SPOILER ALERT: No, I truly don't think so. But that shouldn't make you feel any better.
I'll get more to the president in a moment. But first, let's lay a few things out there.
First, there's a big difference between the political spectrum of ideologies and actual legitimate political parties. Let's have the sophistication to separate the two. Not all ultra-conservative (reactionary) ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Republican Party, just as not all ultra left-wing ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Democrat party. Sovereign Citizens, anarchists, eco-terrorists, Marxists, and other fringe ideologies do not have a foothold in either party. Just because someone is classified as "far left" or "far right" in ideology doesn't merit legitimate actors and parties being pasted and smeared with their acts or words (Anybody who does is lying to and manipulating you and should not be trusted.)
Extremists on either end of the political spectrum are fundamentalists, with binary values (I'm right, and everyone else is wrong), and prone to violent expression (whether physical or just in rhetoric). The "conventional" political spectrum, in which the Republican and Democrat parties operate are, in effect, the moderate middle (I know that's hard to believe). Because, no matter how much we disagree, we all believe that participation in the processes and institutions of our Constitutional Democracy is the way to effect change.
Second, you either operate within the political apparatus (parties, PACs, votes) or outside of it. There are people who have extreme ideologies who operate inside the apparatus, and those people tarnish anybody or any organization that suffers them. David Duke espouses ideologies (white supremacy) that are FAR outside any party platform, but is tolerated within Republican circles. That brings into legitimate question how tolerant the Republican Party is of such attitudes. Conversely, there are moderate groups with mainstream ideology and sentiments that are not directly involved in party politics. Non-profits, advocacy groups, churches: these are all examples of institutions that share certain ideologies but don't operate primarily in the political machine.
Recapping: You can be an extremist insider or a moderate outsider or any combination of them. It's important to understand where players are on the spectrum.
Third, let's be clear about the difference between violent political ideologies and incidents of opportunistic violence. A march by the non-violent and social justice #BlackLivesMatter movement that is co-opted by hooligans and thugs is not the equivalent of anarchists or white supremacists harming people and property as a vehicle for their ideology.
Thanks for your patience. Now to the matter at hand.
I do not believe the president is a racist. That's no vindication; I actually believe that his inability to empathize with other human beings makes racism basically irrelevant to understanding him. But he's the president, and he's accountable for the environment and people around him. And that's where we get to the root of the current situation. I said before that fringe groups are basically binary; so is the president (albeit for different reasons). And therein lie the inescapable parallels and attraction between the two.
The president has inarguably surrounded himself with racists and advocates of racist (and generally hostile toward all marginalized groups) policies. Bannon, Miller, Gorka, and Sessions have clear records and agendas. No sugar coating it: they're straight-up racists. There haven't been so many race-hostile people in the executive branch in decades, and that makes a clear statement. He can't possibly distance himself from racism philosophically when he can't distance himself physically.
And then there's the president's policy agenda, starting, most significantly with his absolute determination to erase everything about this nation's first black president. There is nothing that white nationalists want more than to eradicate Barack Obama's legacy from the annals of American history. It's easily thrown off as pettiness (and to him it probably is), but make no mistake, this is a bright neon sign to those fringe so-called "alt-right" elements. His "victims of Obamacare" charade is like a guestbook of aggrieved whiteness.
Simultaneously, in his "win or lose" brain, the president has bought in to key elements of the white nationalist "America under attack" mantra. That is, immigrants from Central and South America, and Middle Eastern Muslims. And he has laid down aggressive policy agendas to "fight back" against these false threats. Again, he's gone so far as to create "victims lists" and "undesirable" lists and published them. These policies are precisely the sort of "victories" that politically-minded fringes are looking for.
So, if he's not a racist (according to me, anyway) why won't he denounce, by name, the white supremacists who support him?
Those who have examined the president most closely describe him has having an insatiable need to be adored. That's why he loves the rallies so much. It's why he also constantly speaks in superlatives. That hole will never be filled, no matter how much money he makes, how many buildings bear his name, or how many votes he gets. It will never be enough. Many have posited that the president might be a "useful idiot" to Putin. That has yet to be proven. But, undoubtedly, he is being used as a vehicle for white nationalist/supremacist ideologues, in return for their adoration.
The president is binary, win/lose. And right now, he's losing. His popularity is historically, stunningly low. Who's sticking with him, though? The nationalists. He can't let go; that would be admitting defeat. He's trapped, both by his own psychosis and the team he put around him. But those nationalists are also operating freely and openly through the edges (but definitely inside) of the Republican political apparatus (see Iowa Congressman, Steve King, for example). They've been quietly, distastefully tolerated, because they bring votes and money. They have a seat at the table, even though nobody will admit they invited them. And that's the ugly elephant in the room for Republicans (no pun intended).
Bottom Line:
There is no place for hate or violence in America in 2017. The First Amendment gives you the right to spew this garbage, fine. I served to defend that right. But let's not kid ourselves. It doesn't belong here. And nobody who espouses hate or violence, for any reason in any form, should have a welcome seat in any mainstream political group.
Any reasonable, semi-informed person (let alone seasoned political operative) should be able to distinguish between extremist and mainstream ideology. Likewise everyone should be able to distinguish between politically-motivated violence and opportunistic rage. And if you can recognize it, you can tell the difference between righteous condemnation and ridiculous smear tactics.
It should be easy, therefore, to reject and condemn extremism and violence, no matter what your party affiliation or ideology. Nobody should think for a moment that rejecting white supremacists should have any political implication. But when the rats are in your midst, it gets a lot harder to deal with the traps.
Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Sunday, August 6, 2017
ICYMI: Sliding Toward Authoritarianism
I try to be a measured observer. Even when I agree with people, philosophically, I tend to veer away from alarmist rhetoric. The sky, most of the time, isn't actually falling.
But I find myself genuinely and unshakably alarmed. Amidst the salacious and shiny personal scandals that seem to arise almost daily, a number of stories have continued to trickle out that, frankly, make my spider senses tingle. You probably lost them in all the noise.
There's an ongoing debate about whether our president is an Authoritarian. People often point to his tendency to praise foreign dictators. Is it his personality (or its deficiencies), his governing philosophy, or perhaps his core beliefs? Some combination of the three? In my judgement, it doesn't matter all that much what's driving it; it's the outcomes that matter. And those outcomes, increasingly and in accumulation, point to an alarming trend of, brick by brick, the construction of an authoritarian state.
