A Short Story - and Extended Thoughts on Democracy

I started writing this short story a couple weeks ago. It is not finished. But I wanted to get it out in this form. When you get to the end of the this part of the story, I will do some explaining....

................

.....................................
................ 

Bursting the Bubbles- 

A Short Story

Barry A. Lehman

October 2018

The bubble burst last week. Most of the bubbles I have ever believed in are now gone. The sight of the National Guard patrolling Lake Street was the final one. There were no riots  or disturbances of any kind in Minneapolis.  Sure, there were protests, but all had been peaceful. We lived up to Minnesota Nice.

But under martial law, all protests were banned. A national curfew was imposed for 7 pm to 7 am local times. All stores and malls were to close at 6 pm with everyone off the streets by 8 pm. I know it makes no sense, but I am only reporting. We were told it was an "essential national security measure." The subversive forces were everywhere and only this kind of strict control would save democracy in the United States. The last election proved we were in great danger.

That last election was only six-weeks ago. It was a record-setting turnout. All ages, all groups, all political views showed up at the polls as never before. The result was seen as almost revolutionary- a peaceful, election-based revolution as has never  been seen before. Even the most Republican states were swamped by a "blue" Democrat wave. On a national level it wasn't even close.

Progressives and liberals like myself were overwhelmed with joy. Our months of grass-roots work, door-to-door canvassing, local advertising and mouth-to-mouth persuasion had been victorious. Democracy proved itself. "We the people..." meant something. It was in good, American tradition. What a light to share with the world.

The first bubble to burst came a week after the election. A statement was released through the White House: The election was null and void. It had been compromised by foreign powers, subversives, who had hacked the election system and turned the election against the party in power in the government. There was no choice but to invalidate the election. There would be a new election, but only after the problem could be investigated and the security promised for a fair election.

Unfortunately that would take at least into the late spring of next year. Therefore, using extraordinary powers, the President declared a state of emergency and asked Congress to pass a War Powers Act freezing all Federal and State elected officials as they had been on election day. It was also requested that these officials terms would be extended until six-weeks after the successful conclusion of a free election.

 Debate was heavy and partisan. The declaration and emergency powers act were passed. Attempts to block it were taken to the Supreme Court but to no avail. The Court refused to be involved due to the "extreme nature" of the threat to the United States.

Protests started almost immediately after the original White House statement. Large cities and small towns were swamped by angry voters. Local election officials attempted recounts to show there was no interference. In some states they at least were heard, but the Federal actions overruled them all. Things stood. As things deteriorated the FBI and Justice Department issued the results of their investigations. A number of well-known national figures were implicated in the hacking. According to the information, they knew it was happening and in fact had helped the "subversives" gain access.

The riots began in some cities not long after the night that the news channels reported that some of these national leaders were being arrested under the War Powers Act and being held in secure locations. Citing Lincoln's actions in the early days of the Civil War, the President and Congress suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The leaders would stay in prison.

Thus came the inevitable increase of violence. Supporters of the executive and legislative actions began to disrupt protests. The protestors were often arrested; the disrupters managed to escape. Local police forces were being stretched thin. The Guard was nationalized and the Reserves mobilized. Finally, protests themselves were banned due to serious "public safety hazards."

The final bubble of the American experiment was gone.

................

.....................................

................

Well, after I had written this fictional account on Saturday (Oct. 20), I was surfing around Facebook and was struck by a post from a  group I follow known as The Christian Left. They had cross-posted an article from the Washington Examiner about a CNN interview with reporter and author Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. The post said:

Carl Bernstein: Trump preparing to call midterm elections 'illegitimate' if Democrats take power

Bernstein said Sunday that Trump has discussed ways to challenge the results of the midterm elections if the GOP's grasp on power slips. Bernstein said his sources relayed this information to him on Friday, warning that Trump has talked about a disruption campaign if the results are close but have the Democrats taking control of the House or Senate.

 I am not a prophet or prognosticator. I don't know whether Bernstein's sources are real or not. I do know that my personal awareness of history and the direction of autocratic leadership toward a fascist-type of control is real.

I do not believe this can truly happen. Or at least I want to believe it can't happen. I still have trust in our American democratic institutions. But there is a very disturbing undercurrent to Mr. Trump that undermines some of my hope.

Democracy, history tells us, can be a very fragile process. It is easily challenged by difficulties in the world, a concerted effort of propaganda and half-truths twisted into anti-democratic principles disguised in other half-truths and populist language.

My conservative friends, the few who still follow me or talk to me, will say I am being crazy, over-reacting, making a mountain out of a molehill. I hope so. But when I hear Mr. Bernstein's reporting, I wonder if, even now, I am underestimating the power that seeks to manipulate our democracy into un-democratic ways.

It is two weeks until the election. I pray my fears are over-blown and will look silly in December.

Literal or Serious (3)- What is Success?

I had originally just planned on this being two posts from last Friday and Saturday. Wednesday I realized that these are answering the questions raised by a friend a few weeks ago that I have not been able to put into words. I was challenged to be as specific as I can about what Trump policies I disagree with. Because so much of what we have seen is wrapped in his language, tweets, and rhetoric, I really had to start with the first two that set out some of the ideas.

One thing I have seen asked of liberals like myself is

Do you want Trump to fail?

