When I try to set down my thoughts of late I find myself more influenced by the telephone conversations I have had than I am by the discussion occurring on the Internet. A very loose paraphrase of something my brother said to me today. He has been dedicating himself more strongly than I have to challenging oppression for some time now.
"I'm not taking this as hard as you guys are. I'll still be able to do the work I need to do.
"Look, we've both worked really hard for a long time to fuck up our lives, and the system's response to that has been to keep giving us more and more despite that. We're Too White to Fail.
"I'm going to keep taking what they give me and using it to oppose them."
The idea of playing Aaron on behalf of the minorities that straight white men refuse to listen to is a tempting one, even though in the real world I'm the one with a speech impediment. However, I recognize that in general, the people who are most threatened by Donald Trump's ideology don't really want or trust a straight white man to speak for them. They want people to listen to what they have to say. So go do that.
The habits of my old life are creeping back in. As much as I'd like to define myself as someone who used to have a favourite brand of sour cream, I still have a favourite brand of sour cream.
Yet this week has left me forever changed. I am reaching out to more people despite my fear. I am speaking out more strongly in defense of my beliefs. For that matter, my core beliefs and principles have been fundamentally changed by what we've gone through this week.
My wife told me today that she'd feel better about me when we could have a conversation about something other than politics. Honestly, though, I'm already doing that. I'm back to finding silly and strange things to make me laugh, and I'm laughing harder and longer about them than I did before. I'm listening to music again, eating proper meals again. Inside I still know how much we've all lost, but having not lost myself, I continue to be myself.
Per my introduction, I created this blog to "chronicle my experiences and emotions over a particular period of time". I now believe I have done so.
The last post you see on most blogs is the author insisting they haven't given up. I'm declaring this blog finished, so I'll probably be back.
Stay strong. Stay afraid. Keep being there for the people who need you, and don't compromise your beliefs.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
A qualified apology.
More recriminations. More anguish. Some people are throwing around epithets like "collaborationist" and "quisling" against those who only want to talk and to understand. And by "some people" I mean me.
That's not a fair or helpful thing of me to do. We all have to deal with things in our own way. There is no master plan. We are all making this up as we go along, doing the only things we can think to do. For some of us, the only thing we can think to do is to reach out to the people who voted for Trump, to seek to be understood and to understand.
So the first thing I want to do, is I want to apologize, and the second thing I want to do is that I want to explain why I said what I did, even though I was wrong to do so.
I have said in the past that people who voted for Trump are not people that I can, personally, forgive or compromise with. That my first and overriding priority is to protect those who are being threatened by Trump voters, and secondarily to protect the values which Trump voters threaten. I have declared people I know who voted for Trump dead to me.
These are harsh words. I do not say them out of blind hatred. I have searched in my heart for a way to forgive, to trust, to respect Trump voters. And I have not been able to find any way. I do not mean to say that no way exists, but that if someone comes to me seeking reconciliation, I cannot advise them as to how that reconciliation can be effected. I cannot think of anything they can do that would restore my trust or my respect for them.
But these words and beliefs are only the words and beliefs I need. I do not seriously expect everybody to share in them. I do have concerns and fears for those who choose to try and build bridges with Trump voters.
When you talk to somebody who voted for Trump, you are, in all likelihood, talking to someone who simply does not have the moral principles necessary to be a decent and trustworthy human being. They have gone through their entire life without learning these principles from their church, from their school, from their parents, from anybody.
So when you choose to try and help by talking to Trump voters, please understand that you are choosing a very difficult task. It is not enough to simply change their vote in the election- since they are morally rootless, this will not be difficult at all. What you will also need to do is something many others have tried to do, but have not succeeded in: You will need to teach them right from wrong. Stay strong. Do not be discouraged.
Please also keep in mind that you will have to be strong yourself. Your beliefs and your values will be put to the test, and some people who wish to do this may need to spend time building their own character before they are able to be of help this way. If you are the sort of person whose values are focused around one issue, any issue, be it abortion or economic justice, to the exclusion of human rights, you are vulnerable. You need to recognize this.
