President

Who Knew?

Who knew “that healthcare could be so complicated”?

Who knew that deportation edicts could cause chaos and inspire hate?

Who knew that experience matters?

Who knew that respect is useful?

Who knew that disrespectful words and actions could yield hateful words and actions, and threatening and criminal behavior?

Who knew that racism was institutional?

Who knew that misogyny is alive and well?

Who knew that ultra-nationalism and xenophobia would resurface?

Who knew that anti-semitism didn’t die with Hitler?

Who knew that one’s personal gender definition and sexual preference would threaten others?

Who knew that differences could strengthen us and elevate us?

Who knew that hate always lurks under the surface?

Who knew that the press is the enemy?

Who knew that public radio, television, schools, and bathrooms are threatening?

Who knew that National Parks are unAmerican and a waste?

Who knew that Climate Change is real?

Who knew that alternative facts were made up?

Who knew that facts are facts, and that they matter?

Who knew that wars were always won?

Who knew that friends and family loyalty would be a potential problem for governing the USA?

Who knew that Republicans would turn a blind eye to Russian interference in our election?

Who knew that business deals can be a conflict of interest with politics?

Who knew that Democrats could be so ineffective and uninspiring?

Who knew that the term “working class” often refers to white people?

Who knew that teachers matter?

Who knew that the arts are essential to education and humanity?

Who knew that the sciences are essential to education and humanity?

Who knew that health is a right, and an essential part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Who knew that infrastructure would be so expensive?

Who knew that American-made would be costly?

Who knew that anyone, and any family in any and every community in the US can be afflicted by drugs and addiction?

Who knew that “The American Dream” was always a dream without consistent effort and reinforcement?

Who knew that cultural divisions would drive politics and governance?

Who knew that Democracy requires education, access, vigilance, tolerance, honesty, equality, and balance of power?

Who knew that a white billionaire developer’s hiding his tax returns before becoming POTUS would not be questioned, but a black senator’s birth certificate would be demanded after he became POTUS?

Who knew that W’s words would be welcome now?

Who knew that Moonlight was the best picture, not La La Land?

Who knew that not normal is normal?

Who knew? It’s simple: it’s complicated.

Control -Alt -Delete

I have long thought that Donald Trump wanted to return to an alternative version of the 1990s—not the 1980s ( when Trump Inc built gaudy buildings and he became a loud-mouth celebrity of sorts); nor the 1950s—that vanilla era of seeming harmony and affluence, when Father knew Best, and Westerns dominated tv (and the issues of civil rights and women’s rights were simmering beneath the frothy surface).

The 1960s, of course, would not be the Don’s optimal back to the future decade. It was then that he avoided serving, obtaining 4 deferments, ultimately keeping him from going to Vietnam.

The turbulence of the 60s and 70s were not his bag. He began working for his father, and by 1971 took over the real estate firm and expanded it exponentially, for hundreds of businesses and partnerships.

But the 1990s….now there’s a decade to which he seems to want to return. He could Delete the Clintons, and restore an Alternative version, where he could Control the media (especially using 21st century Twitter). So far, he has sought to correct political correctness—that 90s term— by Alternatively spewing hateful, cruel, or at best, thoughtless phrases. The Contract with America will get an Alt-Right update with Trump. As long as he is in Control, (and Republicans Control both houses), the Alt-Right will Delete whatever it can.

The 90s… We were not deeply embroiled in wars and our economy was strong, and to most, felt strong. Law and Order reigned supreme. (Never mind the consequences over the last 3 decades.) The Militia movement became a thing. The President could get impeached for a sex scandal and remain in office. Microsoft was dominant. And of course, with the collapse of Communism, Russia could be our new friend.

Enter Trump. In the Trump universe of “truthful hyperbole” or Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”, anything goes—especially facts. This administration is desperate to Control or provide “Alternative”, or just Delete facts that are unappealing.

The Women’s March on Saturday, an historic event in the USA and around the globe, was not only remarkable in its numbers, but in its inclusion, peace, and joy. Everywhere, participants seemed to share the same experience. Women organized a march (and satellite marches and rallies) that encouraged participation, expansion, opportunities, concern for one another, and responses to the insults and invective that Mr. Trump has hurled, especially at women. This was not merely “identity politics”, another throwback term. This was a statement of solidarity that we can do better—all of us— on a range of issues.

Communities everywhere were invigorated. Individuals were energized. The tone everywhere was positive and aspirational, in stark contrast to the “American Carnage” Inauguration speech delivered just the day before. But Trump and his spokespeople insisted on the new Control Alt Delete in response: Determined to assert Control by insisting on “Alternative Facts” and even deleting unappealing information.

