RBG – First post after her passing

 Here is my statement on Ruth Ginsburg’s passing:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg definitely led an amazing life. Her many accomplishments are deserving of respect.   Many call her brilliant and she may have been.  She was certainly a good advocate. But, in my opinion she was lacking in judicial temperament.   And she did a terrible disservice to the country by not retiring when she knew she was dying, especially given the likely importance of SCOTUS in deciding this year’s election. May she rest in peace.*

*NOTE: I wrote essentially this same comment in response to a Facebook post that touted RBG’s talents as well as those of the poster.  My comment was deleted.  I’m assuming my opinion was not sufficiently gushing with adoration as apparently is expected when a Left icon passes. But neither is it disrespectful. Just honest – something of which the cancel culture does not approve when it does not mimic their voice.

We have all known since before the 2018 midterms that RBG likely would retire or die before the 2020 election.  That was a campaign point during those midterms.  Those who did not want Trump or a Republican Senate to be the ones to replace RBG had the right to vote for Democrat senators at that time.  The current makeup of the Senate reflects voter choice.

At least until January 2021, Donald Trump is still our president.  In 2016 RBG asserted that there should be a vote on then President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because “a president is elected for four years.” Similarly, Donald Trump should nominate and there should be a vote on RBG’s replacement as soon as possible.

The Supreme Court belongs to the people, not to one or another political party.  We the people have a right to have a fully functioning court.  This is especially important this year when it is very likely that the Supreme Court will have a decisive roll is who wins the election Nov. 3.  Without RBG’s replacement the Court will have 8 members and could easily split 4-4 leaving us with no decision and a Constitutional crisis.

Is that what the Democrats want, or perhaps hope for? They certainly have little respect for our Constitution or our rule of law.  I find the Democrat threats of violence if President Trump moves forward to be if not treasonous, a clear betrayal of their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the people.  So too are their assertions that if the position is filled before the election then they will begin efforts to pack the Court so that they will never lose again.  Could it be any clearer that they are more interested in their own power than in preserving and protecting the United States of America?

Just a reminder here that Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires the President to appoint judges of the Supreme Court.  To not move forward to fill this vacancy would in essence be a shirking by the President of his duty under the Constitution.

I am not optimistic about the upcoming behavior of the Democrats as President Trump moves forward to fill the vacancy and give to the people the fully functioning Court to which we are entitled.  I suspect that in addition to encouraging violence and other mob actions, the Democrats will use everything in their power to stall the process. 

For the Democrats everything is political and politics is all about their own power.  We have seen already the extent to which the Democrats will go to get what they want.  Who can forget the Kavanaugh hearings, the lies and the destruction of innocent lives and reputations? 

Indeed, that is all we seem to see from Democrats these days – hatred and a clear doctrine that the end will justify using any means necessary (for example, silencing opposition by denying their rights such as free speech protected to the people under Constitution; misusing Congressional powers and taxpayer money to conduct disruptive and frivolous investigations in a variety of attempts to overturn the 2016 election; and of course fomenting hatred for the duly elected President with full consciousness that such hatred can and does promote and result in violence). 

I have often argued in this blog that the Left is not interested in making our government and our country better; rather their goal is to completely dismantle it and rebuild it in a way that gives them absolute power and control over our entire way of life.  This Supreme Court vacancy provides them with another opportunity to further their cause.

Of course, the Democrats and their handmaiden the mainstream media will make every effort to turn public opinion in their favor and against filling the Court’s vacancy.  They will play on our emotions.  RGB’s final request to wait on her replacement will most certainly be used.  But this was a political request. 

RGB was a political player – the only reason she did not retire under Obama is because she thought Hillary would win.  Then, stuck with a Republican president whom she knew would not nominate a fellow liberal, she refused to retire despite her failing health.  She knew exactly what she was doing and had no problem creating this nightmare for the Court and for the people of this country.

The Democrats will tell us that the Republicans are hypocrites because they opposed Obama’s lame-duck nomination of Merrick Garland.  They will not mention the fact that the political makeup of Congress then was a different party from the Executive and as such reflected a different voter voice than does the current makeup.  They will not mention the many election year appointments and confirmations that have occurred in the past.