As always, I leave it to you, the reader, to form your own assessment. Here's what I see.
The consolidation of power to a concentrated few (with leverage)
The failure of the Trump administration to appoint dozens of sub-cabinet leadership positions has been the subject of much reporting (so I won't link). Above that, they have dismissed career officials (dubbed the deep state) across the executive branch without replacing them. Those he has appointed, to a one, have deep conflicts of interest with the programs over which they preside. Many have significant allegations of corrupt action in their past, often in direct relation with those programs. This makes these select few especially beholden to their chief executive.
A concentrated effort to obscure
From removing website content, to gag orders on federal employees, to withholding visitor logs, to omitting contacts with foreign officials and their representatives, to blatantly, repeatedly, and intentionally lying to the public, this administration has clearly articulated its position that it is not answerable to the American people. Its obsession with so-called "leaks" belies its belief that secrecy FROM the constituents it represents is a top priority.
The establishment of a propaganda arm
When the former Communications Director, Boris Epshteyn, joined a largely-unknown Sinclair Media, it was a "shrug moment." Since then, however, Sinclair, it's broadcast affiliates, and it's digital arm, Circa, have steadily pumped out a pure, synchronized Trumpian narrative. It's basically the Sputnik/Pravda/RT for the Trump White House. All the while, they hammer away at the "fake news media," despite the fact that, over and over again, their reporting holds up under pressure. It is one thing to disagree on the interpretation of common facts. It is quite another to reject objective reality and substitute it with a political fiction.
An attempt to co-opt law enforcement
In a recent interview with the New York Times, the president admitted he believes the FBI director should report directly to him. Imagine the resources of a nationwide internal security force placed at the direct whim of a man who has a long-documented pattern of settling scores with his "enemies." The demand for the dramatic expansion of DHS agents under Customs and Border Patrol, as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), already feels like the beginnings of a police state. It should be noted that, in authoritarian regimes across the world, internal security and secret police forces are the most feared, responsible for hunting down and jailing political opponents and dissidents.
The abridgment of due process
In the name of action toward illegal immigrants, this administration has set up so-called "rapid reaction forces" and "streamlined procedures" for ICE. These terms are shorthand for circumventing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In this country, EVERYONE operates under the presumption of innocence and is entitled to all aspects of due process. These "streamlined" actions, however, instead presume guilt and strip people of their rights to representation and trial. The Muslim Ban on travel and immigration also presumed guilt of those already lawfully admitted to the country and deprived them of due process (as pointed out by the federal courts).
Defining an "undesirable class" (or several)
Through rhetoric and policy, this administration has plainly set its sights on a number of non-white groups. By intertwining undocumented immigrants (and sometimes not even bothering with the 'undocumented' distinction) with rapists, murderers, and gang members, the President is openly asking white Americans to look with suspicion at anyone with brown skin. By conflating the TINY number of jihadi mujaheddin with the remainder of a BILLION muslims across the world, the president has encouraged white Americans to fear anybody with a beard or head scarf. He WANTS you to be suspicious and afraid of these "undesirables" and to beg him to help save you from their unsavory appetites. Every dictator needs a clearly defined enemy. Add to that the series of decisions that strip equal status and protection for LGBTQ Americans.
Attacking the Democratic Process Itself
The president's claim of three to five million illegal and fraudulent votes post-election seemed like a laughable ego trip. But the establishment of a Presidential Commission has upped the ante significantly. Staffing it with conspiracy-promoting fringe types and granting it data-gathering power over the entire electorate is a breathtaking move. If you operate from the presumption that there are a large number of people on the roles who don't deserve to be and put the force of the DOJ behind it, you can reshape the electorate in any way you like and make Putin-like proclamations about the "real" level of support of opposition to any candidate or official. You can also proactively focus your money, agenda, and narrative against anyone who emerges that appears to threaten your regime.
And, finally, an attempt to circumvent the constitutional military order through the establishment of a private mercenary army.
In the turmoil of the daily circus that has become the news cycle, an incredible story emerged and was quickly lost in the froth. In July, Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist to the president, took a proposal to the Secretary of Defense suggesting that a private army made up of mercenaries from around the world should be established to carry out military action in Afghanistan. The fact that this proposal was rejected by Secretary Mattis is hardly comforting. It is unlikely in the extreme that Bannon would have made this step without consulting (and getting at least tacit approval from) the president. A private corporate army, unconstrained by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and presumably outside the control of the military establishment, should chill the blood of every single American man and woman. The only other paramilitary forces that operate this way: ISIS and Al Qaeda.
It's possible, even likely, that you'll read this and go "Mike, you're just overreacting. Cut back on the caffeine." It's possible. I hope you're right. But what if you're not? Is it worth the cost to wait and see? Or is it time to put specific, focused, and unending pressure on Congress to see this for what it is and do everything in their power to curtail it?
But I find myself genuinely and unshakably alarmed. Amidst the salacious and shiny personal scandals that seem to arise almost daily, a number of stories have continued to trickle out that, frankly, make my spider senses tingle. You probably lost them in all the noise.
There's an ongoing debate about whether our president is an Authoritarian. People often point to his tendency to praise foreign dictators. Is it his personality (or its deficiencies), his governing philosophy, or perhaps his core beliefs? Some combination of the three? In my judgement, it doesn't matter all that much what's driving it; it's the outcomes that matter. And those outcomes, increasingly and in accumulation, point to an alarming trend of, brick by brick, the construction of an authoritarian state.
As always, I leave it to you, the reader, to form your own assessment. Here's what I see.
The consolidation of power to a concentrated few (with leverage)
The failure of the Trump administration to appoint dozens of sub-cabinet leadership positions has been the subject of much reporting (so I won't link). Above that, they have dismissed career officials (dubbed the deep state) across the executive branch without replacing them. Those he has appointed, to a one, have deep conflicts of interest with the programs over which they preside. Many have significant allegations of corrupt action in their past, often in direct relation with those programs. This makes these select few especially beholden to their chief executive.
A concentrated effort to obscure
From removing website content, to gag orders on federal employees, to withholding visitor logs, to omitting contacts with foreign officials and their representatives, to blatantly, repeatedly, and intentionally lying to the public, this administration has clearly articulated its position that it is not answerable to the American people. Its obsession with so-called "leaks" belies its belief that secrecy FROM the constituents it represents is a top priority.
