Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?

Quick Notes on Today’s News

There are three troubling pieces of news today – troubling for different reasons.  I will address them in the order in which the news broke – first the plea deal of Michael Cohen and the partial conviction of Paul Manafort.  I will address those two together,  then I will address the news of the death of Mollie Tibbetts allegedly at the hands of an illegal alien.

Cohen and Manafort
Today came two highly anticipated conclusions in the cases of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort.  Both men were investigated and charged as a result of Mueller’s out of control search for collusion between the president and Russia.  Cohen reached a plea and Manafort was convicted of only 8 out of 18 charges.  The convictions primarily involved tax evasion and other monetary misdeeds by the two individuals.  There was nothing even remotely related to Russian collusion.  Nonetheless, the media and the Left are going crazy connecting these two men to the president.  Their association with the president tainted them and led to their convictions, and now the media attempts to taint the president by his association with men who have been convicted.

Indeed, both men did at one time work for the President.  The investigations into them and the resultant charges would likely never have occurred but for a political inquest that is an attempt to unseat the president and in the process gathers up in its net anyone associated with the president.  Their homes and offices were raided in ways that were reminiscent of gestapo techniques.  This intimidation is an attempt to find some “dirt” on the president and this sort of inquisition is frightening.  As Dershowitz previously noted in regard to Manafort,  his crime was being associated with the president, and his trial was about getting him “to sing.”  (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/01/dershowitz_manaforts_crime_is_being_associated_with_donald_trump_trial_is_about_getting_him_to_sing.html).

This is not an argument that these men are innocent.  But it is important that these men, and especially Manafort, would likely never have had charges brought against them but for their relationships with Trump.  This is a frightening politicization of our justice system.   On The Innocence Project’s blog, John Oliver notes:  “The truth is, prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives in a second, so we need to find out who our D.A.’s are and get a sense of the policies and priorities that they are carrying out. If we do not decide ourselves what we want our criminal justice system to look like — prosecutors will decide.”  (https://www.innocenceproject.org/john-oliver-reminds-us-why-we-should-care-about-prosecutor-accountability/).   While written regarding individual prosecutors across the country, it applies equally well to the Mueller and his seemingly out of control inquisition that goes after anyone associated with the target of his hunt, his hope seemingly not justice, but to somehow, someway, destroy the president.

Mollie Tibbetts
Now to the death of Mollie Tibbetts, a young woman with a promising future whose disappearance a little over a month ago captivated the nation.  The news of her death is heartbreaking.  What adds to the outrage is that the death was apparently at the hands of someone who has been living in the country illegally – but for his ability to carry out that initial illegal entry and then his continuing illegal residence, he would not have been here to commit his illegal act against Mollie Tibbetts.

To point out that her alleged murderer is illegal is not a condemnation of all immigrants as some would suggest.  All illegal immigrants are not murderers and the condemnation of one is not a condemnation of all, just as the opposition to illegal immigrants is not an opposition to legal immigration.  But, what young Ms. Tibbetts’ death at the hands of an illegal does underscore is that our immigration system is broken if illegals such as the accused can enter and stay rather than being caught at the border and sent home.  It also points out that if borders are open as some argue they should be or if there is no enforcement of immigration laws as those who would abolish ICE would have it, then people of bad character or intent will be just as able to enter the country as those with good intent, and, even if the borders are not fully open, without ICE there would be no one to enforce the laws.

Right now thoughts and prayers need to be with Mollie Tibbetts and her family as they remember the joy of her life.  But, that life apparently ended at the hands of an illegal alien, and ultimately that part of her life must also be remembered.  Those of us who did not know her in life can honor her death by taking a hard look at immigration in this country and working to fix a broken system not based on partisan agendas, but for the good of the country as a whole and all the future Mollies and others who will live in it.

It’s All About Looks, Isn’t It?

The new movie Crazy Rich Asians is lauded, in part, because its all-Asian cast provides characters with whom Asians can identify.  It also provides actors with whom young aspiring Asian actors can identify.  In my majority Hispanic area of the country, Hispanics want schools to dump White authors for those of Hispanic origin so the students will be able to relate.  In other places the same argument is presented to replace Anglo male authors with female or Black or other authors belonging to a specific identity group.  We are told we need to have women in a variety of untraditional careers so that other women will know they can also seek those roles as well.  When Barack Obama was elected we heard Blacks saying that now their children could aspire to be president.

