Category Archives: Civility

Why Marching is Not a Political Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Marching is not a political solution. So why do people do it?

Marching: Taking a Stand

Because we it is, quite literally, taking a stand.

It used to be a powerful stand. Even in the early 1900’s, a mobilized group of people with pitchforks could take over a building, even a nation’s capital. When masses of people were on the move, it was dangerous.

I’m relatively ignorant about this topic, and a quick search found an interesting article that says occasionally they have an effect, but it’s complex.

I have memories of some of the many Viet Nam War protests. They achieved nothing, though some could say they helped end it after 20 years… They had effect- they led Nixon to make Marijuana a schedule 1 drug in 1970. I doubt that Trump will be so stupid as to make pussy hats illegal, but he has already demonstrated that stupidity is one of his strong suits.

Marching: Childish behavior

When did you learn to march? When did you learn to stand up and say “No!” When I think about it, it’s before my early memories. It seems to be the sort of thing a 2-year old is capable of. If you’re 2 and you really want something, stand up and protest!

Another thing little kids do is repeat things over and over and over and over again. “Mommy, cookie!” over and over again. That seems very similar to a march with its slogans and chants and signs. This behavior is common in kids 2-5.

Plus, marching imitates the power of soldiers marching. This is what soldiers did when they’d lay siege to a castle or town. They’d march over there and surround it. Their mere presence was intimidating.

Intimidation is both a little kid’s tool as well as the ready tool of a frazzled parent to handle a little kid.

Appropriately childish behavior

Protesting Trump, marching is appropriately childish. He has demonstrated many of his own kinds of childish behavior during the last year- threats, bullying, name-calling.

I’m not superior. My inner child would like nothing better than to throw a big rock right between his beady little eyes. Probably I don’t march because it’s just not violent enough for my inner child…

What’s the alternative?

Use your words. We need a new kind of politics where, instead of fighting for power, we design our future together. We a new form of communication for this, and a system that allows us to apply this to politics. Basically, we need our politicians to be accountable to us. You can read more about that here.

Marching is fine. By all means, get your Ya Ya’s out. But keep it peaceful! And whatever it costs you, in time or money, spend the same amount on a real solution- donate it to PeopleCount so we can move forward. And on the same page, please add your email address to our announcement list.

Why it’s Dumb to Say Blue Lives Matter

Posted on by
Reply

It’s dumb to say Blue Lives Matter, as if it’s a meaningful slogan. I write this in response to a blog, ‘Blue Lives’ Don’t Matter Because Blue Lives Don’t Exist. The author makes some decent points, but misses the most important one.

I wrote this because I’m all about accountability. I propose we stop saying “Blue Lives Matter.” But I don’t just propose it. I’m accountable for why.

The author made three points:

His point: It’s a logical error: a false equivalence

This is a good point. “Black” has to do with the color of skin, not the color of a uniform. The phrase is setting up a false equivalence between skin color, or race, and an occupation.

For instance, when a police officer takes off the uniform in the evening and goes out, he or she looks like anyone else. They blend into society. But if a black person goes out for an evening, they are still identifiable by race. They are still subject to increased surveillance. They are more likely to be stopped by, hassled by, and hurt or killed by police.

His point: You sound racist

That varies from listener to listener. You sound racist to me. His point is that by saying this unnecessary phrase, you’re taking attention from the very real problem of abuse of people of color.

His point: There’s no such thing as a “blue life”

I disagree with him on this one. Police are hardworking, often low-paid public servants who mostly keep us civilized. They do this by their mere presence, adding risk to law-breaking. And they do this by apprehending some of us who stray. They have higher suicide rates and other health risks. And their average life expectancy is much shorter. Black life expectancy is 3-5 years less than whites’. Police life expectancy is much shorter.

But these differences are another false equivalence. Joining the police is a choice.

My point: Blue (and white) lives already matter

The whole point of the Black Lives Matter movement is that in our society, white lives and the lives of police in general already matter. They’re of the highest priority. But often other actions say black lives don’t matter.