Today, the Trump administration issued a gag order to the Environmental Protection Agency, instructing the EPA not to discuss a recent freeze on grant funding and forbidding the U.S. Dept of Agriculture from releasing “public-facing documents”. No tweeting, National Parks!

This Control Alt Delete strategy is Orwellian and feels utterly Anti-American, not retro. Trump proclaimed his Inauguration a “National Day of Patriotic Devotion”. His charge that day and his Control Alt Delete actions every other minute are the antithesis of the patriotic devotion that I experienced and witnessed on Saturday. And I have never felt more patriotic devotion than I did that day.

Diversity became pluralism. Liberty (not mentioned in the inaugural speech) was petitioned for all. Excellence in our institutions, not dismantling them, was being insisted upon. Community engagement and action opportunities were provided. And the truth was in the facts.

Control Alt Delete won’t make America great again. But a new movement is afoot that just might.

The Hateful ate

I expected a close election, with half of the country to be disappointed. I confess, I had the other half in mind. But either way, there is so much hate. Many are astounded that a man who ran on hate, bigotry, willful ignorance, crudeness, debasement, lack of sophistication, dearth of knowledge, and disregard of facts won the election. He is absolutely hated by so many, but obviously so many others disregarded his blatant narcissism and obnoxious behavior, because they hated the woman who opposed him. They also hated the status quo and wanted change.

Some explained the choice as the lesser of two evils. EVILS. I beg to disagree. Flaws are not evils. Too many no longer make such an important distinction. It is easier to be hateful toward that (or those) with whom we might disagree or even profoundly disagree.

Now, though, we have a country that “understands” (assumes) that hate is somehow brilliant politics. It defeats compromise (and even decency) and efforts to include an array of concerns. Hate disguised as authenticity or political or economic philosophy wins.

But hate doesn’t really win. It infects. The hate perpetrated against Obama, rather than any attempts to compromise or meet real people’s real needs, rendered our government practically impotent. Opposition to the point of doing nothing was more important than the messiness of imperfect policies or the ongoing work necessary for better solutions.

Hate has been a galvanizer of support for a very long time.

Our electorate has become a hatefulate, but everyone sees hate in the other side.

After perpetrating hate for so very long, the electorate has increasingly chosen to fragmentate and look to associate with those who hate the same stuff that they do. We communicate and concentrate amongst our own kind, and denigrate those with whom we can not seem to commiserate. We over -saturate and self-medicate.

I don’t mean to pontificate (well, maybe I do), but how can we graduate from being a hatefulate? The rhetoric of hate takes many forms. Some rhetoric and ideas are indeed hateful and absolutely shameful. We are a nation that has a horrific history of hate and exclusion, that has slowly transformed toward inclusion and opportunity, but not without hate. We have to reckon with being a hatefulate while saying how much we love Democracy and all the greatness of the U.S. We must look at ourselves, and the ease with which we dispense hate.

I too hate bigotry and misogyny, and injustice of any kind. I hate rudeness, and bullying, and obstinacy. I hate willful ignorance, and cruelty and disrespect. But I need to not be hateful. I see so much hatefulness even for good ideals. The hatefulness must be tempered.

We are a hatefulate as much as we are an electorate, employing hate as a means to win. I have to be hopeful, despite my overwhelming concerns. There is so much work we can do to improve matters, and people’s lives. And as individuals, we need to look at our own hatefulness, even if we are publicly polite. Hate has tremendous energy that can be toxic. It is easy to seize that energy to “win”. The sense of loss is what keeps driving hate. But the hatefulate really does lose. That’s US.

Base Ick

I have a confession. I have not watched a single debate this election cycle. I have always sought to be a good citizen, engaging in issues and participating civically. In fact I was drawn to teaching middle and high schoolers as a means to social/cultural and political/civic change. I always encouraged students to watch the debates and read newspapers. We would debate issues and discuss the debates. It was always a part of civic engagement. This year, though, I couldn’t . I wouldn’t.

With the immediacy of the internet and social media, the opportunity to get an up close look at the presidential candidates in real time seems to happen every moment of every day. The debates seem almost anachronistic to me. They are a tradition that seems to be less relevant as a litmus test of governance, than as a WWE match. These debates reinforce the worst. Of course, no doubt this year it is because of Trump, the anti-politician who has demeaned politics, and everyone and everything.