It is simple.  There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court that must be filled.  It is the President’s job to nominate someone and the Senate’s job to bring that nomination to a vote.  Simple as that.  That is our Constitutional process, what our rule of law requires.   

But watch the Democrats try to turn this into some sort of unconstitutional and evil power grab by the Republicans and the President.  It is not.  The only ones not reading their Constitution here are the Democrats.  Don’t listen to their rhetoric as they attempt to turn our legal processes and our very government into one of mob rule.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong American woman, has died after leading a full life, much of it within and a part of our legal system.  Let’s not allow the Democrats to use her death to further attack that very system that allowed her to become whom she was meant to be.

White Privilege, White Guilt

 History often provides lessons for the present.  Herein are some snippets of Russian history that have sparked my thoughts about privilege and guilt.  (And, as an aside, this is just one reason why we need to read and understand history rather than cancel it).

I was recently reading about the Populist movement in Russia in the late 1800s in which students and others involved in the movement picked up and moved from Moscow and St. Petersburg to the countryside to live with the peasantry.

These young [Populists] were riddled with the guilt of privilege.  Many of them felt a personal guilt towards that class of serfs – the nannies and the servants – who had helped to bring them up in their families’ aristocratic mansions.  They sought to free themselves from their parents’ sinful world, whose riches had been purchased by the people’s sweat and blood, and set out for the village in a spirit of repentance to establish a ‘New Russia’ in which the noble and the peasant would be reunited in the nation’s spiritual rebirth.  By dedicating themselves to the people’s cause – to the liberation of the peasantry from poverty and ignorance and from the oppression of the gentry and the state – the students hoped to redeem their own sin:  that of being born into privilege.  (Orlando Figes, Natasha’s Dance, A Cultural History of Russia, 220)

One can’t help but see parallels to America today.  Today the woke Left has discovered the useful concept “White privilege” and demands that White individuals admit their privilege (which may or may not exist) and proclaim their guilt.  Their sin is that they may or may not have benefited from the status of Whites throughout history; their privilege may or may not have had some negative impact on non-Whites. 

The Left, using a selective reading of history, portrays this country as full of sin due to White Privilege.  The sins of the ancestors now fall to present day Whites.  This sin must be redeemed.

Sure, we hear words like reparations as a form of retribution for the sin, but what is this really about?  Is this White privilege/White guilt about concern for those who are not White, or is it really about furthering a socialist agenda while making oneself feel good?  Like the Russian Populists, are today’s White penitents, convinced that they should feel guilty, simply trying to “redeem their own sin”? 

The sin itself does not make sense.  Just as the Russian students were not complicit in their parents’ choice of a peasant nanny, today’s Whites were not complicit in any possible sins of their ancestors.  The Russian Populists were not guilty simply because they were born to aristocracy any more than today’s Whites are guilty simply for being born White. 

Yet, convinced they are sinners, both the Russian Populists and the woke Whites do penance.  This penance is done for absolution of the sinner – to remove the stain of the “sin” of privilege; it really in the end has nothing to do with non-White victim identity groups.   Those groups are created by the Left to make one group feel guilty and in need of absolution while furthering the Left’s power over other groups whom they have made dependent upon them and their promises of a better life.

Like the Left, the Russian Populists promised a better life.  They were going to liberate the peasants from their “poverty and ignorance.”  Ignorance is a significant word here.  It suggests that the Populists believed in some way that the peasants were less than their Populist saviors who believed it was their right or duty to do for the peasants what the Populists believed they could not do for themselves.    

Not unlike the many programs created for today’s minority victim groups, “a whole range of institutions” were set up to improve the Russian peasants’ welfare and to integrate them into national life.  The attitude towards these peasants was one of “paternal populism.”  The peasants, however, were angry with those socialist ideas and with those who were trying to take control over their lives.  They did not want to be patronized; the paternalism was offensive to them.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines paternalism as “the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.” 

The essence of paternalism is that one group is seen as “less than” another, as unable to exist without the paternal assistance.  While paternalistic handouts may be useful, they rectify nothing.  Paternalism does not provide the tools or education that would allow those being helped to actually improve their status and no longer need the paternalism and its welfare. 

For the past 50 years the Left’s paternalistic entitlement programs have kept the minorities they are allegedly designed to help in minority ghettos.  They have not made the minorities “better off,” nor have they “protected them from harm.” 