Police are given training, guns and equipment. They are usually featured as heroes in stories, television and movies. They are paid full salaries plus benefits and retirement. If they are injured, they still get a large fraction of their salary from disability benefits. When a police officer dies, it’s a big deal.

They are given power to manhandle others, almost without impunity. We appreciate how they often put themselves in dangerous situations. The legal system favors them. Everything about how we treat them says they matter.

Black Lives Matter

Certainly all lives matter when ethical people are consciously involved. The problem is that some of us are unethical, and almost all of us are unconsciously biased.

We’re inculcated by the biased portrayals from Hollywood. And by how our society has allowed widespread discrimination for most of the last two centuries. And how the media has often let it go unreported.

When we, or the police, are surprised and feel fear, most of us instantly feel blacks are more dangerous, less peaceful, less rational, educated or civilized than whites. It’s not true. It’s really not. Most of us don’t feel this way on purpose. Many are ashamed of it, later. But in the moment of reaction, the brainwashing of our culture often wins out. And it tells us to act as if black lives don’t matter. This probably happens much more than we know. Most of the time we let it go and take the high road. But all too often, we don’t.

That’s why we’re calling on ourselves to say Black Lives Matter. I say this for me. I say it to consciously admit that I’m not perfect. I, too, am a product of my culture. We can be more than that. We can be conscious beings. We can create our culture intentionally. We can say with our own voices a new culture. One in which Black Lives Matter.

 

Let’s give Trump a Chance

Posted on by
2

We should give Donald Trump a chance. In a Facebook post today, someone quoted some things Ron Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan) said on the show Hardball, I think from August.

A conservative commentator exulting about the election, predicted the president-elect will rise to Reagan’s level. Ron replied, essentially comparing Reagan in office to Trump talking even before the election, about groping women.

That’s an inaccurate comparison. Let’s give Trump a chance.

That’s not a fair comparison. When he made the groping comments, Trump was being appropriate to shock radio. It wasn’t pretty and I don’t approve. But it says nothing about his performance in business much less how he’ll be as POTUS. The commentator didn’t say that before the election, they were similar. He predicted Trump would “rise to Reagan’s level.” That means he accepts the level Trump’s starting at, and that it’s lower than Reagan’s.

Even aside from the worst things in Trump’s background, what he said at his rallies was very down-to-Earth. His strategy was NOT to inspire a nation or even to champion conservative values. His strategy was to accept and acknowledge people’s anger. His strategy was to firmly lead the low-brow electorate. That was very different and much “lower” than Reagan’s strategy.

Let’s follow Michelle Obama

During the debates, Trump tried to avoid the subject of groping. He never brought that conversation to the campaign. He was honest with people about how he felt about protesters at his rallies. He was honest about his thoughts of roughing them up. But there was very little actual violence. And during the debates he seemed relatively respectful of Hillary. He was not playing it safe my any means. But he was trying.

So let’s all try. If Michelle Obama were to speak to us today, I think she’d add to her previous advise. Maybe she’d say, “Whether or not they go low, we should go high.” If there’s something criminal about his past behavior, I trust the courts will look into it. But we all should move forward. Give him a clean slate. Allow him to rise to great levels.

My worries

My own worry is that he has promised changes, yet he seems to be inviting a lot of politicians who have been for a long time, deeply invested in traditional, corrupt and partisan politics. Some of these people, like Gingrich, were chief engineers of the last 8 years of Republican belligerence and disrespect for Presidents Clinton and Obama. 

If America is going to work together to make some much-needed changes, it’s not going to look like either party winning. For the first time in decades, it would look like people working together. What I’d really like to see is a cabinet of great people rather than partisan cronies.

Even better, a commitment to America

Republicans seem to completely ignore what Americans want. Democrats are not quite as bad, but similar. What I’d really like to see is your and my voices heard.

Meanwhile, let’s give Trump a chance to do well. Sure, cause a ruckus if he doesn’t object to bad policies. And feel free to advocate loudly for good policies. But let’s keep the keep the dialogue to substantive issues.