Of course I have read and watched recaps and analysis the next day, and even during the primaries when the first Democratic debate was substantive, I was not compelled to watch. The reality show that was unreal on the Republican side was easy for me to resist. I could be informed within hours, without needing Maalox.

Without enumerating the litany of disqualifiers that should have long ago eliminated Trump, I am frustrated that for so many election cycles, perhaps this one even more, the campaigns are played to the base. And what an apt term “base” is.
Base can refer to the foundation or starting point; that which (or in this case, those who) support the work (or organization). The base is a conceptual structure or entity upon which something is dependent. Sometimes, the base refers to a substance. In this case, the base  is not about substance. In our politics, the base is about ideology; but mostly it’s about anger and hate. It is worth noting that the base is the bottom.

Of course, as an adjective, “base” means without moral principles; lowly. Hmmmm……

The efforts of politics are directed mostly at the base. During the campaign, it is about garnering support from the base (i.e. strengthening the base), and then playing to the “undecideds”. These uncommitted voters are a tiny swath of the American electorate, and yet their votes are clamored for in the most outrageous, despicable ways, further separating politics from governance, much less from civility. The control of our politics is based on those who are uncommitted or possibly undecided.

We have been living in the gutter during this unbearable election season. Baseless comments, even fact-checked, get repeated and used to rile up anger and hate. Facts seem meaningless. Facts should be basic to decision making regarding our government, especially the presidency. But we are stuck having to try to not look at the disgusting politics, much less the disgusting speech and gestures that have captured this election cycle more than ever. What could be more base than misogyny, racism, jingoism, insulting veterans and their families, insulting disabled people, threats of violence or lack of due process, not paying taxes, taking advantage of workers, students, denying environmental threats…..and that’s not even mentioning the verbiage.

Our democratic principles are based on human dignity and decency.  Right now it’s back to base icks.

Dis Appearance

“I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look.”

 
One way or (and) another, Donald Trump dissed Hillary Clinton’s appearance. Of course he’s not the first or last to dis HRC’s appearance, but he used it as a disqualifier for the presidency of the United States.

Whether he was being sexist (he was), or just a jerk (he was), we often talk about looking presidential, as opposed to a presidential look. “Looking presidential” implies that a person exhibits certain qualities with a demeanor of distinction: authoritative (not authoritarian); intelligent (not ignorant); well informed (by reputable resources and critical thinking); diplomatic (not wheeling and dealing); cordial; articulate…

Other qualities such as charisma may be highly regarded, but ultimately seriousness is preferable for a job that demands gravitas and clear thinking. Strength is another quality that is difficult to define, but purposeful beyond self would be respected. Oh, and then there’s respectable…. I guess there are varying definitions of looking respectable, but presenting (not exclaiming) oneself as decent, reasonable, of substance…these seem to comprise an expression of respectability.

It’s amazing how much we disregard, disqualify, disrespect, distrust, dishonor, and even just dis people based on appearance. We assume a tremendous amount based on appearance. Even those who prefer to minimize an appearance of effort in their appearance, are conveying something through their appearance, namely: I’m not shallow; I’m interested in more than my appearance. Likewise, we often assume that those who have sartorial interests or accessorize are making a different sort of statement, and that those interested in presenting themselves more materially are therefore shallow and/or materialistic. Beware— sometimes appearances can be deceiving!

As we are all always concerned about looking good (whatever that may mean)—of a certain type or status—even if that means modest—we are always aware of when others look bad. Looking good or bad goes way beyond our physical appearance. It’s what we do and how we are. We use external appearances too often as assessments of character—that which really defines whether or not we look good.

And yet, everyone has a look. We can change our look through hair, clothing, glasses, etc., and we tend to think of this as expressing our selves and/or our position. Some of us, however, only know how to look one way. Our look hasn’t changed, but have we?

So what about that presidential look? What does that even mean? Looking presidential is more significant than a presidential look, although a presidential look should reflect the qualities that have one look presidential. A presidential look (or any look) is one’s superficial (external) appearance. Looking presidential is one’s demeanor.

Trump does not look presidential; nor does he have a presidential (modest and distinguished) look. Why would he dis appearance? Because it’s the lowest common denominator. It’s broad enough to include the most base of his base, who have difficulty with race and gender (as they are understood first by appearance). Because if anyone is shallow, it’s Trump. And those Trumpeters want simplistic, caustic, anti-, because they regard their blowhard as strong.

Why dis appearance? Because it immediately attracts the disgruntled.

To me, that doesn’t look very good.