The establishment of a propaganda arm
When the former Communications Director, Boris Epshteyn, joined a largely-unknown Sinclair Media, it was a "shrug moment." Since then, however, Sinclair, it's broadcast affiliates, and it's digital arm, Circa, have steadily pumped out a pure, synchronized Trumpian narrative. It's basically the Sputnik/Pravda/RT for the Trump White House. All the while, they hammer away at the "fake news media," despite the fact that, over and over again, their reporting holds up under pressure. It is one thing to disagree on the interpretation of common facts. It is quite another to reject objective reality and substitute it with a political fiction.
An attempt to co-opt law enforcement
In a recent interview with the New York Times, the president admitted he believes the FBI director should report directly to him. Imagine the resources of a nationwide internal security force placed at the direct whim of a man who has a long-documented pattern of settling scores with his "enemies." The demand for the dramatic expansion of DHS agents under Customs and Border Patrol, as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), already feels like the beginnings of a police state. It should be noted that, in authoritarian regimes across the world, internal security and secret police forces are the most feared, responsible for hunting down and jailing political opponents and dissidents.
The abridgment of due process
In the name of action toward illegal immigrants, this administration has set up so-called "rapid reaction forces" and "streamlined procedures" for ICE. These terms are shorthand for circumventing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In this country, EVERYONE operates under the presumption of innocence and is entitled to all aspects of due process. These "streamlined" actions, however, instead presume guilt and strip people of their rights to representation and trial. The Muslim Ban on travel and immigration also presumed guilt of those already lawfully admitted to the country and deprived them of due process (as pointed out by the federal courts).
Defining an "undesirable class" (or several)
Through rhetoric and policy, this administration has plainly set its sights on a number of non-white groups. By intertwining undocumented immigrants (and sometimes not even bothering with the 'undocumented' distinction) with rapists, murderers, and gang members, the President is openly asking white Americans to look with suspicion at anyone with brown skin. By conflating the TINY number of jihadi mujaheddin with the remainder of a BILLION muslims across the world, the president has encouraged white Americans to fear anybody with a beard or head scarf. He WANTS you to be suspicious and afraid of these "undesirables" and to beg him to help save you from their unsavory appetites. Every dictator needs a clearly defined enemy. Add to that the series of decisions that strip equal status and protection for LGBTQ Americans.
Attacking the Democratic Process Itself
The president's claim of three to five million illegal and fraudulent votes post-election seemed like a laughable ego trip. But the establishment of a Presidential Commission has upped the ante significantly. Staffing it with conspiracy-promoting fringe types and granting it data-gathering power over the entire electorate is a breathtaking move. If you operate from the presumption that there are a large number of people on the roles who don't deserve to be and put the force of the DOJ behind it, you can reshape the electorate in any way you like and make Putin-like proclamations about the "real" level of support of opposition to any candidate or official. You can also proactively focus your money, agenda, and narrative against anyone who emerges that appears to threaten your regime.
And, finally, an attempt to circumvent the constitutional military order through the establishment of a private mercenary army.
In the turmoil of the daily circus that has become the news cycle, an incredible story emerged and was quickly lost in the froth. In July, Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist to the president, took a proposal to the Secretary of Defense suggesting that a private army made up of mercenaries from around the world should be established to carry out military action in Afghanistan. The fact that this proposal was rejected by Secretary Mattis is hardly comforting. It is unlikely in the extreme that Bannon would have made this step without consulting (and getting at least tacit approval from) the president. A private corporate army, unconstrained by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and presumably outside the control of the military establishment, should chill the blood of every single American man and woman. The only other paramilitary forces that operate this way: ISIS and Al Qaeda.
It's possible, even likely, that you'll read this and go "Mike, you're just overreacting. Cut back on the caffeine." It's possible. I hope you're right. But what if you're not? Is it worth the cost to wait and see? Or is it time to put specific, focused, and unending pressure on Congress to see this for what it is and do everything in their power to curtail it?
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Top Down: Why Democrats Aren't Winning
In the aftermath of the latest of this year's string of special elections, the Monday-morning-quarterbacking is, predictably, rolling off every opinionator's tongue. And it's all over the place.
Why are Democrat candidates losing? Is it money? Is it energy? Are they too liberal? Too "not-liberal"? Is it Nancy Pelosi?
In this writer's opinion: None of the Above.
Before I offer my position, let me start with a few questions.
Why are Democrat candidates losing? Is it money? Is it energy? Are they too liberal? Too "not-liberal"? Is it Nancy Pelosi?
In this writer's opinion: None of the Above.
Before I offer my position, let me start with a few questions.
- What legislative district do you live in?
- What is a Precinct Committeeperson?
- Name one person in your legislative district's party leadership
- When was the last time you had a discussion with someone from the party in your neighborhood?
If you don't know the answers to any of these questions, then (1) you're in good company, and (2) you are a test case to help me explain exactly why we keep losing. That is: the party foundation is the local legislative district. And, based on what I've seen and heard, that foundation is pretty shaky.
Every state legislator comes from a legislative district. The electoral map of the entire country is built on these blocks. Each legislative district is made up of precincts. And for every 100 Democrat registered voters in a precinct, the district is assigned one Precinct Committee (PC) slot. Together, these PC slots are filled (theoretically) with engaged people who are charged with connecting with their neighbors. They know people directly and personally. They provide the critical communication link between the people, the LD, and therefore the county, state, and national party. Pretty important, right? Right!!
I mean, think about it. Think about all the questions and theories the pundits are offering. Why didn't this district turn out? Why didn't candidate X resonate? Want the answer? Ask a PC!
Too many of those PC slots are sitting vacant. People don't know about them. People don't understand them. People think the Party starts in Washington DC and magically trickles down. It doesn't. That's not how it works at all. It's built from the bottom up. Without the foundation, the house won't stand.
If you don't know the answers to the questions above, odds are your LD is not running as well as it could. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Look up your legislative district (you can google it) and find out how to reach them. The more you know, the more you realize that all politics truly is local.
Friday, June 2, 2017
Is it okay to make fun of Donald Trump?