Post-Election letter to Progressives- End the Stress

Posted on by
2

Dear Progressive friends,
Your team lost a lot in this election. Perhaps spend a day morning, but then let go of the stress. It’s time to calm down. Relax and be strategic.

End the stress. Be calm and rational

What happened happened. While there are all sorts of meanings we can add to it, they are all optional. There’s no point adding them unless they help in some way.

One problem I see is that Americans didn’t think well in the election. There was a lot of exaggeration of the negative (also known as “magnifying” or “catastrophizing“), a lot of jumping to conclusions, personalization, emotional reasoning and negative filtering. These are all errors of thought, or in jargon, “cognitive distortions.”

An aside: Hillary promised “evidence-based mental health care” for all. Luckily, some of this currently exists, for free! These kinds of cognitive distortions are at the heart of many mood and behavioral problems, such as depression and eating disorders. The only proven therapy for this is Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). And you can get free CBT treatment online at MoodGym. (While it’s not yet FDA approved, it’s widely used in the UK and Australia. If your problems are severe, seek in-person therapy as well.) So let’s not continue these errors- let’s move on.

Stop criticizing Trump’s character

I see no way for continued criticism of Trump’s character to help. In fact, it’ll just make him react and fight back more. He’s very comfortable fighting, Though it leads to worse decisions, t’s a strong suit for him. If he’s getting a powerful, constant din of negativity from the left, he’ll learn to ignore you.

Please conserve your energy and pick your battles. If you support him doing good things, he can get used to being accepted as president. Then, if you criticize just the bad, that’ll be heard- it’ll be a contrast.

Maybe it won’t be so bad

A wall won’t be that bad. It’ll put people to work, whether they’re American or Mexicans. It won’t be as good as fixing America’s infrastructure, but maybe we can find ways of making it work. Perhaps it can be tilted a bit and lined with solar panels, as a compromise. Though Trump has said he doesn’t believe in climate change, solar power also helps make America energy independent.

And he wants to stop the TPP, which Republicans support and many Democrats oppose.

He wants to replace Obamacare. Some Republicans would like to be able to participate in the health-insurance provided to federal employees. Or perhaps Americans could pay premiums to join medicare. If this were a possibility, it could help lower US health care costs. A compromise could be an expansion of medicaid. Trump loves to win. If you compromise, he could put pressure on the Republicans to participate.

Don’t fear the worst, prevent it

Remember that the Republican leadership is leery of him, too. They will try to curb the worst decisions.They just saw him as access to power, which they couldn’t resist. And remember that Americans never agreed on gay marriage- the Supreme Court found banning it to be unconstitutional. There’s a good chance even a newly appointed judge would respect that decision.

A preschool teacher’s basic lesson: “You get what you and you don’t get upset.” Stress is the biggest killer. Let it go. The less stress you all have, the stronger you’ll be when you need to act.

And, if you want a real solution to partisan politics, contact PeopleCount.org. Without help, I haven’t been able to launch yet. But with help, we could quickly make American government serve the people instead of party extremists.

Political Correctness is Not Bullying

Posted on by
Reply

I just read this article which says the start of PC (political correctness) was hype about an imaginary situation. So maybe all this pushback against PC is wrong? (Warning: this is long, about 3.3x the length of a normal 500-word post.)

I’ve never seen an anti-political correctness concern in a real conversation

Personally, I’ve never been faced with an anti-PC concern in a conversation. I’ve never had anyone voice objection to a correction. Maybe my corrections are so politely done, people welcome them (I’ll pause while you roll your eyes.) And maybe my correction carried such authority that the person who made the comment felt my (trigger warning!) inner-asshole too close for comfort. But still, I didn’t scream at them or threaten to have them fired- I wouldn’t do that. And if they don’t want to discuss it with me because they’re afraid I might do that, that’s on them. (They can always ask: If I say something

And I’ve had lots of PC conversations. I’ve worked with a lot of people recently from India and some from China. They don’t know that much about our culture. Some of them should be very careful about driving while black, or while looking Moslem (even though they’re Hindu.) A few of them knew nothing about Jews or atheists. At times, I was the only American-born person in the group, so was the go-to person for cultural questions. (And as you might guess, I love to (try to) make sense of culture.)