The inference being that any good, patriotic American wouldn't want the President to fail at what he wants to do. To wish for him to fail would be to wish ill to the country.

I don't agree with that argument.

It assumes that I agree with the direction he appears to be taking the country. It assumes I agree with his ideas, politics, and plans. It assumes that if the President fails, then the country has failed.

Over the eight years of the Obama administration there were many Republicans and others who wanted Obama's policies to be stopped. They took some of them to court and won. Others never happened because Congress didn't agree. In other words, they wanted his agenda, and therefore his plans and directions, to fail.

That is where I am today.

Let me start then by saying if Trump's policies do result in a even stronger economy than we have had growing these past three to five years, then I am with him. I want him to succeed. If his policies provide safe and fair immigration and security, then I am with him. I want him to succeed. If his health care policies provide good, positive access to the health system for Americans, then I am with him. I want him to succeed.

But if he does succeed at those,

• I don't want it to be at the cost of who we are as Americans. 
• I don't want it to undermine the system of social support that has been around since at least the mid-1930s. 
• I don't want it to result in hatred and racism becoming more prevalent, further dividing us as a nation. 
• I don't want it to be because he was unwilling to stand up to American values against white supremacists and Russian hacking. 
• I don't want it to be at the expense of the first use of nuclear weapons in nearly 75 years.

If his policies result in those things, then yes, I want him to fail, and fail miserably. We will be a better nation if he does. That does not mean I am against our country. Much the opposite.

• I want him to fail at those so that we may remain a strong and vibrant nation, offering hope, and opportunity, even to those who were brought here as children and have made America a better place because of their contributions. 
• I want to see children feeling safe at schools, not because we have turned their buildings into locked and armed institutions, but because we have become willing to stand up to the false god of guns as a national symbol.
• I want to see the middle class be given the opportunities to benefit from the advances we as a nation make and not simply receive some crumbs thrown out to them while fanning their fear and dislike of immigrants or others.
• I want to see him challenge his friends in that upper 1% to give of themselves like many in the middle and lower classes do on a regular basis. Yes, many do, but they are being given some incredible advantages in the new tax law that should bring with it greater responsibilities. And not just to shareholders or in one-time bonuses in place of real salary increases.
• I really do want him to face Russia and say in no uncertain terms that meddling in our elections is NOT the way we want. The hell with collusion. This was, and continues to be, an act of aggression against the basics of who we are.

We do not blindly follow any President. The GOP didn't blindly agree and follow Obama or Clinton. Democrats did not blindly follow either Bush or Reagan. We don't have to! We can debate and disagree. And yes, when it comes to specific policies that we feel are detrimental to the health and welfare of our country, we can hope he fails.

This is called democracy!

(I think there will be one more of these in the next week.)

January 21 Thoughts- Inspired and Empowered

I was inspired and empowered today. I watched the Facebook posts of friends and family who were at some of the marches around the country. I was excited that so many people were standing up for their rights and the rights of others.

I watched the news and saw more people on the Mall in Washington today than there were yesterday. I watched a little of the feed on Facebook from back home in St. Paul, MN. A crowd of 60,000, three times the expected turnout, was exciting.

I saw several posts about people feeling empowered by the activities they participated in. They know they are not alone in their feelings and reactions.

THESE are the people that the press should be covering, in depth, and not the few who "riot" and are nothing more than destroyers of hope. But a peaceful protest, even of this size, is not "news." Or more to the point, it's not big news. It does not grab attention.

Even though it should. It is BIG news. THESE are the people who can- and will- be able to make a difference in the next four years. THESE are the people who will stand up for what is right. THESE are the people who have already made America great.

Let us learn to work together to maintain our dignity and wonder as a nation. Let us learn to work together as "we the people." In the end it has to be us, or we will never make it.

The Need For Two Strong Parties

We need a strong, healthy two party system. So said Barack Obama on The Tonight Show last week. He was expressing sadness at what he sees happening in the GOP. Two healthy parties are necessary for the dialogue that is part of America's greatness. We have not had that in a number of years.

The current version of this started with Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America during the Bill Clinton presidency. The ideologicalizing (my word) of American political parties really expanded to a mania. Everyone had to pass a litmus test for their party. As time moved on, compromise became a dirty word, a sign of capitulating to the ideological enemy. Good and bad, right and wrong, all became political fingers pointing to the opposite party.

This election cycle has brought to light all the dysfunction in the GOP and, to a lesser extent, the Democrats. I am not so deeply versed in political history, but I have a hunch it has been a very long time since the leaders of a particular political party try to support and distance themselves, simultaneously(!), from their party's standard bearer. That is a deep division! If they lose in the fall, they will blame Trump (and probably Obama) for their defeat. They will not see how 20+ years of deepening ideological litmus tests they have brought it on themselves.

The GOP convention starts one month from tomorrow. The sideshow will continue as it appears Trump has no plans on easing-up his message, become more "presidential" or even seeking to truly bring his party together. What will happen next month? In this election cycle, all bets are off.

In the long run we, as a nation, need two parties that can work together to govern in spite of differences. We need leadership! That is what has helped us remain the United States.

