Trump

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.

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.

Sweatin’ to the Oldies

Bernie Sanders is 74; Donald Trump is 69; Hillary Rodham Clinton is 68. I wish I had a fraction of their energy, and I am significantly younger, although no youngster myself. But I’m really sweating this election.

Besides their ages, this election cycle is fraught with a “Back to the Future” sense of direction for our country. The Trump and Sanders campaigns have motivated followers to get excited about undoing. The Clinton Campaign has been rather uninspiring, but has been attempting to veer left, while remaining centered on the importance of strengthening our institutions, rather than upending them.

The Trump and Sanders campaigns feel unconventional, not just because no one initially expected either one to go to the Conventions, but because they have aroused the energy of anger and outsider status, ironically of mostly white males, who seem to relish the “outsider” candidate who says what they are thinking, and maintains a steady sense of chutzpah.

And HRC….she maintains that her entire life has been chutzpah; the boldness to work hard and achieve in various leadership positions, and get knocked down over and over, and keep pushing forward. The media has not captured inspiring snippets of her. Mostly, she’s talked about in the media as being disliked and around forever, which has become a serious negative in this cycle.

Her quality of being guarded tends to fuel suspicion, and of course, she’s had a history of cozying up to the rich and powerful, and then having a private e-mail server as Secretary of State. None of which is unique to her, or illegal; just not okay either. These issues that continue to plague her feed the narrative of the Clinton Chutzpah (as opposed to her own lifetime of experience and service)— not the audacity of hope or of dismantling the status quo, but of getting away with what they can at the time.

Both Hilary and Bill Clinton have great intellects, yet do stupid stuff all the time. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton can be shrewd and competent, and create long lasting alliances across demographics and across the world, yet still manage to generate ire at home. Hillary Clinton, unlike Bill, does not seem to enjoy the political campaigning, but she has created an amazing resume that has her in most ways uniquely and historically qualified to become POTUS.

But in 2016, experience is the enemy. It’s a narrative of what is wrong with US, and although 3 candidates who occupy all the air time are all Senior Citizens, this country seems to be suffering from Senioritis. Enough with the plodding along and policy that can be worked on by those with different ideas.

In fact, the parties themselves are in disarray. Will we end up with the party of the affected and the party of the disaffected? It’s getting to be more perspiration than inspiration. Being inspired by being disaffected and angry is a dangerous path.

So is the only way that these old timers can inspire is to invoke old stories and old grievances? Somehow, it’s been a sweat inducing exercise thus far.

Outthink Disruption

I recently saw a Facebook ad for IBM Analytics with the slogan “Outthink Disruption”. What a perfect tagline for our current culture of politics, and our culture and our politics. Forget distractions; we live in the age of disruptions, as though that’s a good thing.

Those who seek to disrupt feel that they are not served by the status quo. Disruption may be effective and even appropriate. Altering or even destroying the structure of something may be important to contributing to or saving lives. Or, such a disturbance may merely interrupt or cause more problems.

When I saw the tagline “Outthink Disruption”, Donald Trump had just become the presumptive nominee of the GOP (a nostalgic name for what is not very related to the modern Republican Party). Certainly Trump has been a Disruption, and he encourages his Trumpeters to Disrupt.
One could say that Bernie Sanders is also advocating Disruption, although without the mishugas, obnoxiousness,low brow-ness, narcissism, insults, hate, misogyny, racism, jingoism, xenophobia, or winking at violence.

The momentum for Disruption is palpable, but we have been living through 8 years of thoughtless disruption that has yielded frustration left and right. Disruption can’t be the goal. We have to Outthink Disruption. Progress occurs incrementally, and often through compromise—something that our culture  (or politics) doesn’t embrace. We expect instantaneous results—disruption—and we tout our way of life as the ultimate because we can do whatever we want in an instant.

Except we can’t. Not without ramifications.

As a culture, we have become hateful—not only of those we fear might seek to destroy us, but hateful of ourselves, and we are destroying ourselves. The vitriol that occurs during Primary season, and through the general election, seems to heighten each cycle. I’m not sure if we are really more hateful than ever, or that hate has a YUUUUUUUGE platform. Everyone yells and posts and overexposes and then stays within one’s own social and anti-social media bubble, condensing the ire and agreement.

I’ve heard all sorts of statistics, (which I take with a grain of salt), about how much hate there is for Trump and for Hillary. HATE. Hate is very powerful. It envelops and distorts. It is irrational. It is toxic. I hate hate. I have certainly felt hate. The fire of hate fuels the ego’s sense of what is right. But I don’t want to hate people. It’s actually too easy. I hate intolerance. I hate plenty of ideas and ways of being. Hate can lead to dangerous disruption—not merely shaking things up or tweaking the status quo.

We have to Outthink Disruption, which means examining our love of hate (and our uncomfortableness with thinking outside our comfort zones).

When I saw the tagline “Outthink Disruption” for IBM analytics, I thought it was a clever, albeit almost 20 year late, response to Apple’s “Think Different” campaign. “Think Different” was actually a response to IBM’s motto “Think”. And here we are in 2016….

Can we Outthink Disruption?