This week, comedian Kathy Griffin raised a huge uproar with a photo prank that fell more than flat on its face. And it got me to thinking: where's the line? What's the right approach in this climate?
Without a doubt, political speech is the most broadly protected form of expression in America. And satire has a unique way of making points that straight-laced commentary can struggle to achieve. So, yes, it's "okay" to make fun of this or any president.
But is it effective?
Truthfully, this is a larger question than satire or comedy or even snark. Since election day, the country has been ratcheted up like everyone has been crushing Monster drinks and caffeine pills. Town halls are raucous and borderline hostile. I'm as frustrated as anybody, and this is our right. But, at the end of the day, messages are meant to be received. And from where I'm sitting, nobody's listening. In fact, social media blocking of angry constituents is just the latest wave in a concerted effort to ignore those demanding answers.
Is it time to change tactics?
If we are simply looking for catharsis, then nothing feels better than a good, full-blown, fist-shaking vent. Doubly good if it's laced with some pithy sarcasm. But if we are looking to be taken seriously and to effect serious change, perhaps it's time to set a different tone.
Conservative media and cynical Republican officials are looking for ANY excuse to discount what we have to say. And they will take any incident, no matter how isolated, and paint us all with that same brush. As resisters, we have an obligation to represent each other and the movement in a positive light. Because only by holding the highest standards as individuals will we be able to lift up the rest of the movement and add our credibility to theirs.
We have serious issues to address. Social justice, battling corruption, protecting and supporting minorities and marginalized groups, a healthy and educated population for the future. These issues demand serious people, smart on the facts, making an unassailable case. These issues demand a resistance movement that cannot be ignored. As Thomas Jefferson said about the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, "to put the matter before the world, in terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent."
Keep resisting, my friends; command their assent!
Without a doubt, political speech is the most broadly protected form of expression in America. And satire has a unique way of making points that straight-laced commentary can struggle to achieve. So, yes, it's "okay" to make fun of this or any president.
But is it effective?
Truthfully, this is a larger question than satire or comedy or even snark. Since election day, the country has been ratcheted up like everyone has been crushing Monster drinks and caffeine pills. Town halls are raucous and borderline hostile. I'm as frustrated as anybody, and this is our right. But, at the end of the day, messages are meant to be received. And from where I'm sitting, nobody's listening. In fact, social media blocking of angry constituents is just the latest wave in a concerted effort to ignore those demanding answers.
Is it time to change tactics?
If we are simply looking for catharsis, then nothing feels better than a good, full-blown, fist-shaking vent. Doubly good if it's laced with some pithy sarcasm. But if we are looking to be taken seriously and to effect serious change, perhaps it's time to set a different tone.
Conservative media and cynical Republican officials are looking for ANY excuse to discount what we have to say. And they will take any incident, no matter how isolated, and paint us all with that same brush. As resisters, we have an obligation to represent each other and the movement in a positive light. Because only by holding the highest standards as individuals will we be able to lift up the rest of the movement and add our credibility to theirs.
We have serious issues to address. Social justice, battling corruption, protecting and supporting minorities and marginalized groups, a healthy and educated population for the future. These issues demand serious people, smart on the facts, making an unassailable case. These issues demand a resistance movement that cannot be ignored. As Thomas Jefferson said about the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, "to put the matter before the world, in terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent."
Keep resisting, my friends; command their assent!
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
The "Big Checkout" - How We Justify Disengagement
In modern American discourse, the word "Big" has become a pejorative. "Big Pharma" "Big Banks" "Big Business" "Big Media" and let's not forget "Big Government". America is the most affluent and powerful nation in human history; but is the down-side that everything is so bigly big that individuals feel hopelessly powerless? And, if so, what do we do about it?
These big institutions are the culminations of decades of success, built brick by brick and year after year, on the principle that growth is always good and more is always better. Bigness have given us more choice and more availability of practically anything we could want or need at any time, day or night. And that's a good thing. But...
"Bigness" creates a unique dynamic between the "big thing" and those under its influence, and it can be most easily observed in the world of cable TV providers. Nobody really likes them. Nobody's very satisfied with their costs, options, or service level. Yet most of us remain customers, because there really is no comparable option or alternative. Customers are trapped. So, even though the cable companies continue to have huge customer bases (and profits), the relationship is not a cheerful one. As a result, customers just hold their nose and disengage, always watching for some alternative.
Examples of this are literally everywhere around us. In retail, the airlines, in media, and - yes - in politics. And this ever-present passive-aggressive semi-surrender mindset of the average person in daily interactions, that are are needed but wholly unsatisfactory, is something that has polluted our attitudes toward political engagement in an extremely damaging way.
I view it as a cycle. It's hard to figure out exactly where it starts, because it feeds on itself.
These big institutions are the culminations of decades of success, built brick by brick and year after year, on the principle that growth is always good and more is always better. Bigness have given us more choice and more availability of practically anything we could want or need at any time, day or night. And that's a good thing. But...
"Bigness" creates a unique dynamic between the "big thing" and those under its influence, and it can be most easily observed in the world of cable TV providers. Nobody really likes them. Nobody's very satisfied with their costs, options, or service level. Yet most of us remain customers, because there really is no comparable option or alternative. Customers are trapped. So, even though the cable companies continue to have huge customer bases (and profits), the relationship is not a cheerful one. As a result, customers just hold their nose and disengage, always watching for some alternative.
Examples of this are literally everywhere around us. In retail, the airlines, in media, and - yes - in politics. And this ever-present passive-aggressive semi-surrender mindset of the average person in daily interactions, that are are needed but wholly unsatisfactory, is something that has polluted our attitudes toward political engagement in an extremely damaging way.
I view it as a cycle. It's hard to figure out exactly where it starts, because it feeds on itself.
- Politicians lie
- People are cynical about politicians
- People disregard what they are saying and doing
- Politicians get to do things without the voters paying attention
- Companies and interests get to influence politics without accountability
- Things get worse for individuals, better for the interests
- We don't have context to understand anymore, so we have to rely on the politicians to explain it
- Politicians need to get re-elected
- Repeat...
It's this cycle of dissatisfaction and codependency that repeats until we find ourselves completely detached from the process we actually own. And just like the cable company, we hold our noses and disengage, always watching for some alternative. We rant about it, but don't take any accountability. We forget that governing doesn't just happen in an election year. We've reduced our role in the democratic process to a single act on a single day. And when we DO engage, we are either low information voters or we're just too disgusted to vote at all.
