What’s Beneath the Hair?

Times change and sometimes things that were once accepted behavior are no longer OK.   As such, I don’t think that someone should be held accountable by today’s standards for something that was considered normal, conventional, or customary at the time it occurred.  However, I do hope that someone who justifies past behavior on the basis that it was OK when done, would also review that behavior, realize that it may not have been appropriate, even if acceptable at the time, understand why, and perhaps feel some remorse for the past behavior.

This is how I am looking at the alleged, videoed, and admitted past acts of Joe Biden that seem to encroach on the personal space of a variety of women. 

First, let me say that in my experience and observation over the past 70 years, smelling someone’s hair has always been something considered a bit creepy, so I’m not sure how that could ever be justified as something that was once accepted.  Personally, my reaction to the photos and videos I have seen is that his touching and encroachment have probably not been acceptable since at least the late 1950s. 

But, assuming that Biden’s behavior was in some way acceptable at the time the actions were taken, his justification video today show that he does not get that there was, or even is, anything wrong with what he did or that the women might have felt uncomfortable.  He justifies it by saying politics is “hands-on” and that it is the way he “comforts” people.  He says he realizes his way is no longer accepted, that personal space rules have changed, so he will try to follow those rules, but will not change his belief in the necessity of politics being “hands-on.” 

There is no recognition, let alone any apology for causing at least some of the women who suffered his “hands-on” style to be uncomfortable or to feel in some way invaded.   He simply says times have changed and he’ll do better now.   That is not an apology.  That shows no understanding of why the behavior was or is offensive.

I don’t think anyone considers Biden’s actions to be overtly sexually motivated.  But what they reveal is that he saw (and still sees) himself to be somehow the One that could comfort and save these women (the traditional “weaker sex”) when they were in a situation that he assumed was difficult or stressful for them.  That is, he saw himself as somehow superior; he saw the women as individuals who could not make it through without him.

That belief, that women needed him to get through a moment that he thought would be too tough for them belies everything he says about his belief in women’s equality.  Has his proclaimed work for women’s causes been because he believes women are his equal, or because he believes they are inferior and therefor need him to survive?  That, I believe, is the more important question that people should be asking when they discuss whether smelling hair and invading personal space should quash his run for president.

That is, it is the underlying reason for his repeated acts that is key here.  Clearly the acts are not OK now.  Maybe the invasion of a woman’s personal space was more acceptable at the time.  But the real question is why was Biden repeatedly doing this – what does it tell us about what he really thinks of women?  And, does his response telling us he’ll try to be a better boy now indicate that he in any way understands why the actions might be offensive, both on the surface and for what they say about his real belief in women’s equality?  For me, I am not seeing Joe Biden as someone who views women as his equal.

The Mueller Report and the Barr Summary

This is an example for America.  This is how the rule of law, not the rule of political angst or mob rule work.  This is the culmination of a very thorough investigation with decisions based on law, not emotion.  And now, for those who are bemoaning that the objective law did not satisfy their grief, it is time to grow up.

Here are some further thoughts.

The Democrats Show Their True Colors

Two years ago the Democrats were not able to face the fact that they lost the election.  Rather than try to understand what it was about Donald Trump and his policies that appeals to much of America, rather than examine their own policies to see what they were lacking, the Democrats simply chose to assume they were right, that they should have won, and that the only way they could have lost was if the other side had cheated.  (No space here to go into the psychological concepts about seeing others through one’s own eyes, assuming they behave like you, and how the Democrats generally and Hillary in particular seemed to approach rules and law as something to get around and perhaps even cheat against)

So, rather than accept defeat and work with the new president for the good of the country, the Democrats spent their time focused on finding ways to remove President Trump from office: fake dossier, lies to FISA court, lies to the public, and 25 million of tax payer money on an investigation that realistically all knew would not find collusion and without collusion could not find obstruction.  (That is, all who were not completely deluded by jealousy or hate or what has come to be know as Trump Derangement Syndrome)

The Democrats have shown us that they care not at all for our country or our laws or our constitution or our people.  They have made it perfectly clear with their monomaniacal focus on destroying Trump that all they care about is themselves and their own power.

Beyond that, their followers have shown us how ignorant they are of the law and how our country works.  They have been content to scream for what they want without evidence but with the passion of a mob.  The main stream media has joined in as each anti-Trump network and reporter sought to outdo the others with excessive opinion couched in the guise of reportable news.