Can we only identify with those who share our appearance?  Is our world really that superficial?

For some reason when I was young, without ever seeing a female president or doctor I nonetheless believed I could grow up to become someone who filled one of those two professions.  When I changed my mind and decided to become a trial attorney, it never crossed my mind that the fact that I had never seen a female trial attorney would in some way prevent me from becoming one.  When I read novels by or about white males, I was somehow still able to identify with the human emotions and challenges experienced by their characters.  I could relate to something more than simply a surface and superficial identity.

Indeed, that is what makes truly great literature great:  its ability to be timeless and in a sense identity-less so that any reader in any time period will be able to identify and learn from the author’s words.  The same is true for plays, music, art forms, and movies.  Sure, it’s nice to see someone who looks like you, but isn’t it far nicer to find someone who feels like you?  And that someone, because it is deeper inner qualities that are being identified, can come in any size, shape, or color. 

Isn’t it better if our heroes hold deep and meaningful qualities to which we can aspire rather than just hold our skin color or our sex?  Have we all lost the strength of our own identities, our inner and individual selves, so that the only identity we know is that with which we have a superficial resemblance?

Sadly, when the superficiality of much of today’s culture is mixed with the epidemic of identity politics we seem only able to provide superficial heroes that only further reinforce our focus on appearance.  This leaves behind the noble qualities of humanity that we would do better to aspire to.   As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once suggested, let us try to focus on the character of one’s soul, not the color of one’s skin.  In doing so we will find our truest and most lasting heroes:  significant, robust, and truly human role models to which we could all genuinely aspire. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignorance, Stupidity, or Just Simple Brainwashing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short Notes on the First Amendment and Today’s News

     The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in full:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
                                                                           ~
     Losing a security clearance when one no longer holds a job that requires it is not an infringement of one’s first amendment rights.  Those rights include speech, assembly, religion.  They do not include the right to be informed of national classified secrets and other information and use that to further one’s position as a partisan pundit.  Mr. Brennan is free to say his rights were infringed, but in reality they were not.
                                                                          ~
     The hysteria around “fake news” is partly fueled by a lack of clarity or agreement as to what is “news.”  Traditionally, news has been a full, fair and objective reporting of facts and noteworthy information relevant to an issue or recent event.   That was not to be confused with opinion which is someone’s view or judgement about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.  Opinion can easily become propaganda when one uses information in a biased or misleading manner in order to publicize a particular political agenda or point of view.
     Today, news and opinion are less clearly defined, nor are they separated and are rarely distinguished.  In many cases both have taken on an entertainment rather than an informative role, as well as, in some cases, a propaganda role.  The term “fake news” seems to include instances where news media present incomplete information or use weighted language and in effect present opinion while calling it news. 
     The freedom of the press includes the gathering of facts and the right to present those facts as well as to present opinions about those facts.  The problem is that one should not be presented as if it were the other.  We, as a free people, depend upon the press to keep us informed, but that information must begin with a clarity of what is objective news and what is opinion.  The press is derelict in its duties when it (whether intentionally or negligently) confuses the two.
                                                                             ~
     Freedom of peaceable assembly is not limited only to certain view points.  There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.   Democracy depends upon a free and full market place of ideas, even those that most of us find abhorrent.  Let all ideas be presented and have confidence that the people are capable of determining which should be accepted and which rejected.  That is freedom.
                                                                            ~
     When it comes to speech, let’s not be hypocrites; let’s have the same standards for what we will or will not find acceptable.  For example, why is it not OK for Trump to use the word “dog” when discussing Omarosa, but accepted if not celebrated when Ivanka is referred to as a c*nt, or Melania as a whore?  Why do allegedly racist comments by some result in job loss, while similar comments by others are excused?  Why are certain comments removed from social media while other, nearly identical comments are not?   Why are threats to the children of the President, his staff, and his supporters not condemned as they would be if directed at anyone else?   Why are only some people intimidated both verbally and sometimes physically when they “speak” in the form of a hat or a shirt or a bumper sticker asserting a particular political position?  The answer to questions such as these is simply that it depends upon whether the speaker and the comments are pro or anti Trump and his administration.  The chilling effect that this has on free speech is frightening!
                                                                           ~
     Let’s all just try to be more precise, articulate, and fair in our support of and discussions about speech and freedom and the first amendment.