What this paternalism has done is keep the alleged victims right where they are – less than those who are their paternal keepers.  It intentionally creates an underclass that is dependent upon their paternal keepers.  This benefits only the Left which gains power by maintaining the dependence of this underclass.

As the Populist movement in Russia collapsed, it became clear that the idea of the peasants that the Populists had in their minds did not exist.  Placement into an identity group in no way correlates to actual understanding of that individual or his needs.  Indeed, one can never know another group better than the group knows itself.  To pretend to do so is to believe one is superior to another.

In large part due to their lack of actual understanding of the peasants as people, things did not go well for the Russian Populists.  Their movement ultimately failed.   However, the idealism of the movement remained, and Lenin used it to bolster his revolution not many years later.  And that certainly did not go well for the peasants!

Perhaps at least some of the White Privilege-Guilt is, like that of the Russian Populists, based on some idealistic belief in a better world.  I tend to think that it more likely results from the Left’s manipulation of basically good emotions.  Perhaps some of the “guilty” feel their unknown sins have been redeemed.  But in the end, it is the Left, not those labeled victims of the privileged, that actually benefits. 

The Left is creating and fomenting the divisiveness that any good Marxist knows is necessary to bring about socialism.  They are also creating the idealist fairy tale about how their progressivism will heal all.  

The victims having been determined and guilt having been proclaimed, the Left provides the way to assuage it:  support their paternalistic institutions and organizations that will “take care of” the victim group and your guilt will be redeemed.  In essence, give power to the Left and they will fix the problem.  The Left will anoint the woke as both redeemer and redeemed.   Of course, nothing goes unrewarded; the Left will expect gratitude in the form of power.

I’m not buying it.  The Left belies the supposed noble concern of its guilt based calls for more paternalism when it sees only useful groups rather than individuals and when it treats those groups as some underclass whose dependence is cultivated rather than as equal individual humans who are due respect. 

Even the most noble sounding cause must consider not just the cause but the actual and complex individuals whom it will affect.  Lenin’s motivations for socialism were for the most part based on idealistic beliefs.  The ideal did not become a reality because it failed to understand the effect that its “I know better than you what you need” attitude would have on real individuals and their spirit.

Failure to see people as more than some identity statistic demonstrates a lack of real compassion for those people as individual and equal human beings.  While useful in fomenting revolutionary change, identity groups are destructive to the lives of real people. 

Everyone in some way has been lucky through no fault of their own and in other ways unlucky through no fault of their own.  Experiencing something better than another in some area does not create some privilege-victim relationship.  The unfairness of life does not mandate victim status for some and guilty status for others.

The Russian Populists ultimately realized that “they were cut off from the actual peasants by a cultural, social and intellectual abyss that they could not hope to bridge.” They then accepted that within their many differences they were all Russians. 

So too are we all Americans.  The Left would divide us by placing us into competing groups.  The division benefits none but the Left.    

We can learn from history that concepts of privilege, guilt, and their cohort paternalism do not end well for the real people seen as needing the interference of a paternalistic savior.

Guilt that is real should be redeemed.  But guilt belongs to the one who actually committed the sin.  Sin and retribution are not group holdings.  Retribution for actual sin should not be some form of paternalism that only furthers the sin.  Do not let the Left’s need for paternalistic power interfere with our individual yet united humanity.

 

Question 4 - Appearance or Substance? Talk or Action?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Of Dogs and Cats and Politics

 

The following is from Parade Magazine today, 9/13/2020:

 

 

As I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the Left.  As they tell us what to say, what to think, what to eat, what to wear, etc. aren’t they doing to us what has been done to dogs?  Aren’t they in essence trying to domesticate us to be obedient to their commands?

And, as people become more and more “domesticated,” just like domesticated pets they lose their innate ability to think, to question what is happening to them.

The Left and the socialists and their colleague the media would have us obey their commands:  speak only approved thoughts, perform only approved activities.  

Like dog owners who “discipline” their animals, the Left “disciplines” those who do not speak or behave “correctly.”  They call them names and scream at them, and just as a dog owner sometimes resorts to physical punishment, the Left can be seen doing the same as they beat those proclaiming or wearing a political position of which they do not approve.   

Abusive dog owners will try to beat their dogs into submission; some of the Left takes the same approach toward those who will not submit to their dogma.