And the Democrats are still angry.  Any American should be overjoyed that the duly elected president did not collude with a foreign power to sway the election.  They should understand that under the law the Attorney General properly made a decision about obstruction.  Yet, many Democrats are voicing their anger that our president was not found guilty.  And so, the report that they have touted as thorough and objective they now dismiss as incomplete or biased.  They will continue their hate parade as they claw and grasp at anything they can in the hopes of destroying this president, a subject that is far more important to them than the country and people that they allegedly serve.

Yet Think What Could and Should Have Been

Just imagine if all these Trump haters had, instead of pursuing their own angst, decided to be Americans who care about their country.  We have some of the lowest unemployment figures ever.  We have made progress towards peace on the international stage.  The economy is growing.  Our country is thriving again, and all this despite the fact that the President and his administration has been under constant attack every hour of every day since he was elected.   Imagine the even greater accomplishments if the Democrats had not been focused on trying to prohibit any accomplishment for America and Americans that the current administration put forth.

Imagine if instead of constant focus on a bogus allegation brought forth based on partisan lies, that the media had chosen to focus on the many other important stories and had chosen to present them without the ever-present anti-Trump bias.  Imagine, for example, if we saw objective reporting about the border crisis and if the Democrats had realistically sought to address the problem, if not with a wall then with some other form of security that would protect the daily invasion of hundreds of illegals into our country. 

Imagine if the Democrats and their media had chosen to include in their news feeds many of this administration’s accomplishments, instead of focusing attacks daily on Trump’s character.  Imagine if they had chosen to present anything about Trump without at the same time throwing shade on even achievements that did nothing but good for our country.

Imagine if the Democrats had taken the time to listen and hear voices from the other side of the political debate instead of simply trying to condemn and silence them at every turn.  If, instead of spreading hatred and its cohort identity politics, that the Democrats, instead of trying to divide us at every turn, had chosen to follow the words of another President, Bill Clinton: “For any one of us to succeed, we must succeed as ONE America.”

In America, we follow rules.  We have elections.  When our candidate loses, we must face our defeat with joy that the system works, and we must all support those who have been elected by our fellow Americans.  The phrase “loyal opposition” includes two, not one word; with the opposition to a policy or position comes also the understanding and responsibility of loyalty to our country and its elected leaders, even those for whom we as individuals did not vote. 

Had the Democrats understood how this, our Democracy works, we would have had 2 years of even more good news for our country both domestically and abroad.  We would have had less anger and less hate.

What Next?

So now the Democrats can grow up and show us that they have finally learned how to maturely handle adversity, or they can continue in their childish quest to destroy the man who hurt them by winning an election. 

They can try to change the election process and eliminate the electoral college so that they will perhaps have their way next time (and will most certainly have an unfair mob rule rather than the representative government that makes our country great).  They can try to stack the Supreme Court with 15 or more justices hoping that someone will rule in their favor.  They can continue to challenge and demean every action and word of the President and his followers, they can block even those actions and words that would benefit America.  They can continue their investigatory witch hunts costing the country millions of dollars as well as essentially destroying our system of government and law. They can refuse to accept Mueller’s conclusions and that the Attorney General was fulfilling his obligation under the law in reviewing the report and concluding that the evidence did not support obstruction charges. That is, they can continue to act like jealous and spiteful children, not giving up when they get news they don’t like, then changing the goal posts and trying to find some other way to get what they want.

Or, the Democrats can just buck up and face reality.  They lost the election.  They had a man they respected until yesterday do a thorough prosecutorial investigation and find nothing supportive of the charges they sought.  They do not like the President.  He is the President.  He has done many good things for the country and for the people of the country.  Many people support his policies.  The Democrats can seek to temper some of what they don’t like by listening to the people of this country and by reaching across the aisle achieving something that used to be fairly common in the halls of Congress – compromise.

The media can and should take a time out from their anti-Trump reporting and do some self-examination.  They need to ask themselves if they are fulfilling their important role of informing the people of this democratic republic, or have they abandoned that important task to become entertainers and purveyors of propaganda?