My wife commented the other day that perhaps we are on the cusp of a new reframing, a new adaptation of the American Dream. There was, obviously, the Civil War with post-Reconstruction taking a step backward from some  of those gains. There was the Great Depression leading into World War II that realigned many idea. That began to fall apart in the 60s and we are now seeing the results of that era, Watergate, etc.

Each time we have made positive strides. We need to work together on doing that again.

Defeating Demagogues

A few weeks ago I wrote about demagogues and their history. I noted that demagogues are found only in democracies since they need to get public support for their discriminatory, prejudicial, anger-filled positions. While they can sometimes appear to be progressives, in reality they are simply opportunists seeking their own self-promotion. We have had our share of demagogues in American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting witch hunt of the 1950s being the most famous and far-reaching.

Until now.

Michael Singer, mayor of Charlottesville, VA, an attorney and lecturer at the University of Virginia, has been since the last election cycle about the rise and danger of Donald Trump, our latest national demagogue. He is the author of Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies (2009) and has applied his general insight on demagogues to Trump. In a February 29 article in the Washington Post Singer listed four ways demagogues damage their country when they take power.

• First, a demagogue imperils his country in the international arena.
• The second danger is that the demagogue will surround himself with incompetent and dangerous advisers.
• The third danger is that the demagogue, who ascends to power by manipulating the passions of his followers, will fall prey to passions of his own.(Most often a demagogues narcissism will turn to other passions, issues, and plain old belief that they are above the law.)
• Fourth, demagogues like Trump threaten dissenters in an effort to silence them. (Singer)

We have seen the manifestations of all of these over the past year with statements and actions from Trump and his supporters. Many have reacted to him with uncertainty and even fear. But many have also been afraid to challenge him or call him on his dangerous world-view for fear of attacks from him. The GOP, which should have tried to do something before now, has been handicapped by their desire to stop anything related to Obama or Clinton. They were blind to the problem they themselves created.

After yesterday's Wisconsin primary, though, there may be an inkling of hope. Admittedly Ted Cruz has enough uncertain stands and fear-inducing statements. But he did show that with a concerted effort, Trump can be stopped. He lost by a very significant 13 points. (It may be interesting to note that Wisconsin was the home of Joseph McCarthy. Maybe there is a sense of not wanting to repeat history?)

But even that hope has its dangers. In its attempt to stop Trump at this late stage, they may very easily destroy themselves for this election year. Their only hope is that in the end Trump will self-destruct, his paranoia and prejudice, his hate and fear-mongering causing him to implode.

That is what happens to most demagogues in a democratic country that has a rich history like ours. They go too far, their narcissism gets the best of them, they believe their own rhetoric and then use their rabid but minority supporters as proof.

But we as a people can also do our part. Back in 2010 Singer wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled "How to Beat the Demagogues". (Link) He outlined how America has defeated what he called "militant manias" in the past.

1. Ad hominem attacks can backfire.
Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies that attack the individual rather than the position they are maintaining. When the demagogue's opponents resort to these kind of arguments, they end up hurting their own cause. Even though the demagogue often resorts to this since they usually have poorly defined actual positions, to respond in kind often brings a reactionary response that only perpetuates the negative discourse.

2. Help educate people about our constitutional traditions.
Many times demagogues clearly care little about our American democratic and constitutional traditions. Even as they hide behind them, they are often ready to change them to suit their own ideology. The GOP's difficulty in maintaining a clear, positive constitutional stance has only assisted people like Trump. Their recent and ongoing refusal to have hearings on a Supreme Court nominee is a clear example.

3. Extreme opportunists usually self-destruct.
The ultimate hope for everyone challenged by demagogues is this one that I have already addressed above. Trump's response to his loss yesterday may very well start this process. How he attempts to spin the loss into something in his favor through blaming others could sow the seeds of his own defeat. Of course his defeat will never be his own fault.

4. Side with the people and show them results.
A demagogues opponents need to stay positive and give a clear alternative world-view to the one being espoused by the demagogue. While someone like Trump will attempt to be the person of the people's views, a consistent, concise, and positive approach to the same issues can go a long way. Again, the GOP's extremely anti-Obama stance over the past 8 years has set a negative precedent that has fueled Trump's rhetoric. Even in Wisconsin, the whole approach seems to have been "Stop Trump!" and not a more clearly laid out plan. It was an ad hominem approach which still could backfire. They must do something differently than they have before.

The Democrats need to be doing the same thing. Their biggest hope would be to be a clear alternative to the negativity of Trump and the toxic atmosphere that has fed his rise. Unfortunately, as the "under dog" Sanders has gained momentum, the establishment begins to react out of fear. Both sides there have moved toward personal attacks after what had been a somewhat civil discourse. Unless they can show they have a positive alternative, the election will continue to be difficult to watch.

Overall, perhaps, the greatest caution we should pay attention to comes from Singer in his 2010 article about how to beat the demagogues.

Demagogues have always been a mirror for the people. When democracies turn to lawlessness, it’s because the people abandon constitutionalism for the lowest common denominator. Conversely, when audiences choose the law over vandalism, it’s because the people have decided to protect their country.

Wisconsin yesterday gave me some hope that we might be at a turning point. I know it is still too early to tell, but as I have said before, ultimately I continue to believe in the American people. We will often rise to heights of honor and dedication to our country and our democratic way of life. This is one of those times that we will need to.