What’s bullying?

I was born in 1957. In the 1960’s, I heard stories of blacks saying the wrong thing and being lynched (killed) for it. That’s extreme bullying. I saw pictures on TV of blacks being thrown on the ground and beaten for having the audacity to ordering sodas. That’s also extreme bullying.

When I was a kid, I knew nothing about religion. My parents had grown up Jewish, but when they were toddlers, Jews were being beaten. My dad was ridiculed by teachers for a year or two and then was taken out of school. Both mom and dad’s families immigrated to America in 1938, in the last months that Jews were allowed to leave. Their parents weren’t very religious and worked full time. Though they said prayers once a weak, they weren’t strongly attached to religion.

I was exposed a bit to religious symbolism from television in the 1960s and 1970s. So when I was 13 and someone at the newspaper shack (where we picked up newspapers to deliver them) said something about Jesus, I recognized the word. I asked, “Who is Jesus?” He didn’t tell me, but shared another new word, “Kike” and threw me to the ground and my papers into the street. That was a mild case of bullying.

As an adult, I’ve never been present to bullying for an offensive remark

If you want to not serve homosexuals or ban same sex kissing in public, I say you’re prejudiced and wrong. And if you refuse to learn how you’re culturally biased and refuse to get over your revulsion, I say: in that way, you’re being stupid. You have a right to be stupid and we’re all stupid in ways. You’re welcome to feel embarrassed about it, but there’s no need to be ashamed. And, you can be ashamed if you want to be. But that’s not bullying.

If I say it in public in order to shame you, that’s bullying. But if I say it in public because it’s a public dialogue, that’s not bullying. If you’re going to air your ignorance in public, the consequences may well be public. It’s just the cost of having the privilege of having the ear of thousands or millions of people. If your comment does damage, people have the right to counter it and try to undo the damage to the public. That’s not bullying.

How is our PC culture intolerant?

How is our PC culture intolerant? One article said it shuts down traditional Christian cultures that want to espouse disapproval for homosexuality. I disagree. One CEO was fired because he contributed to an anti-homosexuality referendum. Maybe he was offered the option of apologizing and retracting the donation- I don’t know. But that’s very different- his contribution was an action, not a discussion. And he’s the CEO. He is fully aware that his actions reflect on the company.

If you want to not serve homosexuals or ban same sex kissing in public, I say you’re prejudiced and wrong. If you refuse to learn how you’re culturally biased, if you refuse to learn how you can get over your revulsion, I say that in that way, you’re stupid. At the outset, you were ignorant. But refusal to learn qualifies as stupid. You have a right to be stupid. And we’re all stupid in different ways and about different things. You’re welcome to feel embarrassed about it. There’s no need to be ashamed, but that’s your choice. Voicing my opinion is not bullying.

What’s bullying?

It used to be that if guys kissed in public they’d be beaten and fired and maybe their house would be burned down. That’s bullying. Complaints about “verbal bullying” are overblown.

I first encountered the idea of gay sex as a freshman in college in 1975. Some guys were talking about how they’d beat a guy up if he was looking at their junk in the gym showers. I almost threw up in my mouth at the thought of guys wanting sex with guys. At the same time, I was horrified that these clowns would hit someone for looking!

About 5 years later I was at Stanford. I signed up for an interesting-sounding seminar called “Men in Difficult Times.” It wasn’t till the second class meeting that I realized most of the guys in there were gay. I was on high-alert. Definite culture shock. I just listened. It turned out these guys were pretty normal. Some seemed more insecure than I was, some less. They certainly had different family experiences and had a lot of disapproval about who they wanted to be with.