Republicans must be careful not to gloat.  It is easy, having been under attack for two years while stating the obvious – that the investigation was a witch hunt – to gloat when proven right.  But, if the Democrats should finally stop their infantile behavior and investigations and decide to do the work of the country that they were elected to do, then the Republicans must reach out with open arms to accept this.  On the other hand, if the Democrats have learned nothing from these 2 years, if they seek to continue their campaign of hate, then every Republican should stand in opposition to what is nothing less than assaults upon our very democracy itself.

I hope that the Mueller report brings an ugly 2 years to a close and we can now move forward to other stories and issues that are far more important.  I hope that the Mueller report reminds people that in the end we are a country of laws and that if we expect to preserve all the wonders and benefits that this country has to offer that we must support that rule of law and live by it rather than emotion and political hate.  

Each and every one of us has the personal responsibility to support all that this great nation stands for.  We have allowed the disgruntled left to act out their angst for 2 years.  Now, all of us who truly care about America must say “It is time to move on, to move forward, to work always to make America great” and we must demand that our elected officials put their country and constituents before themselves and their own power.  With this commitment American will flourish.

The Tragedy That Is the Democrats

Today I am just sad and bewildered.  How can so many people, indeed, an entire political party, hate this exceptional country so much?

As I read the news this week it feels like we are in the final throes of a war; the Democrats are waging their largest battle against the president, his supporters, and everything that traditional Americans hold dear.  They have joined forces with the media who have not a shred of credibility left as reporters of facts and who long ago gave up their once noble role of objectively keeping the people informed. 

This battle has many soldiers.  For example Adam Schiff, whose sole goal since 2016 has been to destroy Donald Trump.  His obsession is not unlike that of the fictional and monomaniacal Captain Ahab whose hunt for revenge sends him and his crew on a fanatical mission that ultimately leads to their destruction.  Schiff has now hired NBC reporters to help him dig up dirt to further his single-minded goal of destroying Trump.  They are joined in this mission by Jerry Nadler who has filed over 60 subpoenas and requests for information that are nothing more than a fishing expedition to find something, anything, that might be cooked into some sort of allegedly impeachable offense.  And all the rest of the Democrats have jumped on board to do whatever they can to win this crusade.

The Democrats hate Donald Trump in the same blindingly pathological way that Captain Ahab hated Moby Dick.    Why they hate him is unclear; to some extent it may be that he does not wear the cloak of refinement that they pretend to wear.  To others it is that they see him as the thief of the power to which they believed they were permanently entitled.  Others may be concerned that he stands in the way of their progressive or socialist agenda.   Whatever the reason, they are seeking revenge and are willing to destroy anything that stands in the way of the satisfaction they think they will feel upon Trump’s destruction.

They will accept as collateral damage the end of the rule of law, the end of defined borders, the murder of infants born alive, international peace and the strength of America on the world stage, the basic freedoms that make America what it is, including freedom of speech and the right to hold one’s own values and religion.  They are not interested in the Constitution or in defending it; they are not interested in fairness or equal application of law.  And most certainly they are not interested in facts.

They trash, ignore, deny, and degrade Trump’s many accomplishments, perhaps because he has accomplished what they couldn’t or wouldn’t over the past many years (wouldn’t because, like any good dictator, they need a permanent underclass to support their power; things like improved economy and low unemployment empower those whom the Democrats would keep down.)  They fight the president on things that they have supported in the past.  They schedule ridiculous hearings at the same time as a sensitive North Korean summit that could end a nuclear threat; they would prefer to disrupt a summit than to support our country – their only interest is their own selfish obsession.

The Democrats seem to fully hate America in the same way that a toddler hates anything and anyone that gets in the way of his gratification.  What we see is that the Democrats are as self-centered as a toddler; they want everything their way whether that is the will of the people or not, whether that is best for the country or not.  Like Captain Ahab they will destroy the entire ship of state and everyone in it to satisfy their irrational and selfish need for revenge.  Again, revenge for what?  The only logical answer is that they want revenge because Trump won the election.  Really?  Grown adults unable to accept the results of an election while they claim to care about the country?  This is laughable and yet we seem to let them continue to act out their tantrum while ruining the country in the process.

This is the same sort of tragedy portrayed in such classics as Oedipus, Narcissus, Shakespeare’s Lear, Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost, to name a few.  Perhaps the reason the behavior is not recognized as dangerous is that those classics are no longer read thanks in great part to the Democrats seeking their ban from school curricula. 