Just as dogs are trainable, the Left would make people trainable to their views.  And the more those people become “domesticated” the less innate sense they have to question what is happening to them – like domesticated dogs, they lose brain power “in favor of obedient behavior.”

Dogs are wonderful creatures, but regardless of how much they may become a part of our families, there is no question about who is in control and who is subservient to and dependent on that control.

There is no question that the Left, in their ideal world, would hold the same sort of power and control over the rest of us whom the Left would make dependent on and hence subservient to their power.

I often wonder why people are not asking questions, especially “why?”, when the Left makes its many assertions and demands, when it tries to conform us all to their thinking and ways of acting.  In many ways the above article answers my question:  the domestication by the Left is already well in progress and numbing individuals' innate powers of thought.

The Left's handmaiden the media tells us what to think, whom to like, how to vote.  The loud voices (and sometimes violence) of the Left enforces those commands.  We are being domesticated.  We are being trained.  Trained to allow another to think for us, to make our decisions for us, to tell us what to do and in the end to tell us who we are.

And once that domestication process is complete, once we have been well trained and have given up our innate brainpower to our trainers, we will be completely dependent upon them and their power.  This is the socialist dream.  This is the Left’s ideal.  They believe that, being somehow superior to the rest of us, that they can and should be the masters of our lives.  History shows us that never ends well.

Perhaps the Left is the thunder and we should be afraid, for once we have lost our innate ability to ignore their attempts to control us we are indeed in grave danger.  Only when we refuse to be domesticated to their will can we survive as the independent and thinking individuals that we are capable of being.

Next time the media asserts its opinion, next time the Left tells you what to think or why your opinions are wrong or don’t count, ask “WHY?”  Be the independent cat in this story who will notice but ignore the thunder of the Left.

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Humanity - the Real Win

I understand team rivalries.  I grew up in Michigan where you are either for U of M or MSU – there is no in between.  But, despite what the media and perhaps your neighbors or Facebook friends would have you believe, politics is not a team rivalry.  It is not simply Red vs. Blue.

If one is really going to take a political position, one must understand more than what color their team wears.  One must delve into the issues, understand their history, their facts and falsities, and the consequences both short and long term of any action or proposed action taken in regard to those issues.

What true understanding requires is that one touch the humanity and not just the uniform worn by someone who represents a different side on an issue.  One effective way for individuals to recognize their shared humanity despite policy or political differences is to actually interact with one another.  That is what happens when people have a real conversation.

A conversation is “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.”  The key word here is “exchanged”; the conversants share and exchange ideas.  They are not in it to win, but to understand the ideas of another and to broaden their own perspective about that person or an issue or whatever might be the topic of the conversation.  A conversation is not simply a game between two different teams in which the players’ primary goal is to win, not to learn.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have such real conversations on Facebook.  I have followed many and participated in a few Facebook “conversations” and have yet to see or experience one in which there was actually an exchange in the sense of sharing and listening and actually considering one another’s ideas as a springboard to new ideas and deeper understandings. 

No matter how civil the discussion (“I understand what you are saying, but….”) they all really go something like this:  The initial Poster presents something which is open to more than one viewpoint but which takes or at least leans to one view only which is the view in which the Poster believes.  There will be some responses in the form of “likes” or similar acceptance of the view presented.  This of course satisfies the addictive sugar of Facebook for the Poster.  Eventually someone will either disagree or point out additional or contrary opinions or facts, all of which are inconvenient for the Poster and those aligned with the Poster. 

While one might call that an exchange of ideas, it is not.  It is a presentation by the other team.  An exchange requires more than presentation.  It requires an acceptance (though not necessarily an adoption) of the other side’s presentation.  It requires a desire to understand the contrary or inconvenient presentations. 

That exchange does not exist on Facebook.  Rather, once inconvenient information is presented the “conversation” becomes not one of exchange and sharing but one of each side trying to win their point.  People with inconvenient information for that point are sometimes ignored, sometimes deleted, and often called names that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (things like “you must be a nut job”; “only an idiot would post that”; “no one cares what you think”; “you should get your information from [my team’s news] since [your team’s sources] just lie”; “your offerings are both wrong and worthless”; and much worse). 

The “conversation” becomes simply about showing the other participants how right one’s comments are, as well as collecting those “likes.”  It is about winning.