The Baby or the Bath Water?

There is a difference between protesting an act of a country and protesting the country itself.  It may be difficult to see or understand the distinction, but there is indeed a distinction, just as there is a difference between emptying or changing the bathwater and throwing out the baby that sits in it.

I can remember marching against the Vietnam War in the 1960s.  I, along with most of my fellow marchers, was marching as a proud American upset with my country’s involvement in Vietnam.  I was protesting that involvement, the decisions that led to it, and the decisions to remain involved.  I was not protesting the country itself.

Contrast many of the protests we see today that include signs and proclamations that “America was never great; we need to overthrow this system,” “Revolution,” and “This country cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown.”  These are one’s I can print here – others include far more violent sentiments against both the country and its leadership.  The specific issue allegedly being protested is often lost in the much louder rhetoric against the country itself.  Indeed, sometimes the actual point of the rally seems to be to protest the country; there is no focused issue being discussed.

Protesting an issue or an act is very specific.  It voices a position that something the country has or has not done should be rectified.  Such protests are a very real and necessary part of democracy.  They are one of many ways in which the people can speak, and protests over a specific issue have often been the catalyst that has caused our country to improve itself:  giving women the vote and the civil rights legislation ending segregation are just two examples of actions by the government that were preceded by specific protests about these issues.  Protests such as these led to reformation; they did not completely overthrow our system of government.  Rather, they made our country better.

And, here lies a key to one of the perhaps insurmountable problems in our country today.  Whereas, in the past we could debate issues while all sides unanimously believed in our country and our system of government, today we debate issues while some believe that the basic system can be reformed or improved and others truly believe we should just throw out the entire system.

In reality we are often not debating specific issues, but whether we should keep our system of government or completely throw it out and start over.  It is far more difficult to come to any resolution or compromise on that issue than it is to resolve or compromise on a specific point or action currently being taken or ignored within a system that all members of the debate agree is basically good.

Let’s consider a simple example.  If we have a garment that we agree is worthy of keeping but needs to be altered, we might argue about whether it is better to take in the side seams or the darts or the back seam, but, we would be in agreement that there is a problem that needs resolution.  We might even disagree about how much the garment needs to be taken in.  But we are not arguing that we need to replace the garment itself.  In such a case we will ultimately be able to resolve the issue and alter the garment, hopefully in a way that is satisfactory to all.  But, if we have a situation in which some believe the garment is basically good but must be altered while others believe there is no hope for the garment and it must be replaced, then we have a far bigger problem.

Today we have those who believe in America, in its system, a Democratic Republic with essentially a capitalist economic system.  Some believe that it is near perfect as is; others see areas that need improvement in various areas.  Those people could probably discuss and reach compromises on nearly all those issues.  But, today there is another group who do not believe in that system.  They do not see its possibility and its hope but rather find its promises to be empty or hopeless and therefore they see the solution to any imperfection as a complete rewrite of America itself.

So, there really is a divide between those who would simply throw out or change the bathwater and those who would toss the baby as well, refill the bath and replace the current baby with someone new.
This is a huge divide! 

If there is any hope of closing or crossing this divide (and I’m not sure that there is) we first must actually face it square on.  Keep or toss the baby?  Do we need a Solomon to help us decide?  We cannot split the baby in two (see my recent posts dated 8/10 and 8/13/18 on socialism and democracy and the incompatibility of the two).  This is far more than an issue about a specific act or inaction of our government.  This is an issue of our government itself and whether to retain our identity with all its flaws,  working to alter it so it fits us better, or whether to completely replace it with some other system.

A question such as that requires a far more informed debate than many are currently willing to have.  It requires an understanding of history and of various governmental systems.  It requires the ability to look beyond the immediate and consider both short term and long term consequences of any decisions.  It requires an understanding of freedom and individual rights and the type of freedom that America upholds versus what other countries may define as freedom. 

I am not really sure if those who currently assert that they would like to see a complete end to our democracy really mean that, or if they are simply screeching hyperbolic statements as a way of venting frustration at not having everything exactly as they want it.  I think there is some self-examination required in light of a full understanding of what replacing our country with something else would mean.

So, we have the bathtub and the baby.  Please consider the options before doing anything rash!