The Democrats are taking advantage of the underclass they have created.  Education no longer teaches critical thinking but instead seeks to impose a particular thought into the students.  Religion is demeaned and those who maintain faith are often ridiculed.  I often think that the hatred that comes from the Left toward those who do think and question as well as those who hold a deep faith within is not so much disdain as jealousy.  These people whom the Democrats would silence are often happier and more tolerant that their attackers.  This flies in the face of the emptiness that seems to exist within the hearts of Democrats.  They don't understand how those who are not following them can be happier than their own dark hearts allow.

The Democrats need their underclass.  They need people whom they have convinced cannot succeed without their help.  That is how the Democrats hold their power.  Trump is showing people, all people, that they can succeed.  He is not defining certain races  or other groups as secondary but is making it possible for all to work and support a family, to get off welfare and take pride in themselves, to identify not by external group labels but by their individual talents and beliefs.  That, by the way, is America.  And that is what the Democrats hate.

How Socialism Slithers In

While Socialism sometimes takes over a country by violence (e.g. the Russian revolution), at other times it is voted in (e.g. Spain in the 1930s and Venezuela upon the election of Hugo Chavez).  It is much harder to cause the end to Socialism without violence (e.g. Venezuela today) and sometimes the violence leads to something worse (e.g. Franco took power by overthrowing the socialist government that preceded him). 

This is one reason why it is important to be careful when we read statements that suggest where a politician’s policies will lead us.  Socialism sounds very enticing on the surface.  We all (I hope) know to be wary of promises that Socialism will give us all a living wage along with everything else we want, regardless of our desire or ability to work and contribute.  But the real enticements of socialism can be far subtler.

Take for example the following statement made by the Governor of New Mexico in support of creating an Early Childhood Care Department (NM Sen. Bill 22).   After stating that “a child’s early years of life are formative,” the Governor goes on to state that with the new department and with our “collective” responsibility, we can ensure that New Mexico children “will receive a continuum of care from birth to age 5 and enable the State to lay the groundwork for a successful future that encompasses our values as New Mexicans.” See Albuquerque Journal, 2/21/2019. LINK 

Now, on the surface this sounds lovely.  It sounds like the Governor cares about us and our children.  But, let’s reread and see what it really says.  It tells us that the State will take over the formative years of our children’s lives.  It tells us that the State would like to take control of our children from birth forward.  It tells us that the State feels it is more qualified than the family to “lay the groundwork” for the child’s future.  And, it tells us that the State, not the family should be the one to instill basic values in the child.  (It does not tell us what those values will be!).

To me, the thinking behind the lovely statement seems far too much like Socialism or Communism.  The State will raise the children and teach them how and what to think so that they will be useful cogs in the State machine.  It will replace the love and guidance that parents provide in a child’s formative years with State sponsored indoctrination.  Is this what people really want?

Example number two comes from a mandatory directive from an appointed head of a state agency to the employees within that agency.  The directive is addressed to “Family.”  Now, I don’t know about you, but I use the word “family” to address my actual family (parents, siblings, in laws, cousins, etc.).  When I address correspondence to those with whom I work I address them as “colleagues” or “co-workers” or perhaps in an appropriate instance as “friends.”  They are not my family (nor is the State - at least not yet).

But, more importantly, this directive asks employees to share their thoughts about their work environment in a way that would help to bring more employees into state government.   The request does not provide for anonymous answers (that would have been easy enough to do by setting up a Survey Monkey or anonymous Google share or other similar means).  Without such opportunity for anonymous reflections on less than positive aspects of the job there is no real interest in learning what the employee actually thinks or in understanding ways that the working environment might be improved.  Rather, it provides only one avenue:  to praise the State as employer.  And, it asks the employees to spend work time on this, rather than doing the actual work that the taxpayers are paying them to do.

And yet there is more.  The mandatory request concludes by stating that the sender wants to know “what you think/feel/believe and why.” What sounds, perhaps on the surface as a department head having some interest in supervised employees goes far beyond that.  It seeks to delve into their private and personal beings.  Only a State that has some interest in directing every behavior of individuals in a way that likely removes their individuality would demand to know what every employee believes and why.

These are just two examples of the sort of subtle maneuvering that causes people to support socialist-like agenda without even realizing they are doing so.  They add up.  And before one realizes it they are supporting and voting for a full Socialist agenda. 