American Exceptionalism- Some Thoughts

Last week I was having a discussion with a conservative friend who started asking me about what I believed about American exceptionalism. I had heard the phrase several times, mostly from a conservative pundit or politician so I kind of put it away in that box. When my friend started asking me about it, and describing it from his understanding, I said that I can agree with that.

It was an odd experience and I have spent some time reflecting on it over  the past week or so. I never thought about American exceptionalism, per se. I am a citizen of the United States, and proud of it. I think my country is a great nation with an amazing history that I support with passion and gratitude. But that does not mean I am a blind-supporter of what my country has done when it was wrong! To admit that my country has made mistakes is not to denigrate the country, nor is it to diminish the great things about the United States. (And a note- my friend was not suggesting that. This is in my reflection, not his.)

So I went an looked up this idea to see a little more about it.

The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840. Interestingly enough, it's "contemporary" use began when the American Communist Party used the idea to say that the United States was "independent of the Marxist laws of history" since it has so many resources, etc.

Scottish historian writing in the Political Science Quarterly said:

America marches to a different drummer. Its uniqueness is explained by any or all of a variety of reasons: history, size, geography, political institutions, and culture. Explanations of the growth of government in Europe are not expected to fit American experience, and vice versa.

Sure, makes sense. Part of  the uniqueness of the United States is our very size, location, and incredible diversity of natural and human resources. We are, as I commented to my friend, a political experiment that began in 1776. We have been working at a unique and, at the time, entirely new system.

In recent  years, it appears, that this idea of American exceptionalism has become one of those "buzzwords" or litmus tests for conservatives. So here is what I found as some definitions, from Wikipedia's summary:

American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas:

• The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from other nations. In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation” and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire for business. …

• Second is the idea that America has a unique mission to transform the world. As Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to see that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

• Third is the sense that its history and its mission give the United States a superiority over other nations.

More from Wikipedia summary:

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. … To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "City upon a Hill"—a phrase evoked by British colonists to North America as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.

With this in mind, I understand a little more of the problem with this phrase and its use in our political culture. Too often it has indicated a "superiority" or perhaps more clearly, the "inferiority" of other countries. This approach has seemed to me to take the positive idea of exceptionalism or uniqueness and turn it into a political talking point. It turns us away from a sense of humility and gratitude toward a grandiosity and, dare I use it, an entitlement. We deserve this because we are the United States of America!

Yes, I will be accused of taking the extremes of this phrase and turning it against it. But sadly that is what has been happening. American exceptionalism, as an idea or even ideology, is used in its extreme as a way of denying the point of view of those who disagree with the people using the phrase. It goes to a sense that I remember only too well from the 60s- America- love it or leave it. Of course, "loving it" was defined as doing whatever the leadership was telling you to do.

It also takes another famous quote, this one from Stephen Decatur and Wisconsin-related Carl Schurz and turns it around:

"My country, right or wrong." In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

The quote, used as a hammer or wedge in the 60s stopped at the first part, ignoring the second.

In reality it is the amazing ability of this country to work with such diverse and complicated disagreements and work toward agreement or compromise. It is the democratic and republic idea that allows us to go from a nation where only white, male, landowners could vote, to all men and then former slaves (male only) being given the right, and then women (less that 100 years ago!) and, in my era, 18-year olds. It went from an almost aristocratic view of the Senate to a directly-elected body. It developed a separation of powers, advise and consent, political parties that meant something, and a place where freedoms are cherished and built into the governmental, political, and cultural life.

That this ideal, begun almost 250 years ago has survived as it has is amazing, unique, and, yes, exceptional.

But it does not make us immune to the difficulties of other nations not does it, as is often implied, make us exempt from historical pressures that can, and very likely will, someday bring about significant changes. The real test of American exceptionalism will probably not be seen for another 50- 100 years as major world-wide changes will impact the United States. As long as we were able to be as physically separate as we are from the rest of the world, it was easier.

Perhaps that is one of the ongoing debates that this year's election is highlighting again- we are, even in whatever uniqueness or exceptionalism we may have- still a nation among nations. We do not have a special mandate from God to change the world as such. We are perhaps to be a beacon of hope and light. We are having difficulty with some of that. Some of our political leaders on ALL sides are using these issues for their own advancement.

Yet I have a strong belief that the American system, unique and yet flawed, flexible and yet strong, will be able to work through this. I believe this because I also know that the American people can be reasonable and willing to work through issues if given the chance. In addition the stubborn yet focused ability to wrestle with right and wrong and often make the better decision is very much a part of who we are.

This election season has a long, long way to go. It has been a circus sideshow and a horse race and a snowstorm of hateful soundbites. Yet I have a hunch that the American people will prevail over all the politicians and special interests to continue to make the American experiment work.

Why I'm Afraid

We were listening to a public radio program the other day that was reviewing where the 2016 election cycle is at this moment. One of the comments was that even the most hard-core and experienced political observers are at a loss to explain what is happening this year or to begin to sort it out. In short, they are even more confused than usual. All the conventional wisdom of the past seems to be irrelevant. This is especially true in the GOP race where Donald Trump, with no political experience, is leading.