A real conversation, rather than devolving into deaf assertions of righteousness of each side, grows into a new and shared understanding.  How does that happen and why is it impossible on Facebook or similar impersonal social media venues?

When we meet face to face we are looking at another person, not some posted words on a page.  Recognizing our shared humanity provides the participants with some humility.  In social media posts, even when many posters are involved in a conversation, each poster is really only talking to him or herself.  The addictive “likes” encourage each poster to repost essentially the same view over and over.  Those “likes” solidify the self-righteousness and, like cheerleaders at an athletic contest, encourage each poster to try even harder to win.  There really is no reward for listening on Facebook because the venue obliterates the shared humanity that is essential to any real conversation in which ideas are actually exchanged, thought about, and discussed.

Humanity is “a virtue associated with basic ethics of altruism derived from the human condition. It also symbolizes human love and compassion towards each other.”  If the humanity of conversants is obscured, the compassion necessary to respect and listen to those involved in a “conversation” is also obscured.  Rather than a time of sharing and understanding the “conversation” becomes a contest where participants choose their teams and their sides; it becomes about winning and perhaps also about demolishing the opponent.

It is not just social media that is obscuring humanity with the result of more animosity and hatred.  Indeed, the team spirit of winning at any cost seems to have taken over far too many of our once more human interactions.  Politics:  red or blue and beat up (literally or figuratively) the opposing team.  Identity politics:  the identity group must demolish all other groups (opposing teams) in order to win.  Life style:  no tolerance for anything different because the favored life style must win against all others.  Even history:  its complexities and nuances are no longer allowed as opposing viewpoints each must win rather than use the complexities to elucidate and accept varying views.

I was thinking about the ways that people really help others who are struggling in some way.  Every truly effective help that I can think of involves the helper reaching out and touching the shared humanity of the one being helped.  There is a difference between that and drive by “help” that sees some problem “over there” with this or that identity group or cause and simply throws money or support at it.  That is not that different from throwing “likes” at a Facebook post. 

Such drive by help fails to stop and recognize the humanity of the other.  It is that kind of help that leaves those being “helped” demeaned and dependent.  It does not see those being helped as equal in their humanity.  Causes and drive by help might be based on a positive idea, but they do nothing.

What does help, what does lead to productive conversations as well as productive betterment of society requires a recognition of everyone’s shared humanity.  That of course requires both work and humility.  The humility of accepting that we each are no better than the other.  Yes, different skills, different places in life, different minds, different in every aspect of our individuality, but at the same time no better than others.  That is our humanity.

And it takes work.  It is easy to post something on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed.  It is harder to open one’s mind and really listen to someone who does not think as you do.  It is easy to drive by and throw money or support to a cause; it is much harder to do the actual work to improve a situation or move society forward.

In the end, we can work to win, or we can work to find our shared humanity.  Elections may be about who wins, but the underlying policies, like life itself, must be recognized as far more complex than just some team rivalry.   Life is far more than a team sport and those who are not us are not our opponents against whom we must win.

*Addendum 9/11/20:  Apparently this quote needs some explanation or context.  It was written by Anton Chekhov in 1894 during the height of the industrial revolution.  He was pointing out that those who actually work on things that help to better society for all mankind show more humanity than those (often wealthy or elites) who sit home and proclaim their support of and need to work for particular causes but actually themselves never do anything for the cause or toward the betterment of humanity.  The specific items (electricity, steam, chastity, vegetarianism) are simply chosen from the times (electricity & steam from work of the industrial revolution; chastity & vegetarianism from common popularly proclaimed causes).  The context of an example of love for humanity is the intention of placing this quote here; it is not intended as support of or antipathy toward any of the particular words used.

 

Does Anyone Still Care About Objective Truth?

In today’s world it seems like the driving force in any conversation, discussion, not to mention argument is to WIN, not to search for and perhaps even find the TRUTH. 

Facts are out the window.  It is all about NARRATIVE.  That is, what is the story one wants to tell that will serve the teller’s purposes – that purpose most often being to win.  The end seems to always justify the means.  Lies are not prohibited; challenging lies is an impermissible attack. The teller’s story must be believed so the teller can win; questions are not for discussion but rather seen as attacks.