I titled this post “How Socialism Slithers In.”  The use of the word slither was an intentional reference to a snake.  Whether you read it as fictional, as a Biblical fact, or as something else, the story of Adam and Eve and the Snake clearly presents evil disguised as offeror of a lovely option (in the form of beautiful fruit) which, if taken, has devastating consequences.  Socialism does the same: it offers what sounds like a lovely utopia, but it always has devastating consequences. 

The Socialism Snake beckons to us more and more zealously these days.  It is subtle and quiet as it slithers into our lives.  We need to be vigilant and see the snake for what it is.   The utopia it offers is nothing more than smoke and mirrors hiding a life without freedom and likely filled with misery.

Stupidity Is an Equal Opportunity Affliction

It affects people on both sides of the political aisle.

I really don’t know if it is stupidity or just a failure to think or the effect of being brainwashed so that one’s responses to every other person and every situation is pre-programed for them.  Regardless of what we call it, it is frightening.

I am no fan of socialists, or of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but, assuming for the sake of argument that she is not terribly bright or is not taking time to think before opening her mouth, she is not the only one.  Some of her opponents on the other side of the political spectrum are just as negligent when it comes to using their brains.

Here is what brought this to mind.  Recently on Facebook someone shared an article with the headline, “Ocasio-Cortez announces bill to make electoral college tuition free.”  Now, the source was stated as “Genesius Times” and if anyone would have bothered to click on the information icon on the posing they would have seen that this is a satirical fake news web site.  Beyond that, even those who are of the opinion that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is pretty dumb based on many of her (in the opinion of this author often quite idiotic) statements, even those who dislike AOC and all that she stands for would have to realize that based on some of her past statements she knows what the Electoral College is.

No matter.  The majority of commenters were willing to react without thinking, because that is the default reaction that they have for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist.  The majority of comments appeared to come from people who are clearly anti-socialist.  The majority of comments suggested that this headline was proof of AOC’s continuing dumbness.   That is their default position and everything they look at will prove it without need for thought.

The irony is that in simply accepting the headline as a true statement when so much pointed to its falsity, they proved their own dumbness, at least in this instance.  They did not think.  Moreover, some of the comments revealed that the commenter did not even take time to think or learn what the Electoral College is as they argued against free tuition for all, or that it should give out tuition based on merit, etc. This is not that different from jumping to conclusions against the Right in the recent Smollett case, something that these same anti-AOC commenters probably condemned as reprehensible.

Yes, there is stupidity on all sides of the aisle, it abounds everywhere and in every aspect of our lives today, and that is how we end up with the government that we have.  These same people who can’t take one second to think, who just respond with a knee-jerk and prefabricated condemnation of someone who holds a different perspective – these are the same people who go to the polls and elect those who create our laws and govern us.  Frightening isn’t it?!

We seem to be living in a No-Think era.  I don’t really believe that people are as dumb as much behavior makes them seem.  What I do believe is that we are not teaching children to think, that we are not ourselves taking the time to think and that we are simply accepting conclusions that may or may not have any reasonable basis in fact.  This is dangerous.  This is how people become susceptible to a dictatorship.  This is how people lose their freedom and their individuality. 

Those of us who care about this can demand more of ourselves and of others.  We can ask questions about assertions that we and others make.  We can think before we speak and certainly before we act.  We can choose not to accept or reject statements just because of who made them (or whom they are about), but instead examine their substance and make our own evaluations and conclusions based on that substance, rather than on the conclusion that we have been told to reach based on whatever group we happen to affiliate with.

This is basic critical thinking, something we seem to have forgotten.  We need to resurrect it and move from this no-think era to one in which we use our brains to guide our behavior; where we listen and think before we act, where we are less self-righteous and more open to hearing what is actually being said, and where we take time to consider each individual person and situation rather than judge based on generic and identity characterizations. 

Yes, we are all susceptible to the affliction of stupidity, but we also all have the built in antidote.  It is called our brain.  It’s time we all used it.

Defining Issues - Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some recent examples.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Elitism of Historical Enlightenment

There are those today who would judge every historical event by today’s standards. This is an unfortunate form of elitism.