At first they (the experts) said he was a flash in the pan, stands no chance, will start tanking once the lack of truth or the extreme bombast of his message is seen.

Now they (the experts, again) are saying he could very likely win the nomination.

Then there's Dr. Ben Carson, another inexperienced politician and Ted Cruz whose colleagues find little good to say about him.

A look across Facebook indicates a deep and indescribable divide in the nation. Sure, the extremes, left and right, get the press. They yell the loudest and make the most outrageous statements and therefore you notice them.

But this seems different this year. Deeper, more contentious. While I am not an expert, I am an old political science major who has lived through, watched, and participated in political campaigns in one way or another since 1956. That's 60 years of watching and I have to admit that for the first time in all these years, I am afraid of what is happening.

Before going into detail let me say that some of my friends will tell me that I am overreacting to the early ups and downs of this crazy political season. They will remind me that Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee have previously won the Iowa caucuses. We are a long way from the conventions, let alone the general election. A lot can- and most likely will- happen.

I hope that is true. I pray that is true.

I also hope and pray that the GOP doesn't do something even more stupid than nominating a Trump, Carson or Cruz. I hope they don't find a way to play with their own election rules to keep Trump from winning. The divide will only get worse.

Having said all that, back to the fears.

The only other time I remember being afraid in a presidential election was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater came across as an extremist, ready to go to war. "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!... [M]oderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" he famously said. We had been on the edge of our seats since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when we knew we had been only a blink away from a nuclear exchange. Here was Goldwater seeming to be a saber rattling politician.

This seems different. The fear is coming from within our national psyche. It is division and hate that seems to be taking the upper hand. It is name-calling and prejudice and stereotyping people of all types from both sides of the political divide. I have previously talked about why some of these issues are so important. The depth of the anger and prejudging of others by the color of their skin or the way they worship or the type of clothes they wear is taking over the news and airwaves.

• We have Sikhs being attacked because some people can't tell the difference between them and Muslims.
• We have people claiming that "white lives matter" as a way of denying that African-Americans are often profiled and attacked simply because they stand out.
• We have presidential candidates wanting to deport all Mexicans, build a wall on our southern border and close all borders to Muslims.
• We have many who don't believe that Obama was born in the United States and that he is a Christian.
• We have seen a rise in what used to be called "nativism" the idea that native-born and established residents take precedence over immigrants.
• We ignore the fact that our police forces are made up of human beings, some of who can and do make mistakes and commit crimes, while most are just like you and me- trying to do a job the best they can. Yet both sides refuse to accept that. Police are either demonized or placed on pedestals.

None of this is new. These prejudices and policies grow out of our history. We have seen them before. The KKK wasn't just anti-Black. They were often more vehement in their hatred for Jews and Roman Catholics. Italians and Irish were persecuted, stereotyped and harassed. Some of our current presidential candidates are playing on these deeply-seated fears. They are fanning the flames with language that is as incendiary as they claim the "Black Lives Matter's" language is.

With this increasing polarization and ramping up of the rhetoric what might happen if, in the end the extremist views lose? Or win? In a loss they will claim persecution. In a win they will gloat and rattle their own sabers more forcefully.

Either way could spell danger to our very democratic ideals. In search for security- ultimate and complete security- we can easily be convinced to give up more and more of our liberties. Abraham Lincoln famously said:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Either the left or the right could accomplish this. Any extremism that seeks to reduce our freedom and liberty for whatever reason can accomplish this. And it will be done in the name of preserving our democracy. Remember we are the nation whose military leader once commented that they had to destroy the village to save it. The language and logic of extremist views of either side is neither safe or logical.

That is why I am scared for this next year. 2016 may very well be one of those watershed years of our history. It may be one where we make decision that will set a direction for the next 50 years. This nation- and our democracy- the "shining light to the nations" we have claimed to be- is being called to make some important decision this year. The level of anger and hate and horrific rhetoric may prove too toxic for us to survive the way we have.

I don't believe that the American people- US- the USA- will go that direction. We have a deep and enduring sense of what is right and wrong- and I believe we will maintain that. We were created as a nation with flaws and, yes, sins. But we have worked and grown and embraced change as it was needed. We have sought often to move away from the "bad" and more toward the "good."

• Democracy works on compromise, on discussion, on listening with open minds and ever open hearts to our fellow citizens. 
• Democracy works to protect the rights of the minority as much as the rights of the majority.
• Democracy works to preserve values and principles and is an ever-changing, ever-evolving process that seeks to discover what can be done next.

I for one will be watching closely and praying often for our sanity and future. I hope and pray I am overreacting and that my ultimate faith in our country will be be made real. I will keep writing about it.

Can I Start a Trend?

I posted this from another Facebook user this morning.



My explanation that went with it was:

OK- I'm hoping to start a trend among Liberals like myself. It is time to reclaim patriotism from a one-sided view of the USA! I'm very proud to be an American, the son of a WW II Vet.

Just because my politics isn't right-wing does not mean I don't like this country!!

Just because my theology isn't based on fundamentalism doesn't mean I'm not a true American.

Just because I don't agree with Ayn Rand does not make me a socialist.

So I do share this post, proudly, as a Liberal!

So let me go further since this is my blog and I have the space.

Just because I call for the outcast and the poor to be taken care of by a just society, does not mean I am not patriotic.