Mature discussions used to also include some element of humility which resulted in actually listening to the assertions of the other side and accepting questions about one’s own beliefs and assertions with a humble dignity and acknowledgement that they might be wrong or open to revision.  Both sides were not only willing to listen to verified facts but were also unwilling to assert as true or factual opinions or allegations that were not verified or that came only from “unidentified sources.”

Not so today.  Humility gets in the way of winning.  It is inconsistent with the assertion that one is absolutely right, no matter what.  No matter what the facts might be or what a full evidentiary examination might prove.  Egos seem unable to take any sort of challenge.  It is all about winning and in order to “win” too many people think that they must be right no matter what and any contrary fact or point of logic must be repelled and denied.

This is at least in part why people believe that they are justified in denying the First Amendment rights of others.  This is at least in part why people assert that information published by news outlets that do not concur with their Left or Right leanings are simply not worth reading, even if they provide verifiable facts on a topic.  This is why when one narrative is repeated by other outlets that have the same leanings that those who accept that narrative believe that it has been verified and not just repeated. 

This is how false allegations take wing.  Opinions become fact.  An unverified statement by an unidentified source becomes truth.  In reality, neither is so, and yet we let such narratives ruin the lives of so many people:  think about the Kavanaugh hearings for example; think about a justified – and there are some – police shooting where the officer is crucified rather than appreciated for doing his or her job; think about FISA warrants to spy on American citizens and on a Presidential candidate that were granted on what have now been proven to be false statements.  These are just a few of the more egregious false narratives that far too many are willing to accept simply because they support the triumph of their own narrative. 

It is all about winning.  But once upon a time it was more about finding an objective truth.

There was an interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 by Tony Woodlief titled “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech.”  In it he argues that too much free speech has led to the cancel culture.  Essentially his position is that when we have open speech and the full exchange of ideas (which were originally believed by Mill and others to be the way to ferret out the objective TRUTH), that no idea is refutable, and ultimately leads to the belief that no truth exists. 

“When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.”

This well describes a reason for such things as free speech being driven from campuses, threats and attacks directed towards those who do not support the favored position, acceptance of unverified facts or opinions and “news,” etc. 

But this reasoning is flawed.  It is not free speech itself that leads to this place of dogma over truth.  Rather it is the current inability or unwillingness of people to use their critical thinking skills – to use reason as well as emotion in assessing the speech that they hear.  As Mr. Woodlief writes, “Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.”

When did we decide that we are no longer allowed to question speech put forth if it might be in the least bit upsetting to the mob of public opinion?  I think there are two areas that are in large part responsible for this:  A loss of shared values and a loss of an educational system that teaches us to think.

Both require not just listening, but listening and then holding the ideas and ideologies presented accountable.

As Mr. Woodlief states, “the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings.”  It is the responsibility of educators to not present one viewpoint alone, but to present several and then help the students to conduct their own inquiry and evaluation into those viewpoints – questioning the adequacy of sources, the completeness and objectivity with which facts are presented, etc.  It is the job of educators to teach students how to assess a variety of informations and then make up their own minds.

Yet too often educators try to instill their beliefs into their students by presenting only their ideology.  Academics and those who hold themselves out to be scholars have an ethical responsibility to promote free and open inquiry as well as practice intellectual honesty themselves.

Combined with the loss of critical thinking in the classroom has come a change in what Americans value.  We have become a “feel good” society.  Everyone must get a trophy; no one should be made to feel uncomfortable -ever; if it makes you feel good, do it; etc.  Questioning someone’s point is seen as an attack, not on the point being argued, but on the person.  We have lost the ability to distinguish that.  We have silenced our reason for our emotions. 

When everyone is right, when everyone expects the trophy, we essentially silence both our humility and our critical thinking ability.  It is not free speech that is the problem, but our inability to listen to that free speech without feeling threatened and without the ability to assess the many ideas we find in the marketplace and hold them accountable.

We have lost the belief in an objective truth; it has been replaced with a belief in individual narrative truth.  When that is the prevailing belief, there will be no assessments of ideologies as part of the search for that objective truth.  Instead, truth will become the fickle assertion of the mob majority and opposing ideas will be silenced, not because the ideas in vogue are not refutable, but because we are afraid to refute them.