Years later I encountered gay internet porn. More shock. I got over that, too. And then I thought back to my revulsion about the thought of gay sex in 1975. I realized that was all cultural programming. If I had grown up around images of naked people and sex, I would have never had that revulsion.

Did a Christian try to “bully” me?

For a few years, in my 40’s, I played volleyball with a guy. One day I received a letter in the mail from him. I thought, “This is weird- I just saw him 2 days ago.” Inside the envelope was a card written in an ornate script with a lot of flowery language inviting me to a talk about “our Lord Jesus Christ.” I was weirded out- I had never even seen anything like it. “Our Lord?” That was presumptuous.

The next Saturday I spoke with him. I said no thanks to the invitation and while he was welcome to invite me to such things, I felt uncomfortable with the formal invite, the flowery language and the phrase “our Lord.” He blew up! He said something about “you Jews” and that was the last time I saw him. I was nice about it and he blew up. I think he over-reacted and was dumb. It was upsetting. I had to handle my upset. But I’m not complaining about it. I’m not saying he bullied me. He didn’t. It probably took guts for him to send it and the fear stopped him from thinking clearly (that he should have talked to me about it), and the fear probably also fueled his reaction.

Similarly, the “Startup Bigots” apply pressure. It’s not fair, but it’s not bullying

I’m working on a startup creating political accountability.  My concrete, realistic and easily-accomplished-by-a-small-team plans are pooh-poohed by Silicon Valley’s startup bigots. I get pushback from everyone that I shouldn’t be investing in it- I should be working full time and doing it at night and on weekends. I should start small (which has been proven to be harder) and get better proof before asking for money. From my family, I often get emotional reactions- I’m sacrificing their future and their security.

At times, it’s devastating. It’s destructive to me in ways. It’s rough. But it’s not unfair. And it’s not bullying.

Be careful

So I invite you to be careful. Think before you speak. If you have something potentially stupid to say, try it to one person or a small group first. Or, if someone objects, listen to the objection and be ready to apologize and be wrong.

Right and wrong always, always, always occur in a context. And if you don’t think so, or you think the Earth is flat, you’re stupid about it. And, this is a common bit of ignorance in our society. It’s not too stupid to think there might be some rights and wrongs that are absolute. It’s not true, but it usually takes lots of work for most people to see it.

I try to do my spouting about what’s so pretty gently and gradually (usually- less so in this essay). But when I go around spouting my voluminous truisms, I expect some pushback. Other people have different world views, different contexts, so different things are true. And now a bunch of whiners have created this anti-political correctness context…

This is volatile stuff- words about real life are never actually true, they’re always approximate. So between inaccuracy and other people’s contexts, I invite you to do what I do. Anticipate some reaction. And instead of whining about it, deal with it like an adult. Or emulate me- try to be adult and apologize when you realize (usually with prodding) otherwise.

Another truism:  It’s just life. It’s not serious. It’s not even permanent.

I should get back to fixing American politics and government. I need to complete it so I can move on to fixing these in all other nations and ending wars. Did I mention the UN is interested?

Should Trump be Prohibited from Owning a Gun?

Posted on by
Reply

Should Trump be prohibited from owning a gun?  (Trigger warning: a bit tongue in cheek…)

Background: Americans want some new gun control

Congress showed signs recently of acting on aspects of gun-law reform that Americans overwhelmingly favor. But gridlock proved too strong.

Around 90% favor background checks for gun sales. This issues is sometimes referred to as: Closing the “gun-show” loophole.

About 70% favor banning gun sales to people on the no-fly list, that is, people suspected of ties to terrorism. When this list was started, it was difficult to even discover if you were on it. Now there’s actually an appeals process, though the ACLU would like further changes.

And around 80% favor preventing people with mental illness from possessing guns. And this is where the irony begins.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

The Mayo Clinic site’s definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder fits Trump perfectly:

If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don’t receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having “the best” of everything

Should NPD be a mental diagnosis that prevents owning a gun?