Just because I continue to be afraid of an endemic racism in our greater society, does not mean I think we have failed as a nation.

Just because I do not blindly follow whatever leader is in power AND which you or others agree with does not make me a traitor.

Just because I believe that a two party system calls for differences- patriotic differences- does not make me any less proud to be an American.

I could rant on this one for a long time. I am offended by those who question my patriotism because I do not agree with right-wing politics, right-wing greed, or right-wing religion. As a citizen who has voted in every national election since I was of legal age, I still believe our nation is doing the best we can at any given moment to live up to our national ideals.

Yet we must remain steadfast in those ideals and not let them be co-opted by the wealthy who are now buying our elections or the voices of paranoia crying in their own wilderness or the politicians of either/both side who are simply looking to further ideology as opposed to American ideals.

Sure we have our faults. The United States is made of human beings- and none is perfect.

My goal, then, by posting the above picture is to hopefully start a small trend. May those of us who are liberal be proud in our citizenship. Let's take the flag pins and flag pictures back from the right-wing. Let's be willing to admit that the National Anthem still stirs us (and I wish the fans could sing it at sporting events, not celebrities!)

Let's find all these right-wing co-opted symbols and bring them back to stand for ALL Americans!

Rant - far from over.

When the Religion Ruled the Land

Sitting and pondering ideas the other day I came across one of those intriguing trivial items. On on HistoryOrb's This date page for February 28, I saw this:

1646 - Roger Scott was tried in Mass for sleeping in church

Needless to say that piqued my imagination so I went digging and found an article, Colonial Crimes and Punishment at History.org that looks at some of the colonial era laws. To think of this as early democracy is an interesting exercise in stretching ones imagination.

The English-American colonies were autocratic and theocratic, with a patriarchal system of justice: magistrates and religious leaders, sometimes one and the same, made the laws, and the burden of obeying them fell on the less exalted—the tradesmen, soldiers, farmers, servants, slaves, and the young. That burden could be weighty.

Sometimes, as we look at our American history through the rose-colored glasses of the ideals of the revolutionary era leaders, we forget that democracy is not as we think it was. The early settlers for the most part were not looking to set up freedom for all. They just wanted THEIR freedom and limiting other people who disagreed with them. Many of the laws were theologically based- and often discriminatory and harsh, especially on those of the lower classes.

In the Puritan north a religious message leaps out from almost every page of the early criminal codes. Sin, of course, existed in the eyes of the beholders, and the eyes were everywhere—as you might expect in small, inbred communities. Consider the scrutiny given to observance of the Sabbath. The law usually required churchgoing, and someone was always checking attendance. In early Virginia, every minister was entitled to appoint four men in his fort or settlement to inform on religious scofflaws.

I caught that little phrase above about "small, inbred communities." We forget that these early colonial towns and villages were closed. What we call the great American ideals were not even part of the picture. This was a primitive civilization living on the frontier. That's where the following can happen:

In the early seventeenth century, Boston's Roger Scott was picked up for "repeated sleeping on the Lord's Day" and sentenced to be severely whipped for "striking the person who waked him from his godless slumber."

Colonial strictures on deportment in the pews long applied, even to children, such as in 1758 when young Abiel Wood of Plymouth was hauled before the court for "irreverently behaving himself by chalking the back of one Hezekiah Purrington, Jr., with Chalk, playing and recreating himself in the time of publick worship."

In l668 in Salem, Massachusetts, John Smith and the wife of John Kitchin were fined "for frequent absenting themselves from the public worship of God on the Lord's days." In l682 in Maine it cost Andrew Searle five shillings merely for "wandering from place to place" instead of "frequenting the publique worship of god."

Oh, for the good old days.

Not.

The churches would be filled on Sunday, but I'm not sure we would be any more faithful to the ways of God. We would just learn how to put on the masks more completely.

Some Personal Reflections on the Election

From an old political science major:

Finally! It's over. Time for some personal reflections on the just (sort of) completed elections.

Please note, I am talking, in general, about politicians on both sides. It depends sometimes on the particular politician, of course. Some are generally quality individuals with integrity and empathy. But most fail from time to time and the whole election process just plain sucks! So here are some of my thoughts.

1) It is hard to remain civil about the incivility of the election process, ads, smears, slams, etc. But I am trying. By turning off the political ads.

2) Why, oh why do we have to portray the opposition candidates as "un-American" or worse? What about democracy don't we understand? It is a national dialogue on priorities, ideas, directions. It is the opportunity to state our opinions and work toward healthy compromise and movement. Instead we attack individuals and personalities. Not something new in this election cycle- it's been around since Adams vs. Jefferson- but it can be very disturbing.

3) The press- on both sides. Actually, the broadcast media on both sides has taken the process and often placed it in jeopardy or even a parody of itself. Like attack ads, partisan media is not new- it has been a staple of American politics since the beginning. But now, in our age of 24/7 news cycles, it just keeps piling higher and deeper. I have stopped watching any of the news outlets for the elections. Maybe I won't go back.

4) Spin, spin, spin- until you fall down dizzy from all the spin. It's almost like those playground "carousels" we had when I was a kid. I was on one time and got so dizzy and nauseous that I never got on one again. Almost like the elections. Three weeks ago I also stopped listening to public radio's endless replaying of the state candidate debates, interviews, etc. Not because I didn't want to hear, but often the spin and rancor and name calling and on and on was just too much.