The Man Who Sold the World

Michael Stipe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2ed7ouU3o

Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fregObNcHC8

Lulu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8ywV7KwSI

David Bowie:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSH–SJKVQQ

 

 
Over the last 24 hours, I have been inundated with videos of Trump and Stipe, with headlines about the most incredible audio from these men.

Trump managed to suggest that women who get abortions should be punished, and when the backlash was immediate and fierce, he backtracked and suggested that doctors who perform abortions should be punished, not the women who undergo the procedure.

Even abortion foes reacted strongly against Trump’s comment. John Kasich tweeted: “Of course women shouldn’t be punished for having an abortion.” This from a staunch opponent of abortions. Really? Since when have women who are pro-choice, much less suffered through an abortion, not been punished? Granted, the punishment is not prison or a fine, but the endless shaming and aggression against those who are pro-choice has always trumped (pun intended) compassion or concern or even curiosity about alternatives.

Whether Trump’s latest belch will affect his polling remains to be seen. After all, he’s the man who sold the world. He says what some think. He’s a zillionaire, so he must be the most capable and smartest in the world. He wrote The Art of the Deal. He’s bought and sold so much, you won’t believe how much. He’s the man who sold the world.
As all the media, social and anti-social, were broadcasting and posting Trump’s comments—about punishing women or physicians, the media was also sharing a rebroadcast (you-tube) of Michael Stipe, former frontman for R.E.M., singing a haunting cover of “The Man Who Sold the World”, by David Bowie. He performed it on The Tonight Show the other night, in advance of his “Music of David Bowie” tribute concert. His haunting rendition hardly conjures The Donald, but captures the personal searching for ourselves that Bowie’s version, and Nirvana’s unplugged version, also evoke. Yet, Stipe puts his own stamp on it, as did Bowie and Nirvana (Kurt Cobain, especially).

Art speaks truth to the human experience, and individuals find their specific identifications with a work of art. The style of Bowie’s 1970 song, and Nirvana’s 1995 Unplugged cover, and Michael Stipe’s 2016 rendition are each artist specific, yet the song seems timeless.

Demagoguery and hate are also timeless. There are always those who would sell the world for power. I couldn’t help but consider this song that was being posted everywhere yesterday in the context of the events of the day—namely, Donald Trump’s latest. The interesting thing about “The Man Who Sold the World” is that it is both the demagogue and us.

If the original intent of the song was to meet and “shake hands” with our “other” (lesser) selves, its meaning extends to a societal level. We not only have tremendous economical, social, religious, educational, cultural differences among us in the U.S., but we somehow have to shake hands and meet. We can’t merely sell the world and think we will continue to be successful.

I know that the man who sells the world, i.e. Donald Trump, is far from the guy Michael Stipe, Kurt Cobain, or David Bowie were evoking, but there is something quite amazing about The Man Who Sold the World. It is fitting that Stipe’s affecting rendition was being played everywhere the same day that Trump’s “punishing” comments were everywhere.

We passed upon the stair,
We spoke of was and when,
Although I wasn’t there,
He said I was his friend,
Which came as some surprise.
I spoke into his eyes,
“I thought you died alone
A long long time ago.”

“Oh no, not me,
I never lost control
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world.”

I laughed and shook his hand
And made my way back home,
I searched for form and land,
For years and years I roamed.
I gazed a gazley stare
At all the millions here:
“We must have died alone,
A long long time ago.”

“Who knows? Not me,
We never lost control.
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world.”

“Who knows? Not me,
We never lost control.
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world. —David Bowie, first released in the US, Nov.1970

 

 
I just discovered Lulu (To Sir With Love)’s version of the song from 1974. Perhaps this version, albeit 1974 pop, is the most appropriate version. Women still feel face to face with The Man Who Sold the World. Of course, the more versions, the more we each recognize The Man Who Sold the World. We’re face to face with him.

Snickers

Feeling hangry? You need snickers. Hungry and angry and sneering at others, even when the others are our own.

This election circus/campaign has been about snickers and sweet talking (toothing?) the angry who are hungry for anything else.

Of course Donald didn’t suddenly emerge as the hangry messiah. He’s just the most recent and obnoxious false prophet. Remember Sarah Palin? Rush? Glen Beck? Father Coughlin ?(going back a ways)….and the list goes on.

But the hangry are not merely non-Democrats. Many feeling the Bern are also hangry, and snicker at those who don’t feel The Bern.

The infighting—literally, at Trump rallies—is so pathetic (and scary). I have been on a no snickers diet for the last several months: tuning out as much as possible, and disassociating with the hangry. The hunger and anger combination is too intense. It overrides the necessary dispositions for civil life and governance. It’s also hard to be creative when hangry. Solutions must be immediate and simple. The snickering at others fortifies the hangry. It fuels the appetite, but not the health.

“You’re not you when you’re hungry. Snickers satisfies.”

The Snickers candy bar slogan could not be more perfect for our current culture. In politics, the hunger for change, combined with anger and resentment and disdain for others, has become utterly toxic and stupid.

It’s easy to be angry and hunger for change. It’s easy to be disdainful of those with whom you disrespect and disagree. But we don’t have to disrespect those with whom we disagree. It’s just become so easy and acceptable. And all the snickering fuels more anger and hunger and diminishes us.

We’re not us when we’re hangry. I think I want a Twix now.