Only when, and not until, we relearn the humility of putting a shared search for objective truth above a personal desire to win, only then will we find the civility and tolerance that once existed in this country and be able to use it to overcome the hate and blindness to reason that is destroying us.

Joe Blames Trump – What Does That Tell Us About Him and His Soul

The new Democrat mantra, based on polling telling them that people do not like violent riots, is to blame all the violence on Trump.  Joe Biden plans to make a speech about that today.  Will you fall for it?

“He is inciting bad behavior” is just another manifestation of the Democrat Blame Game.  They blame Trump, not China, not Democrat governors’ decisions for CoVid.  They blame Trump’s gatherings without masks for the spread but encourage both peaceful and violent protests against Trump without masks.  They even blame Trump for their candidate’s 2016 loss.  To hear the Democrats, they are never at fault, only and always victims of their opposition.

As to the racial blame game, the Democrats neglect the fact that they for 50 years have made promises that they have not kept.  They have done everything in their power to make things more, not less difficult for minorities – no school choice, send jobs overseas, poor education, the lure of permanent dependency rather than self-reliance.  These are Democrat policies, policies that Trump has from day one begun to turn around:  he provided support for Black colleges, support for better education and school choice, better job opportunities due to better trade deals and encouragement of American industry, support for families, etc.  The list is actually quite long if one takes time to actually look at the President’s accomplishments rather than the media’s mere repetition of the Left’s hateful mantras.

But, now the Left claims the unrest in due to Trump.  The Democrats will not denounce the anarchists of Antifa.  It was antifa that killed the Trump supporter in Portland.  That is the Trump supporter that Biden says was just looking for trouble.   It is the killing that was celebrated in the streets and after by the Democrat and Leftist protesters. 

The Left encourages the war on the police, labeling law enforcement as some evil and racist group.  The Left are the ones that violently disrupt Republican gatherings and who assaulted attendees at Trump’s convention speech as they were leaving the White House grounds. 

Yet the Democrats would have you believe that somehow this is all the fault of President Trump.  By their reasoning, if you don’t like me and you shoot me then it is my fault.  The cure to your behavior is not law and order, but for me to just shut up and give you what you want.  That is not how I dealt with my children’s temper fits and it is not how I will respond to the Left.  I will not be silenced and I will vote for those who truly support America.

The Democrats do not want to offend any of their key identity groups, so they let them – indeed encourage them – to do as they please, including looting, destroying property, maiming and killing.  To denounce them might mean the loss of their vote, so the Left stays silent.  Then, they blame Trump when that violence isn’t playing well in the polls.

Joe cannot pin the unrest on Trump.  He and his party created it along with the hate filled identity victim groups and the deranged hatred of the President and the disregard of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Democrats, especially those following the socialist playbook, foment mob rule.  But, more often than not, mob rule gets it wrong.  Just like the old movies where the mobs with lighted torches take after the wrong and the innocent targets, today’s mobs also often get it wrong.  The rush to judgement and retaliation is encouraged and is often violent.

Without facts and with the help of the Left, a particular narrative is put forth by the media and that narrative is then used to incite yet more hatred against Trump, Conservatives, and any others holding views that the Left does not approve.  When actual facts come out, they are barely reported and often hard to find but they frequently show us that the initial narrative was not accurate, and the mob was after the wrong target.

Joe Biden wants us to believe that he is the “soul of America.”  If that is true then America’s soul is one of self interest and deceit.  And the newest deceit is again one of self-interest based not on what is right or true but on what polls well. 

Joe, who praised and would not renounce the violence now learns that it is better for him if he speaks against it.  But how does he choose to do that – not by saying it is wrong but by trying to pin it on his opponent.  Sorry Joe, this tells me that you have no real backbone and no real soul. 

More importantly, what this tells me is that Joe, like all the rest of the Democrats, is a self-interested and power-hungry exploiter whose ethics depend only upon what is advantageous to their own gain. 

The real American soul seeks and honors an objective truth, not a truth that blows in the winds of self-gain. 

I think of the phrase “actions speak louder than words.”  Joe’s actions, like the actions of the Democrats, show us that their focus of concern is on themselves and their power and not on America and its people. 

I will not fall for the hollow and dishonest words from a hollow and dishonest soul.  I hope that the rest of America will see the Democrat blame game for what it is – just another exploitive grab for power.