There are only two ways to deal with an unspeakable mess: you can light it on fire and walk away (tempting), or put on a mask and grab a shovel (unpleasant and exhausting). I get why a lot of people, frustrated by the unspeakable mess of "big government," would rather choose the first option. In fact, I think that really describes what this last election was about for many. But, while it may have felt gratifying, it doesn't fix anything. We've got to grab our shovels. We've got to wade into the mess we helped create and clean it up. And we've got to stick with it to keep it clean. We can't merely leave it for once every four years.
If you want to take on the "Bigs" of this world, you've got to start small. Ask questions, talk to local officials, attend a city council meeting or a school board meeting, attend a party meeting in your local district. Find out what the reality is on the ground right around you. Then get your shovel. If you're already engaged, then it's your job to show people that small things and small steps make a difference. There are a lot more of us than there are of them.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
How do we take big money out of politics? You just did.
The defeat of the American Healthcare Act (aka TrumpCare, RyanCare, or TRyanCare) was a win for people who don't want to see tens of thousands of people left out of a basic need of all citizens. But it was more than that; it was the culmination of three months of concentrated grass roots engagement and activism by voters who, like me, just showed up. And that's the bigger lesson in all of this.
Campaign finance is a mess. Corporate and fringe political interests have held sway for far too long. But in 2017, people have proved that no amount of money can outweigh genuine engagement on the part of the electorate.
Our message was clear. Our efforts were focused. Our determination was palpable. It changed things. And it didn't cost a dime.
The conversation around politics has changed since election day. The ubiquitous "they" is no more. We are talking about policy in the first person. "How will this affect us?" "Do we need this?" "What can I do?" There is no greater power in the American model than an informed and energized voting public.
This is just the first step. A victory feels good. But now the veil has been pulled back. We see the bad actors, the gross incompetence, and the real interests that are driving our legislatures and national government into the ground. There's a lot more work to do. So, take a moment, look around, and savor the victory. Then roll up your sleeves. We've got more to do. And we can't be bought.
Campaign finance is a mess. Corporate and fringe political interests have held sway for far too long. But in 2017, people have proved that no amount of money can outweigh genuine engagement on the part of the electorate.
Our message was clear. Our efforts were focused. Our determination was palpable. It changed things. And it didn't cost a dime.
The conversation around politics has changed since election day. The ubiquitous "they" is no more. We are talking about policy in the first person. "How will this affect us?" "Do we need this?" "What can I do?" There is no greater power in the American model than an informed and energized voting public.
This is just the first step. A victory feels good. But now the veil has been pulled back. We see the bad actors, the gross incompetence, and the real interests that are driving our legislatures and national government into the ground. There's a lot more work to do. So, take a moment, look around, and savor the victory. Then roll up your sleeves. We've got more to do. And we can't be bought.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Finding the Zebra Among the Stripes
The poor zebra is the perfect metaphor for where we are in America today. One side looks at it and says "it's black with white stripes" while the other says, "No! It's white with black stripes!" Both are arguably true and neither one can be objectively disproven. We are diametrically opposed! There's just no middle ground.
The part neither side seems to want to admit is that they are BOTH looking at the same zebra!
And that's how it goes. Whether it's an argument about civil rights, justice, school choice, healthcare, marriage equality, or women's reproductive rights, we are fixated on the stripes. Nobody wants to talk about the zebra.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are not a Red country with some Blue people. Nor are we a Blue country with some Red people. We are Americans, lumped together in this messy, chaotic grand experiment of liberty first envisioned almost a quarter millennium ago. But we have been sold a lie. Or, rather, two of them. The red and blue stripes are an illusion. They've been crafted by micro-targeting, big-data, big-money interests who only want their fringe version of America to ascend. DON"T. LET. THEM! It's time to recognize the zebra for what it is and stop arguing on behalf of people that just want to keep you in line.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Can Liberals Become the Voice of Reason?
People are fired up. Since the day after the inauguration, people have taken to the streets and social media, creating a wave of civil dissidence across the nation. Now that we are into Town Hall season, the evening news is filled with clips of chippy constituents pointing fingers and booing their elected officials. In Arizona, they are actually working right now to pass legislation to prosecute "rioters" under the RICO act, basically equating protest to organized crime.
While I get the frustration (and share it), are we in danger of this wave of energy backfiring in our faces? I don't pretend to have the answers. But I do know one thing: the decline of civil discourse didn't begin in 2016. In fact, we've all been watching it first-hand for several years now.
During George W. Bush's administration, there were protests about his electoral win and then sustained protests against the invasion of Iraq. When the Tea Party movement began in 2009, there were several allegations of racist and homophobic themes, remarks, and verbal assaults at a number of their events. Occupy Wall Street, in 2011 and 2012, though successfully peaceful, created enough concern that the Department of Homeland Security issued memos about the potential for violence. Black Lives Matter, beginning in 2014, have inspired protests across the nation in response to police violence against African Americans. Several of those have been co-opted and corrupted by elements that just wanted to rage. Whatever you think about any of these movements, their objectives, or their tactics, it's important to note the larger pattern: we've been in a recurring cycle of social unrest across the political spectrum for the last seventeen years. It has become the norm and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.
Closer to home, I've been actively engaged in utility policy matters for the last several years. Now you can't imagine anything less exciting than utility rate design, trust me. But in town halls across the city (I personally attended at least six of those), the same lack of civility dominated the events. People felt perfectly within their rights to shout, point, defame, and just generally spout verifiably untrue things because it made them feel good. It was universal. And it was embarrassing. Is this who we are now?
The political divide is sharper and nastier now, as our current President has taken the rhetoric to new lows. And, this time, we don't have a Dr King or Mahatma Gandhi to galvanize a morally-based civil disobedience movement. But we still have their lessons. The question is, are we up to it? Can we elevate ourselves, not to simply be the loyal opposition, but the dignified opposition? In today's climate, would that even work?
I'm an idealist. I never stop striving to put things in their best possible state. But I'm not an optimist. It has been my experience that ignorance and incompetence are far more common qualities than reason and excellence. Which will win, I wonder?