Just because someone has a diagnosis of a mental problem doesn’t mean they shouldn’t own a gun.

For instance, many people have some OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder. A common symptom is that they feel a frequent need for things to be cleaner. Repeated hand-washing is safe. On the other hand, if one in a million times a gun goes off while cleaning it, this could be a problem for some.

And some of us have ADD, Attention Deficit Disorder, making it difficult to concentrate. With these people, Tom Lehrer says, “when something moves, you shoot.”

What about NPD?

The question is, does Narcissistic Personality Disorder make a gun-owner irresponsible?

In public, Donald Trump suggested that only a gun owner could do something about stopping Hillary Clinton from making Supreme Court appointments. That’s called “Stochastic Terrorism.” As a national politician, he gave the public a rationale to assassinate an opposing politician. Some nuts may now consider this task their duty. This points to NPD indeed being a reason to disqualify someone from owning a gun.

If Trump shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, perhaps he shouldn’t be president. It may be worth considering.

PS: As a non-partisan observer

In my work for PeopleCount.org, I’m non-partisan on issues, and on political philosophies and parties. At the same time, Trump is a phenomenon. Most of his spectacle has nothing to do with issues. Yet his campaign is hugely impacting American politics.

Lots of people like him and what he says. I imagine what he says is similar to what many of his followers say among themselves. Airing this side of our culture gives us a chance to deal with it openly. It gives mainstream society the opportunity to respond to it, interject some reason, and to apply social pressure for people to be polite and civil- maybe even rational.

As Michelle Obama said a bit differently, it gives us a great opportunity to be adults and rise to higher standards.

And, you’re welcome to even more power in transforming Congress and politics. Add your email address to our announcement list and you can soon be part of a real revolution to rejuvenate democracy.

Ginsburg has no Conflict of Interest with Trump

Posted on by
Reply

While it was unusual that Justice Ginsberg spoke out against presidential candidate Donald Trump, there was no conflict of interest, no actual breach of law or morality.

In a post on Yabberz.com, David Murray said: “Should this election be close enough to be thrown to the Supreme Court, Ginsberg will now have no choice but to recuse herself.” He didn’t say why. And indeed, she should not.

Unusual behavior

Trump has violated normal standards of behavior over and over again. That’s what Ginsberg did. She was merely outspoken.

A judge should recuse herself if she has a conflict of interest. Consider an earlier case:

Scalia had actual conflicts of interest

Justice Scalia was a friend of Dick Cheney’s. In 2004, Scalia went on a hunting trip with Dick right before deciding a case about case over whether the White House had to turn over documents relating to the energy task force Cheney headed in 2001. The article also said, “Scalia and Cheney also had a private dinner with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Maryland’s Eastern Shore in November, when the Supreme Court was considering Cheney’s appeal.” Scalia ended up being one of only two justices to support Cheney.

This was a clear conflict of interest. Scalia was ruling about the a case involving a friend. He had an interest of justice in the case, plus he had a conflicting interest to be loyal to his powerful friend. Yet Scalia didn’t recuse himself.

An opinion is not a conflict of interest

On the other hand, everyone has an opinion about Trump. Ginsberg was different from the other justices only in that she spoke hers. She has no conflict of interest. If she had never spoken her opinion, her opinion of him would be no different. She has no more conflict of opinion than any other justice.

There was nothing illegal or immoral about what Ginsberg did. It only violated tradition and expectations.

Political Correctness makes America Strong

Posted on by
1

During this campaign season, political correctness has remained a hot topic. Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized those who err on the side of political correctness. He has taken pride in being a candidate who doesn’t abide by those rules. In fact, his speeches and comments are almost designed to illustrate why we need it.

Why do we need Political Correctness?

As Steve Hughes explains above, being offended is indeed an individual experience. We all come from different backgrounds, neighborhoods, societies, and cultures. So what’s deemed offensive to one person may easily roll off the back of another.