That's not a fair or helpful thing of me to do. We all have to deal with things in our own way. There is no master plan. We are all making this up as we go along, doing the only things we can think to do. For some of us, the only thing we can think to do is to reach out to the people who voted for Trump, to seek to be understood and to understand.
So the first thing I want to do, is I want to apologize, and the second thing I want to do is that I want to explain why I said what I did, even though I was wrong to do so.
I have said in the past that people who voted for Trump are not people that I can, personally, forgive or compromise with. That my first and overriding priority is to protect those who are being threatened by Trump voters, and secondarily to protect the values which Trump voters threaten. I have declared people I know who voted for Trump dead to me.
These are harsh words. I do not say them out of blind hatred. I have searched in my heart for a way to forgive, to trust, to respect Trump voters. And I have not been able to find any way. I do not mean to say that no way exists, but that if someone comes to me seeking reconciliation, I cannot advise them as to how that reconciliation can be effected. I cannot think of anything they can do that would restore my trust or my respect for them.
But these words and beliefs are only the words and beliefs I need. I do not seriously expect everybody to share in them. I do have concerns and fears for those who choose to try and build bridges with Trump voters.
When you talk to somebody who voted for Trump, you are, in all likelihood, talking to someone who simply does not have the moral principles necessary to be a decent and trustworthy human being. They have gone through their entire life without learning these principles from their church, from their school, from their parents, from anybody.
So when you choose to try and help by talking to Trump voters, please understand that you are choosing a very difficult task. It is not enough to simply change their vote in the election- since they are morally rootless, this will not be difficult at all. What you will also need to do is something many others have tried to do, but have not succeeded in: You will need to teach them right from wrong. Stay strong. Do not be discouraged.
Please also keep in mind that you will have to be strong yourself. Your beliefs and your values will be put to the test, and some people who wish to do this may need to spend time building their own character before they are able to be of help this way. If you are the sort of person whose values are focused around one issue, any issue, be it abortion or economic justice, to the exclusion of human rights, you are vulnerable. You need to recognize this.
Re: the Democratic minority
I don't spend much time thinking about how the Democrats in Congress should respond to this, because I'm not sure they have any more power than I do, and I am more focused on what I should do right now than I am on what I want other people to do on my behalf. Ask not, etc.
But if Keith Ellison is looking for suggestions - and I honestly think he has plenty of really good ideas on his own - here's what I would like to see.
The DNC should create a clear, strong platform, one based on principles and not realpolitik, and Democratic members of Congress should introduce legislation to enact those principles. Affirm human rights protections. Regulate the energy industry. Raise taxes on the rich. Provide relief for the poor and for displaced workers. Repeal Obamacare and enact single-payer. (We can stop defending Obamacare now. Regardless of all of the good things it accomplished, it was corporate welfare for big insurance companies, and that was why it failed.) That none of this legislation will pass is of no relevance. What is important is that we clearly show what we believe and that we are willing to act on it given the opportunity.
But if Keith Ellison is looking for suggestions - and I honestly think he has plenty of really good ideas on his own - here's what I would like to see.
The DNC should create a clear, strong platform, one based on principles and not realpolitik, and Democratic members of Congress should introduce legislation to enact those principles. Affirm human rights protections. Regulate the energy industry. Raise taxes on the rich. Provide relief for the poor and for displaced workers. Repeal Obamacare and enact single-payer. (We can stop defending Obamacare now. Regardless of all of the good things it accomplished, it was corporate welfare for big insurance companies, and that was why it failed.) That none of this legislation will pass is of no relevance. What is important is that we clearly show what we believe and that we are willing to act on it given the opportunity.
Fear is a Man's Best Friend
I have reached the point where I am grateful that I still wake up every morning shaking. I consider it a gift.
For months and months, I prayed for the pain to stop. Now I am praying that it will continue. I need it. I need it as a reminder to tell me what I need to do.
What we need to do is not something that we can program an app to tell us. We can't set an alarm to tell us to protect the rights of the oppressed.
We can tie a string around our finger. We can turn to Mecca five times a day. We can wear a safety pin. I wear a safety pin, but I also wear my fear, which is a safety pin that pierces my skin at all times.
For months and months, I prayed for the pain to stop. Now I am praying that it will continue. I need it. I need it as a reminder to tell me what I need to do.