While I get the frustration (and share it), are we in danger of this wave of energy backfiring in our faces? I don't pretend to have the answers. But I do know one thing: the decline of civil discourse didn't begin in 2016. In fact, we've all been watching it first-hand for several years now.
During George W. Bush's administration, there were protests about his electoral win and then sustained protests against the invasion of Iraq. When the Tea Party movement began in 2009, there were several allegations of racist and homophobic themes, remarks, and verbal assaults at a number of their events. Occupy Wall Street, in 2011 and 2012, though successfully peaceful, created enough concern that the Department of Homeland Security issued memos about the potential for violence. Black Lives Matter, beginning in 2014, have inspired protests across the nation in response to police violence against African Americans. Several of those have been co-opted and corrupted by elements that just wanted to rage. Whatever you think about any of these movements, their objectives, or their tactics, it's important to note the larger pattern: we've been in a recurring cycle of social unrest across the political spectrum for the last seventeen years. It has become the norm and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.
Closer to home, I've been actively engaged in utility policy matters for the last several years. Now you can't imagine anything less exciting than utility rate design, trust me. But in town halls across the city (I personally attended at least six of those), the same lack of civility dominated the events. People felt perfectly within their rights to shout, point, defame, and just generally spout verifiably untrue things because it made them feel good. It was universal. And it was embarrassing. Is this who we are now?
The political divide is sharper and nastier now, as our current President has taken the rhetoric to new lows. And, this time, we don't have a Dr King or Mahatma Gandhi to galvanize a morally-based civil disobedience movement. But we still have their lessons. The question is, are we up to it? Can we elevate ourselves, not to simply be the loyal opposition, but the dignified opposition? In today's climate, would that even work?
I'm an idealist. I never stop striving to put things in their best possible state. But I'm not an optimist. It has been my experience that ignorance and incompetence are far more common qualities than reason and excellence. Which will win, I wonder?
Monday, February 20, 2017
Taking Back the Kitchen Table
By now, you've heard me assert in more than one way that old saw, "all politics is local." And in previous articles, I've discussed how the Democrat Party has abandoned local politics for the national stage. That's caused us to lose sight of the reality on the ground.
Conservative media paints a much darker picture than reality, deftly coupling financial concerns with fear-baiting tactics aimed at immigrants and terrorism, and that's energized their base in some ways that don't necessarily fit the facts. But it ain't all rosy either.
In a nutshell: liberals need to get back to the kitchen table, the heart of American life. It's ground zero for financial issues, healthcare issues, education issues, and the all-around quality of life that families are dealing with. It's where things get discussed and decided. And it looks nothing at all like the DCCC's national platform. Let's look at the lay of the land.
46% of Americans say that a $500 hit to their monthly budget would be financially disastrous. Over 70% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank. The average American has over $130k in debt, $16,000 of it in credit cards and $28,000 in a vehicle loan. They are upside-down on their cars and homes, and perpetuating it through refinancing and extended-term loans that keep them there. (Ask me later about the damage that decades of unrestrained lifestyle marketing has done to our society.)
Meanwhile, the average American between 55-64 years old has just $100k in retirement savings (about a third have NO retirement account at all). In a post-pension economy, people haven't adapted their spending and savings practices to prepare for retirement. As a result, people have to just keep on working longer and longer. Besides being a personal strain, that stagnates the job market, too.
Two thirds of Americans are clinically overweight, the precursor for a host of long-term medical conditions and a major factor toward productivity in the workplace. A third are clinically obese and are in immediate jeopardy of significant medical issues. Almost two thirds of adults are on some kind of prescription medication. Two-income families have become the norm just to stay afloat. People are tired, stressed, and feeling increasingly helpless in managing their own destinies.
If you want to be relevant in the political spectrum, you have to recognize this. You have to get back to the kitchen table. That's what our 45th President did. For whatever else you may think, he got this one right. The Republican Party OWNS the kitchen table. The big money Super PACs and think tanks don't actually care about these folks; they are simply tapping into their circumstances to further a larger pro-corporate agenda. And that's the awful irony of the whole thing.
The good news is, we are all experts! We don't need focus groups or polls. This is OUR reality. The bad news is, the Party is completely focused on Washington. We are going to drag them along with us or, potentially, leave them behind.
This is also where outreach begins. Before you ask for a vote or to post a sign or support a rally, or - heaven forbid - ask for money, offer a hand. Find out the core issues in your community and start looking at how to tackle them together. If you believe in the core liberal values of Equal Opportunity, Equal Dignity, and Equal Justice, as I do, then this is where our attention is needed most.
Conservative media paints a much darker picture than reality, deftly coupling financial concerns with fear-baiting tactics aimed at immigrants and terrorism, and that's energized their base in some ways that don't necessarily fit the facts. But it ain't all rosy either.
In a nutshell: liberals need to get back to the kitchen table, the heart of American life. It's ground zero for financial issues, healthcare issues, education issues, and the all-around quality of life that families are dealing with. It's where things get discussed and decided. And it looks nothing at all like the DCCC's national platform. Let's look at the lay of the land.
46% of Americans say that a $500 hit to their monthly budget would be financially disastrous. Over 70% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank. The average American has over $130k in debt, $16,000 of it in credit cards and $28,000 in a vehicle loan. They are upside-down on their cars and homes, and perpetuating it through refinancing and extended-term loans that keep them there. (Ask me later about the damage that decades of unrestrained lifestyle marketing has done to our society.)
Meanwhile, the average American between 55-64 years old has just $100k in retirement savings (about a third have NO retirement account at all). In a post-pension economy, people haven't adapted their spending and savings practices to prepare for retirement. As a result, people have to just keep on working longer and longer. Besides being a personal strain, that stagnates the job market, too.
Two thirds of Americans are clinically overweight, the precursor for a host of long-term medical conditions and a major factor toward productivity in the workplace. A third are clinically obese and are in immediate jeopardy of significant medical issues. Almost two thirds of adults are on some kind of prescription medication. Two-income families have become the norm just to stay afloat. People are tired, stressed, and feeling increasingly helpless in managing their own destinies.
If you want to be relevant in the political spectrum, you have to recognize this. You have to get back to the kitchen table. That's what our 45th President did. For whatever else you may think, he got this one right. The Republican Party OWNS the kitchen table. The big money Super PACs and think tanks don't actually care about these folks; they are simply tapping into their circumstances to further a larger pro-corporate agenda. And that's the awful irony of the whole thing.