But this shouldn’t be a free-for-all to say whatever we want. Though political correctness may not be a law on the books, it is an important part of civility. There are many things that most people agree are offensive. Though Donald Trump‘s statements have challenged where we draw that line.

Where is “the line” that should not be crossed?

We believe it’s inappropriate to discriminate against someone because of their race. A racist person is free to harbor socially unacceptable thoughts. But he or she understands that it’s not okay to voice them out loud.

But what if we intend no racism, yet a racist interpretation is easy to hear, even hard to miss? And what if the racism is obvious? One of the quotes in the article above is of Trump saying, “Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that.” To me, that’s a purely racist thing to say.

To me, every (or almost every?) human is lazy at times, so there’s a grain of truth in it. I can picture a scene of Chicago on a humid summer day, and a bunch of people hanging around outside, shooting the breeze, not working, being “lazy.” Should we hang Trump if he imagines, in his mind’s eye, that they’re black and then give words to it?

What happens without Political Correctness?

Trump has thrown politeness and consideration to the wayside.  Whether it’s his negative generalizations of Mexican immigrants, disrespectful remarks about women, or stereotyping of Jewish people, he has navigated political waters in a tumultuous manner.

On the one hand, it’s not evil to make a mistake, to say something politically incorrect. We shouldn’t damn someone for it. It’s just a mistake, an imperfection. Apologize for the slip and move on.

Ignoring Political Correctness is bad

On the other hand, Trump doesn’t apologize. He rarely admits to mistakes. Like Bush in Iraq. Like Johnson and Nixon in Viet Nam. Like the American South during slavery. Like Christians during the Salem Witch Trials. Like Catholics during the Inquisitions and the Crusades. Like radical Muslims today in Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in Isis, in Saudi Arabia and many more places. Trumpeting his own righteousness and not admitting mistakes is pride, a sin. It opens the door to evil.

A candidate that’s offended by political correctness is dangerous. With their offensive language, they can stir up ill-will toward a minority. That can be dangerous, like we saw when a Trump supporter sucker-punched a black protestor at a rally. And it can motivate some of them to fight back, becoming dangerous to others, as we saw when some anti-Trump demonstrators turned violent in San Jose, California.

Political Correctness Is part of America’s strength

Political correctness doesn’t exist to mute opinions or censor people. It exists to forge good will and maintain harmony. It exists to cast people and organizations in a positive light. It exists to build trust. These are all important goals for political candidates.

We need political candidates who understand and represent all of us. He or she needs to elevate every American citizen. Politicians shouldn’t seek to enhance the lives of particular groups at the expense of others.

The bottom line: Political correctness exists in order for us to respect each other. One of the things that makes America great is our embrace of all kinds of people. We exhibit a mutual respect for our differences. Political correctness isn’t just a simple courtesy. It unites us and makes our nation stronger.

Politics is all about Emotions

Posted on by
Reply

There was this article about a Trump supporter who drives a tow truck. He refused to help a Bernie Sanders supporter after she was in an accident.

In a Forum I sometimes participate in, one liberal remarked that this shows us something about Trump supporters. A conservative disagreed. I weighed in:

That was a very good article. He was pretty articulate about what happened that had him say no. Maybe he’s correct that his interactions with liberals left him unpaid, and maybe he’s not. Maybe he’s exaggerating and it was just a few- who knows? But his feelings were clear. And he was polite about it. And he felt good when he left.

Politics (and most everything else) is about how we feel. Some of us read a lot of policy and pros and cons and analyses before we have clear feelings. Some of us don’t. Some people have good feelings about “conservative” and “small government” and “fiscal restraint” and it’s really clear to them what they feel good about. Some have good feelings about “liberal” and “progressive” and “equality”, even “redistribution.”

I know why we make each other wrong for it, but I think that’s a mistake. I think there’s something to be gained from admitting that the bottom line for each of us is that our political desires are about how we feel.

This is the first article I’ve read like this, so I’m pretty sure we can’t say that lots of Trump supporters are like this. We’ll see if it catches on. But even a hundred wouldn’t tell us about the millions of Trump supporters.