Societies, including ours, evolve.  As they evolve they gain both scientific and social understanding that may prove that previous beliefs or actions were incorrect.  People once thought the world was flat or that the sun and stars moved around the earth.  Science later proved these beliefs to be wrong.  Yet we do not judge as stupid those who appropriately held those beliefs at the time they were considered to be accurate views of the physical world.

Similarly, as we evolve sociologically we learn that some of the beliefs that we had about the capabilities of women or other cultures or races were incorrect.  As we evolve sociologically we learn to be sensitive to diverse views and cultures.  We learn that behaviors that once were accepted actually were cruel or hurtful to others.  Yet, that behavior was at one time accepted as valid, justifiable, and expected. 

Just as it is not fair to judge the ancestor who believed the earth to be flat, it is not fair to condemn historical social behavior based on today’s sociological and moral understandings. To do so is a form of elitism – the attitude that those doing the condemning are somehow morally superior.  It is a form of snobbery which, in the case of historical enlightenment, is unjust.

With that in mind, let us consider the yearbook photo on Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page that he initially admitted but now claims is not of him.  The photo shows a person in blackface standing with a person dressed as a member of the KKK.  The yearbook is from 1984.  That is 35 years ago.

By today’s standards the photo is at a minimum culturally insensitive, and by most standards is racist and perhaps worse.   By today’s standards the behavior and the photo are unacceptable.  But, what were the standards in 1984?  As I recall that time it was not uncommon to hear comedians recite jokes that made fun of and caricatured races and cultures.  I don’t know what time of year the photo was taken, but I can assure you that if this were perhaps Halloween, few would raise their eyebrows at such costumes.  Indeed, Halloween was a time of all sorts of culturally offensive costuming, most of which has now been banned as we as a culture come to realize how offensive cultural appropriation and cultural humor can be.

I would like to think that Gov. Northam, in either wearing one of the costumes or in simply choosing to put the photo in his yearbook felt some sort of discomfort about his choice.  But I would also not be surprised if he did not, given the different atmosphere and racial understanding or lack thereof that prevailed 35 years ago.  

I cringe when I see this photo.  And if Gov. Northam put it before our eyes today, I would be the first to call for his resignation.  But to condemn him for an act that was in all likelihood not worthy of condemnation 35 years ago and also likely not done with malice in the atmosphere of 1984 seems to me to be unjust and an act of elitist superiority based on some sort of historical enlightenment.

Such elitism can be very dangerous.  If we are only going to live by the values of today, then I expect that we all are candidates for condemnation based on our acts of the past.  And, as history and cultures move forward, those elitist moral police of today may very likely be subjects of condemnation tomorrow.

It would be nice to think that we would all be prescient enough to understand the science and the sociological mores of the future.  The historical enlightenment elitists apparently expect us to have that capability and hence to have every statement and every action of today live up to what we will know and believe years into the future.

That is simply ridiculous.  Let us expect people to acknowledge the things they have done in the past that may have been accepted then but now are unacceptable.  Let us learn from those past actions.  Let people not do those things today, or, if they do, let them suffer the appropriate consequences.  But let us not condemn them for doing or saying things that were not considered unacceptable at the time they were done.

And let us not use this elitism of this moment in time to score political points.  Gov. Northam currently supports policies, including those on abortion, that are strongly opposed by others.  It is easy for the opposition to use this 35 year old event to call for his resignation.  Personally, because of some of his current policies I would be happy to see him gone.  But, I will not call for his resignation because of this 35 year old photo. 

And, on the other side of the aisle, there are those who generally support the Governor’s policies but are now calling for his resignation because of the photo.  I can’t help but wonder if this is simply their own self-promotion – a way to show their supporters that they, by condemning this action regardless of when it occurred, makes them somehow morally superior. 

While the current news story of Gov. Northam’s yearbook photo has been my example here, this is not an attempt to defend the Governor.  Rather, he is simply my example of the way in which many currently judge history by today’s standards, without context or any attempt to understand the context of historical times.  Perhaps this should not be surprising as so many in our society seem to want to live only in the moment, to erase, ignore or deny history. 

But that snobbery, that belief that now we know everything and are justified in condemning everything and everyone who is not us today is a very dangerous approach.  We are our history.  To condemn everything that is not us today is to condemn our very selves and to set the precedent that tomorrow’s selves can condemn, destroy, and deny all that we are today.  We become a people with no past and no future, just a hopeless and fleetingly elitist present.