The good news is, we are all experts! We don't need focus groups or polls. This is OUR reality. The bad news is, the Party is completely focused on Washington. We are going to drag them along with us or, potentially, leave them behind.
This is also where outreach begins. Before you ask for a vote or to post a sign or support a rally, or - heaven forbid - ask for money, offer a hand. Find out the core issues in your community and start looking at how to tackle them together. If you believe in the core liberal values of Equal Opportunity, Equal Dignity, and Equal Justice, as I do, then this is where our attention is needed most.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
America's Most Pressing Infrastructure Problem
And, no, it ain't potholes.
As a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, I have the dubious honor of living in the only major metropolitan county in America that went for Donald Trump. That puts me in a unique position to explore the dynamics that led up to where we are today. And, from what I've seen so far, we have a major infrastructure problem.
During the campaign, I was surprised that our home didn't get a single call. There were no flyers, nobody offering lawn signs. Nothing. After the election, I tried to get in touch with my local Democratic Party folks. It was kind of like trying to spot a coyote. There were signs that they existed, but making contact was damn near impossible. We just. Had. An. Election! The party should have been at its peak.
When I did make contact, I was disappointed to learn that, in my district, ten of the twelve precinct committee seats were vacant. I attended a party meeting and found four regular attendees. (there were a LOT of first-timers, though). I was a little bit heartbroken to see it. According to the news, Clinton has this legendary machine and vaunted "ground game." And Arizona was considered "in play." Where the hell was everyone?
That was when I knew: things are not as they seem. What's more: it was all my fault.
Tip O'Niell famously said "all politics is local." It's been interpreted and applied many different ways, but here's how I take it: we are the party, and we aren't showing up for work. The National Democratic party hasn't been putting any money into local races. That's disappointing, but, honestly, who would they mail the check to?
The Democrat Party is rightly associated with the Civil Rights Movement and Women's Equal Rights. These became national issues, because certain regions of the country simply wouldn't get on board on their own. We needed the Federal Government to weigh in and draw the line. But those are extreme examples that have become the default solution. We are a federal republic. The more decisions are made locally, the more relevant they are to the people who have to live with (and pay for) them. And besides, how do you groom talent for national office if you don't have a so-called 'minor league' team to pull from?
It's not enough to vote. It's not enough to send a check. It's not even enough to protest. We have to roll up our sleeves, dig in, and participate. I challenge you to find your local legislative district TODAY and contact the party representatives. Not the elected officials, the worker bees! Find out when the next meeting is scheduled and GO. If what you see scares you, then it's your job to help fix it.
As a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, I have the dubious honor of living in the only major metropolitan county in America that went for Donald Trump. That puts me in a unique position to explore the dynamics that led up to where we are today. And, from what I've seen so far, we have a major infrastructure problem.
During the campaign, I was surprised that our home didn't get a single call. There were no flyers, nobody offering lawn signs. Nothing. After the election, I tried to get in touch with my local Democratic Party folks. It was kind of like trying to spot a coyote. There were signs that they existed, but making contact was damn near impossible. We just. Had. An. Election! The party should have been at its peak.
When I did make contact, I was disappointed to learn that, in my district, ten of the twelve precinct committee seats were vacant. I attended a party meeting and found four regular attendees. (there were a LOT of first-timers, though). I was a little bit heartbroken to see it. According to the news, Clinton has this legendary machine and vaunted "ground game." And Arizona was considered "in play." Where the hell was everyone?
That was when I knew: things are not as they seem. What's more: it was all my fault.
Federalism: The Liberal's New "Shovel-Ready Project"
Tip O'Niell famously said "all politics is local." It's been interpreted and applied many different ways, but here's how I take it: we are the party, and we aren't showing up for work. The National Democratic party hasn't been putting any money into local races. That's disappointing, but, honestly, who would they mail the check to?
The Democrat Party is rightly associated with the Civil Rights Movement and Women's Equal Rights. These became national issues, because certain regions of the country simply wouldn't get on board on their own. We needed the Federal Government to weigh in and draw the line. But those are extreme examples that have become the default solution. We are a federal republic. The more decisions are made locally, the more relevant they are to the people who have to live with (and pay for) them. And besides, how do you groom talent for national office if you don't have a so-called 'minor league' team to pull from?
It's not enough to vote. It's not enough to send a check. It's not even enough to protest. We have to roll up our sleeves, dig in, and participate. I challenge you to find your local legislative district TODAY and contact the party representatives. Not the elected officials, the worker bees! Find out when the next meeting is scheduled and GO. If what you see scares you, then it's your job to help fix it.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Why aren't Liberals more Patriotic?
Apparently, I'm a bit of an American contradiction. If you know me first as a veteran, then you're surprised to learn that I'm liberal, socially and politically. If you know me first as an activist, then you're surprised to learn I spent two decades in the military. Why is that?
If you listen to conservative outlets, you'd believe that they have a special hold on patriotic sentiment, support of the military, and our founding principles. They certainly think so. And they proudly lay out the flags and bunting, yellow ribbons, and blast Lee Greenwood to prove it is so.
While not presuming to speak for any of my military sisters and brothers, I will say that we're a pretty diverse group. Many are indeed highly conservative in their views, but just as many are liberals. And quite a few lean libertarian. Does serving in the military make one uniquely patriotic? Of course not. But the modern conversation of what "Patriotism" is can't seem to help but entangle the two.
It raises the question: what does American Patriotism mean today? Can you love your country and still acknowledge that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed? Can you be a patriot and disagree with the direction the national government is taking? Can you treasure the values upon which our nation is based while still acknowledging that we have fallen disastrously short of those aspirations time and again?
Yeah, I think so.
I think of the conservative brand of patriotism, as it is currently constructed and portrayed, as somewhat childlike. The word comes from the Greek "patris" which means "fatherland". And when you're young, you look up to your father as a pillar of virtue and excellence. You want to emulate him. You want to BE him. It's only as we get older that we learn (often to our disappointment) that nobody's perfect. Fathers come off the pedestal and down into the real world with the rest of us. Hopefully, that new insight gives us new respect and love for our fathers. This crap is HARD and they did their best, regardless of their imperfections. It's that quiet respect that grows and endures for the rest of our lives.