5) Do these politicians REALLY believe the crap they spew forth? Really? The incredible inconsistencies, faux pas, inane, hateful and just plain stupid remarks that are made seems to indicate a disconnect in many brains- a broken connection between logic and compassion and understanding and intelligence and the mouth.

6) Voter fraud and voter ID issues were sad to watch and were actually scary. For something that has been, for all practical purposes a non-issue for the past 50 years, it sure became an issue. Set up a basic system for FREE voter ID cards and it will make more sense. The right to vote has been a hard-fought battle for our entire history. In colonial America I would not have been allowed to vote- I don't own any land- and live in a rental town house. LESS THAN 100 years ago, women could not vote in the United States. A government "of the people, by the people and for the people" needs to have voting by as many people as possible. This has been a dangerous movement!!

7) The other really big issue is that of all the corporate-type money flowing so freely into both parties. It is almost obscene! If our national political health depends so fully on money with strings attached, maybe we aren't all that healthy. No, I don't have a good and affordable answer, but it is dangerous. It is called a plutocracy, a government controlled by the wealthy and they spend a lot of money buying our politicians and our votes.

8) What about the results? Well, all spin aside, it probably only matters in the short-term as this is often what happens in the mid-term elections. In spite of the hype by the press, this was no more or no less important than most other mid-term elections. It is how our democracy works- for better and worse. Shifts in power, movements across the middle-of-the-road point are common. While there seems to be a greater polarity and anger in this mid-term, maybe we can still hope that a certain amount of deal making is possible. We will see.

The [RANT] Again

I have had this rant before.

I will probably have it again.

But we are continuing to go downhill on the slippery slope of hatred, partisan bullheadedness, ideological stonewalling, making any disagreeing person the personification of evil itself, and the desire to lash out and punish others who disagree.

It has been particularly evident in the years since Obama was elected president, but a closer look will show that, I believe, it has been going on since Clinton was in office, was a little more subdued during W. Bush's term (due to 9/11 I am sure) and ramped back up when we elected Obama.

Even during that slightly more subdued era with W. it was still there. Bush was seen by many as an evil man- or at least the evil puppet/front man of the truly evil Dick Cheney. Only the 9/11 attacks at the beginning of his term moderated the anti-Bush rhetoric for a while. Obama (and Clinton before him) did not have a Dick Cheney or a Donald Rumsfeld to be the surrogate devil. Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton have been some of that in this administration, (and now the VA) but overall, Obama, like Clinton, tend to be in the center of the spotlight identifying evil in our country.

This is just plain INSANE! (Here truly begins The Rant.) When have we become a country so divided that one side will attack the other when it does what your side had once advocated? When have we become a country that makes anyone, ANYONE, who disagrees with a policy or political position (read: ideology) is by definition unpatriotic, a menace to democracy, or even guilty of treason?

This is just plain INSANE! Democracy is NOT founded on a particular political ideology. It is not conservative or liberal. It is based on many things, including the will of the people. Yet both sides interpret the "will of the people" as being in 100% agreement with "our side" of the issue. The will of the people elects a president. But it also elects the legislators. OBVIOUSLY the will of the people encompasses BOTH sides. The will of the people is broad and deep and can be a very large umbrella.

But both sides refuse to accept the legitimacy of the other side. By ideological definition, the other side has to be wrong- because it isn't my side, the right side. Many political science students see this current divide in  our nation as beginning with Newt Gingrich who came into power on that type of bandwagon. Before that, in people like Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush the divides, while present, were also able to be bridged.

THAT is what a politics of democracy is all about. Discussion, discourse, finding middle ground, yes, even that horrible "c" word- compromise. Democracy does not work any other way. I don't care what the ultra conservatives or ultra liberal say. THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY. It is an attempt at ideological bullying at best, and ideological dictatorship at worst.

And, again, BOTH sides practice it. Daily. Ad nauseum.

On Fox and MSNBC.

Across the Internet and Facebook.

I am %$^##**% sick and tired of it.

Yes, I lived through the previous years of division- the 60s with Civil Rights, the Vietnam War and Watergate. It was awful. Nixon was made the great Satan, but compared to today's discourse, he was downright cordial. His "enemies" list had nothing to do with ideology (though outwardly based on it) but was rather the result of his own mental health issues of paranoia and desire for power and probably addiction or alcoholism.

Perhaps part of the problem is that we are in reality a far more diverse nation than we have ever been. Most issues at this point are decided in polls by a bare majority. Yes, the polls jump all over the place depending on how you ask the question. You know- "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions. And yes, nonsense polls are presented every day that show some nonsense correlation instead of a cause that usually can be twisted and spun to support my side.

Example- I heard a question in a poll the other day:
Do you feel your freedoms have been eroded - or something of that general nature. A majority said yes to that.

The right-wing media pointed out that this is the result of Obama ignoring the constitution.

The left-wing media could have pointed to the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case or the beginning of the erosion of the constitution in the Bush administration.

BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT! (Sorry about resorting to yelling. This is a big issue for me.)

