable, nationalist (as if that must always be a dirty word), racist, ignorant, narrow-minded, conservative (as if that too must be an evil word), and just plain stupid.  Perhaps those people who call me and other Trump supporters such names truly believe all that about us.  Or, perhaps, these are (as I suspect) simply the name calling that is directed at anyone who doesn’t agree with the Democrats’ party line. 

Sadly, most of these name callers are unable or unwilling to have an adult conversation in which we could explore why they feel as they do.  I would like to have such a conversation with open minds, but, realistically, I know that just isn’t going to happen, because, realistically, objectivity no longer matters.  Rather, it is all about unseating in any way possible, a president who was not the choice of 100% of the people.

Those whose choice the President was not have come to believe it is their right to oust him while the country, its people, its laws, and its democracy be damned.  And, that is how we might describe many of the countries from which the masses are fleeing to our border.  They apparently have not gotten the message that we are becoming them.

Wake up America.  Support our laws.  Support those duly elected by those laws.  Respect your fellow citizens with whom you disagree.  Drop the laser focus on destroying your opposition regardless of the cost and consequences.  Instead, work to Keep America Great and make it even greater.

Entitlement and the Negation of Patriotism (and how it destroys a country)

A Minnesota city council decided to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of its meetings because it was not welcoming to everyone in their diverse community.  How, I wonder, is not saying the Pledge more welcoming to anyone except those who despise America?

Soccer star Rapinoe states that America was/is not great for everyone.  In a recent speech to high school students, Rep. Omar denigrated America for not meeting her expectations.

What all these statements and activities reveal is a complete lack of understanding about our country and a replacement of such understanding with a selfish need for immediate gratification.  This entitlement, this expectation and demand that everything be perfect is not realistic nor is it the way that a great democracy works.

In this country perfection does not exist (nor does it or will it exist anywhere; it is something to aspire toward, but not likely achievable).  There are inequalities; people desire things which they do not have; hard work is usually rewarded, but sometimes it is not.  Life is not always fair.

What these people who despise and disrespect America do not understand is that this country, its government, its way of life provide avenues for improvement.  Our Constitution allows us to voice our concerns and our representative form of government allows us to make our voices heard and to create, amend, and abolish laws to further our aspirations toward the more perfect world that everyone seeks.

This is something to admire, not trash.  One can certainly have a personal grievance with or dislike of a particular policy, but that does not mean that the entire country and its system of government merit scorn, contempt, and disrespect.   In very few countries is there an avenue for peaceful change and improvement such as we have here.  That is not something to lightly toss away.

Individuals come and go in our government not by coup or civil war but by election by the people.  While each of those individuals will be more or less liked by each individual voter, they will have been elected by the people of this country and they represent the office that they hold.   Those offices, those elected positions, are key to our democratic way of life.  Even if one did not vote for or does not particularly like the current office holder, if they care at all about this country they will understand that the office itself deserves respect for its necessary place in our democratic system.

But, in this era of entitlement, too many do not understand this.  A selfish feeling of entitlement does not allow room for appreciation or respect.  After all, how can anyone appreciate anything if they believe they are yet entitled to more?  How can they respect a system or a country that refuses to provide them with the immediate and total gratification that they seek?  Like children, they want it and they want it now, and all else be damned.

Do those who spend their days speaking about how awful America is even begin to realize that this may be the only country in the world where they would be allowed to be so disdainful?  Do they even begin to appreciate that it is only because this country is what it is that we have progressed to a place where the grievances they assert are even relevant?  Do they understand that they would be far more successful in achieving the improvements that they seek by working within our democratic structure rather than by tearing it down and trying to destroy the very country that allows them to behave as they do and to seek what they seek?

I think not.  When one has been conditioned to believe that they are entitled to all that they want and that it should be provided immediately, that the world revolves around them, it is hard to understand that real change takes time and work.  One must work not to destroy what one has, but to improve it, and must have the patience needed for real changes to occur.  America allows for that, and this is one of the many reasons why America is great, and yes, great for everyone. 

But, one cannot appreciate America if one does not understand what it is:  its government, its history, its place in the world, its distinctions from other forms of government.  And, when one is only concerned about one’s own selfish and personal interests (however couched in terms of grander political issues), one is not going to care about respecting anything, including the great country that allows them to behave like children, wanting to destroy things because they aren’t getting what they want.  It is the child that needs immediate gratification and will hate and tear apart all that does not give it to him.  The mature mind and emotion will appreciate what one has while at the same time speaking out and working to make it even better. 

So, we are losing an appreciation for our country.  We see that in a lack of national pride, of refusal to respect the symbols of our great country:  the flag, the National Anthem, the White House, the Constitution, the legal system, the offices of government.   We are losing the patriotism that is a necessary part of any country’s existence.

To be clear, patriotism in America does not mean never criticizing or pointing out flaws or working to better the country.  Indeed, America expects and needs its citizens to do that.  But one can do that while still respecting the freedoms that this country already provides, respecting its history and its ability, through its people and its Constitutional rule of law, to evolve, moving ever closer to its asserted ideals.

Patriotism does mean seeing beyond oneself:  seeing oneself as a part of a great country where the citizens are able to work together to improve it.  It means being able to distinguish between criticizing a policy to which one objects and criticizing the entire country and all that it stands for as somehow worthless.  But, of course, the ability to do that takes more than a selfish, childish mind.

Feeling entitled, needing immediate gratification means that one cannot make the fine distinctions between a particular demand and the country in which that demand is being made.  It means that one cannot appreciate or respect anything positive about a country that is not gratifying one particular demand.  If they don’t get what they want, they will simply despise the entire country, not unlike a child who will scream hatred for the mother who will not provide candy that is being demanded, never mind all the other positives that the mother may provide.

So, these America haters will despise all symbols of this great country and try to silence patriotism and ultimately the country itself.  They simply cannot understand that only by respecting all that this country stands for do they even have a chance to make the changes and obtain the gratifications that they seek.