And this is the heart of liberal patriotism. I love my country. But I also know it is deeply flawed. And yet, I see in it the greatness, growth, improvement, and potential for so much more. We've failed time and time again. Yet, we have also gotten SO MUCH BETTER too. So my liberal patriotism has grown into that quiet, open-eyed respect. Bunting be damned.
If you listen to conservative outlets, you'd believe that they have a special hold on patriotic sentiment, support of the military, and our founding principles. They certainly think so. And they proudly lay out the flags and bunting, yellow ribbons, and blast Lee Greenwood to prove it is so.
While not presuming to speak for any of my military sisters and brothers, I will say that we're a pretty diverse group. Many are indeed highly conservative in their views, but just as many are liberals. And quite a few lean libertarian. Does serving in the military make one uniquely patriotic? Of course not. But the modern conversation of what "Patriotism" is can't seem to help but entangle the two.
It raises the question: what does American Patriotism mean today? Can you love your country and still acknowledge that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed? Can you be a patriot and disagree with the direction the national government is taking? Can you treasure the values upon which our nation is based while still acknowledging that we have fallen disastrously short of those aspirations time and again?
Yeah, I think so.
I think of the conservative brand of patriotism, as it is currently constructed and portrayed, as somewhat childlike. The word comes from the Greek "patris" which means "fatherland". And when you're young, you look up to your father as a pillar of virtue and excellence. You want to emulate him. You want to BE him. It's only as we get older that we learn (often to our disappointment) that nobody's perfect. Fathers come off the pedestal and down into the real world with the rest of us. Hopefully, that new insight gives us new respect and love for our fathers. This crap is HARD and they did their best, regardless of their imperfections. It's that quiet respect that grows and endures for the rest of our lives.
And this is the heart of liberal patriotism. I love my country. But I also know it is deeply flawed. And yet, I see in it the greatness, growth, improvement, and potential for so much more. We've failed time and time again. Yet, we have also gotten SO MUCH BETTER too. So my liberal patriotism has grown into that quiet, open-eyed respect. Bunting be damned.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
On the Eve of this Inauguration
I originally wrote this as an off-the-cuff post on Facebook, trying to express the range of conflicting emotions I'm struggling with. The response was much stronger than I thought. I guess it resonated. Hopefully this is helpful to you as we all look to this most strange January 20th.
Let me see if I can explain how I feel about things right now...
Donald Trump will be President, in accordance with the laws and processes that have kept the government functioning for nearly 250 years. He will have all the power and authority bestowed on the holder of that office.
While it is extremely gratifying for people to resist, protest, and deride, none of it will change the fact above.
Our elected officials have all taken oaths to execute the responsibilities of their respective offices. When I was serving in the military, I didn't have a choice to execute the decisions with which I disagreed; I did my job. I feel that our elected officials must do the same or risk failing in their duty to their constituents.
The Russian interference is problematic, but it's not exactly novel. Between the Koch Brothers and George Soros, we have our own 'shadow influencers' pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into influencing the electoral process at every level of government. Is one better or worse? Is one more or less of a reason to question the legitimacy of the process or the outcome? I'd like to say yes, but objectively I can't find a reason to. Russia no more de-legitimized the election than our own shadowy Mega-PACs do with their piles of disinformation and propaganda. Its our own process that has made us vulnerable to such interference.
To our elected officials: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Leave the protests and civil disobedience to us. Figure out what the HELL is going on at the FBI and sort it. Fix campaign finance laws once and for all. Trump proved you can run an entire campaign off Twitter on a relative shoestring. Sanders proved you can run a campaign funded by the citizens who support you. Crush big money donors once and for all.
To our media: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Truth is the side you're on. You're the goddamned 5th Estate; act like it.
To my friends and neighbors: Get involved, starting at the most granular local level possible. Get informed, and don't trust what you're fed by someone with an agenda. Talk to each other, and for heaven's sake, LISTEN to each other. Shed the propaganda and just TALK. You agree on more than you think.
To our intelligence community: get this right. Prove or disprove the allegations that Trump is a puppet of Putin so we as elected officials, citizens, and the media can decide what to do from there.
Make no mistake, our nation is being tested right now, not just by our adversaries, but by the weight of our own culture. Do we dig in and become the next "Greatest Generation" by putting us on a better course for the next 100 years, or do we set the stage for decline?
Let me see if I can explain how I feel about things right now...
Donald Trump will be President, in accordance with the laws and processes that have kept the government functioning for nearly 250 years. He will have all the power and authority bestowed on the holder of that office.
While it is extremely gratifying for people to resist, protest, and deride, none of it will change the fact above.
Our elected officials have all taken oaths to execute the responsibilities of their respective offices. When I was serving in the military, I didn't have a choice to execute the decisions with which I disagreed; I did my job. I feel that our elected officials must do the same or risk failing in their duty to their constituents.
The Russian interference is problematic, but it's not exactly novel. Between the Koch Brothers and George Soros, we have our own 'shadow influencers' pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into influencing the electoral process at every level of government. Is one better or worse? Is one more or less of a reason to question the legitimacy of the process or the outcome? I'd like to say yes, but objectively I can't find a reason to. Russia no more de-legitimized the election than our own shadowy Mega-PACs do with their piles of disinformation and propaganda. Its our own process that has made us vulnerable to such interference.
To our elected officials: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Leave the protests and civil disobedience to us. Figure out what the HELL is going on at the FBI and sort it. Fix campaign finance laws once and for all. Trump proved you can run an entire campaign off Twitter on a relative shoestring. Sanders proved you can run a campaign funded by the citizens who support you. Crush big money donors once and for all.
To our media: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Truth is the side you're on. You're the goddamned 5th Estate; act like it.
To my friends and neighbors: Get involved, starting at the most granular local level possible. Get informed, and don't trust what you're fed by someone with an agenda. Talk to each other, and for heaven's sake, LISTEN to each other. Shed the propaganda and just TALK. You agree on more than you think.
To our intelligence community: get this right. Prove or disprove the allegations that Trump is a puppet of Putin so we as elected officials, citizens, and the media can decide what to do from there.
Make no mistake, our nation is being tested right now, not just by our adversaries, but by the weight of our own culture. Do we dig in and become the next "Greatest Generation" by putting us on a better course for the next 100 years, or do we set the stage for decline?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)