Your feelings that “Trump supporters are like this” are simply your feelings. We want desperately to know what’s true. We’re wired for it. Even more than that, we’re wired to want to predict the future, to prepare for it and stay safe. Our brains concoct generalizations in a mere moment. This worked fairly well in the jungle. It doesn’t work that well to predict the stock market, the outcome of wars, or who would do a good job as president. It did a pretty good job of telling us to fight the tribe that was running at us with spears, but it doesn’t do a very good job of having us know the true nature of a large group of people.

I do business with a bright, capable, gentle, loving guy. He doesn’t want politics as usual, he doesn’t want Hillary. He’s a Trump supporter. He’s bright. And it’s all about feeling.

###

That was what I posted, but I’ll add a conclusion here. The presidential election matters, but much more important is the congressional election. Congress has a lot more power than the president. Even more important though, is what guides Congress.

Currently, it’s all the forces in “politics as usual”, including money, raising money, and bring pork home for the district, whether it’s for wealthy donors, or to help the economy and convince voters the politician should be elected. They pander to us. They try not to do what we want, but to appeal to our emotions at election time. Because we don’t have strong feelings about the job they’re doing. Because we don’t know. Because they’re not accountable to us.

They could be. Support PeopleCount, and they will be. I promise.  Please add your name to our mailing list, and consider making a donation.  Thanks.

Why Trump Supporters Love Trump and Anger

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll give you my theory on why Trump supporters love Trump and respond so enthusiastically about his self-righteous, anger-validating messages. It’s not just about Trump and his supporters.

They’re simple people

Trump supporters have a “tried and true” point of view. They want simple lives. They want simple truths. And where did they learn these truths? As little kids, on the playground. They pushed and shoved and felt justified about it when they got mad.

They want life to be the way they know life to be. They want their notions of God and morality to be simple and right. It’s uncomfortable to think their way of life doesn’t work. So they deny it. They pretend everything’s good enough until it’s bad enough that they can’t deny any more.

And when things are that bad, they must minimize the extent to which it’s their fault. So they blame others and get mad. They feel any justification that blames others has some truth in it, because they feel better about themselves. Their emotions are paramount. They love Trump because he validates their emotions, making them right, making them feel good.

We’re all simple people

We’re all like this. There are hundreds, many even thousands of different “ways” that people are. Each “way” is a spectrum, a continuum. Needing to be right is at one end of one. Feeling horrible about being wrong is on another one. Having stronger emotional thinking and weaker logical thinking is another continuum.

All of us were two and three-year olds once, with a very simple view of life. Those ways of thinking and feeling are still inside us. Some people just didn’t move very far away from them. Many are now fully adult in many ways, but not too adult in one or more of these ways, needing a simple life, feeling severe discomfort when they’re wrong, and believing their emotions.

We’re all somewhere on these spectrums. And while we may invent rules about what’s allowable and punish people who transgress, it’s not their fault that they’re built like they’re built. It’s not their fault that they have strengths and weaknesses.

In the Trump rally in Chicago, a man punched a protestor (about 4 minutes into it, with 4:20 left). He was certainly violent, and he’s been charged with assault. Keep in mind that all of the other thousands of protestors refrained.

We’re emotional beings

We all gravitate to the ideas that make us feel best. We all have things that we get emotional about. And we’re primates- our anger can turn to violence.

Should Trump have the right to meet with his supporters without protesters interrupting? Should Trump be allowed to validate their feelings of indignation and self-righteousness? Should he be able to remind them that a few decades ago, punching someone for misbehaving was acceptable? Should protesters have the right to disrupt a rally with impunity? These are all valid points of view.

Do you get mad at Trump? Do you get mad at his supporters? Would you like to see them pay for their ruffian behavior? Then you understand how they feel.

Clearly different people have their own idea of what’s right and what’s wrong. Given that, how can we all work together?

I’ll give you a hint. Add your email address to our announcement list.