It is time for a change. Have there always been crazy extremists? Of course. They just have never had the wide public availability that social media and a 24-hour news cycle provide.

Do we need the whole spectrum of opinions? Of course. The conservative side reminds us of our limitations and the need to have a degree of common sense. (Yes, I said that. Don't kick me out of the liberal camp.)  We need the liberal camp to keep us on our toes and honest about our moral responsibilities to others.

I am a radical/liberal. But I also know that I can't have all my beliefs and ideas brought into law. That is not how democracy works. Do I get disappointed when "conservative" laws are enacted? Of course I do. But that is how we work in a nation like this. It is why, over the years, the pendulum swings back and forth.

I could go on rambling, since I have started down that path. I will stop. I have had my say. I pray that we will become more cautious in our rhetoric; I pray that we can learn to talk with each other, not at each other, or only with those we agree with. We wouldn't be here as a nation if that hadn't happened in 1776 and in many years since.

[Rant over. Back to the lazy days of summer.]

Setting Standards

Came across an interesting discussion in the book, How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'N' Roll by Elijah Wald. It is a history of popular music in the 20th Century and it's many different sides and impact. In this particular section he is talking about how differing opinions can happen. (Okay, that's oversimplified, but I want to talk about the quote.) Many of the complaints of "trained" musicians about the "untrained" musicians coming along into pop music in the 50s was based simply on the fact that these newer musicians were not "classically trained."

Wald starts by saying "different standards will produce widely divergent opinions." It's hard to hear a performer one loves "get slammed for not meeting standards one considers unfair or inappropriate." He goes on:

But to understand any group of artists or any audience, one has to understand its standards- which means accepting that although one's own critical criteria may be more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent, they are not the only ones possible.

That is the money quote for me that ties back to the post I had yesterday about civil discourse. In order to have some sense of civil discourse, I believe we have to understand the standards that the other person or the other side is using to judge the situation.

One of the biggest standards disagreements in our society, for example, is individual freedom vs. community needs. Another is an understanding of how economics works (or doesn't work.) The standards of a corporation that needs to make more profit this year to please its shareholders is far different from the standards of the person working their assembly line.

When we believe that OUR standards are "more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent" we can forget that the other side believes THEIR standards are "more rigorous, more heartfelt, more fair, or more intelligent." Both can't be true. Neither can be the only right answer when we both feel that ours is absolute.

Hence debate, and discussion, and discourse is needed.

I have never liked opera, in spite of my intense love of all kinds of music. I have never liked hip-hop, either. Therefore, by my standards, neither of those types of music are worth listening to. Don't waste your time. Neither strike ME, but that doesn't make them wrong or inferior.

Anyway, on the overall subject of civil discourse, maybe we need more opportunities to listen to the other sides "standards" and why they make their decisions instead of shouting each other down, making continually snide and nasty remarks, or sticking our fingers in our ears and singing nonsense syllables.

Can we talk instead?

Political Discord or Discourse

One of my pet peeves continues to be the lack of political discourse that we are in the midst of in this country. We have finally gotten through a debt ceiling crisis with a "clean" bill that doesn't try to add this or subtract that while in the meantime holding the government as hostage. Compromise has become a dirty word and working with the opposition means to give them 100% of what they want while we get 0% of what we want.

Which is true no matter which side of the aisle or political spectrum we're on.

It sounds like two schoolyard bullies arguing:

I want mine.

You can't have it, because I want mine.

Well if I can't have what I want, you can't either.

Add to that the levels of anger, meanness and incendiary rhetoric and you have lost me.

Over on Facebook several friends (and friends of friends) recently had a short discourse on this again. It was, I admit, started by a shared post I put up. The original author of the original post had, I thought, some good insights and challenges to present. (I may talk about those specifics in another post.) I could see the anger and "name-calling" that was included, but the points were well made.

One of my friends disagreed, not about the points made but about the (lack of) rhetorical style. He was put off by the tone of the post. I could understand that but it sure got me thinking about this whole idea of public discourse over controversial or divisive issues.

From my perspective things like the 24/7 news cycle and polarized talk shows are a big part of the problem today. It is so easy to make a statement- true or false or in-between- and have it spread around the web and real world in no time. Once out there you can't bring it back and it could easily end up as "gospel truth" in no time.

This is nothing new. I remember the Paul McCartney is dead rumor of the late 60s when everyone was scanning all the Beatles' records and lyrics for proof, ignoring his very real presence around us.

Nor is difficult political discourse new. The very infamous election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson included some of the worst journalism and name-calling in American history. (Read David McCullough's wonderful biography of Adams!) There was also the Civil War which was all that rhetoric taken to its most illogical extreme.

But somehow we have to find a way to do something about this. I am at a loss myself. All I have tried to do, hopefully with some degree of success, is preach my view of civility in discourse when possible, respond in non-incendiary language when possible- and when not, I try to stay silent.

One of the challenges of democracy is the fact that people with opposing viewpoints get some kind of equal time, or at least that's the theory. I don't want to see that changed, challenged, or squashed. Maybe if each of us in our own discourse on these types of issues kept cool heads and try not to be inflammatory, it might just happen.

Then, as if to highlight what I was thinking, I went to Facebook and was confronted with this wonderful picture. Thanks to whoever started it.