What we need to do is not something that we can program an app to tell us. We can't set an alarm to tell us to protect the rights of the oppressed.
We can tie a string around our finger. We can turn to Mecca five times a day. We can wear a safety pin. I wear a safety pin, but I also wear my fear, which is a safety pin that pierces my skin at all times.
Is Donald Trump a Typical Republican?
There's this argument that's going on for a while about how to treat Donald Trump. It's a little inside baseball, but I think it's still a meaningful and important question so I want to talk about it a little. To quote a friend on an internet message board I hang out on, it's the question of whether Donald Trump, as a Republican, is an aberration or a culmination.
In other words, when we talk about Donald Trump, do we talk about him as a unique and unprecedented threat to democratic values, or do we the emphasize the many points of continuity between Trumpian politics and the basic operating procedures of the post-Eisenhower Republican party?
Both perspectives are basically valid ones, and each perspective has its advantages and its disadvantages. My feeling is that the "culmination" argument is oriented towards contextualizing and correcting the damage done by Donald Trump's political career to America, and towards working to prevent something similar from occurring again. The perspective is most helpful at a time when Donald Trump himself no longer presents a threat. Now is not that time.
President Donald Trump will be the most dangerous man on the planet, and our overriding duty as dissenters will be to protect anybody he tries to hurt, and beyond that to limit or, if possible, prevent any damage he may attempt to cause.
On election day, Donald Trump was the most widely hated presidential candidate in recorded American history. We should do our utmost to ensure that, when he is inaugurated, he becomes, and remains, the most widely hated president in American history. Nothing he does should be accepted uncritically.
I'm not talking about a smear campaign. I'm not saying every time the guy takes a piss we should all mob up and start loudly telling everybody that that was clearly the WORST LEAK IN AMERICAN HISTORY. I am talking about denying him the patina of assumed goodwill that has, traditionally, come with the office of President. His actions have disqualified him from ever deserving the benefit of the doubt from us.
In other words, when we talk about Donald Trump, do we talk about him as a unique and unprecedented threat to democratic values, or do we the emphasize the many points of continuity between Trumpian politics and the basic operating procedures of the post-Eisenhower Republican party?
Both perspectives are basically valid ones, and each perspective has its advantages and its disadvantages. My feeling is that the "culmination" argument is oriented towards contextualizing and correcting the damage done by Donald Trump's political career to America, and towards working to prevent something similar from occurring again. The perspective is most helpful at a time when Donald Trump himself no longer presents a threat. Now is not that time.
President Donald Trump will be the most dangerous man on the planet, and our overriding duty as dissenters will be to protect anybody he tries to hurt, and beyond that to limit or, if possible, prevent any damage he may attempt to cause.
On election day, Donald Trump was the most widely hated presidential candidate in recorded American history. We should do our utmost to ensure that, when he is inaugurated, he becomes, and remains, the most widely hated president in American history. Nothing he does should be accepted uncritically.
I'm not talking about a smear campaign. I'm not saying every time the guy takes a piss we should all mob up and start loudly telling everybody that that was clearly the WORST LEAK IN AMERICAN HISTORY. I am talking about denying him the patina of assumed goodwill that has, traditionally, come with the office of President. His actions have disqualified him from ever deserving the benefit of the doubt from us.
"Worse than Trump"
I don't address most of the usual post-election squabbles and recriminations because I think it serves to create a misleading air of normalcy. I do not think that engaging in politics-as-usual is appropriate in the wake of one of this country's historically great failures of politics-as-usual.
But I do want to address Mike Pence, and I think the things people say about Mike Pence point to a certain failure of differentiation, as well as a failure to recognize the unique threat to democracy Donald Trump poses. People say that Pence is "as bad" as Trump or "worse" than Trump, and I don't think that's a meaningful statement because I consider the two categorically different.
Mike Pence was my governor for four years. I didn't like him at all. I didn't agree with his policy positions. He had the support of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress statewide, and he used that power to push through some fairly socially regressive legislation. He pushed through legislation against women, he pushed through legislation against the LGBTQ community, I'm pretty sure he pushed through legislation against workers' rights (though most of the damage there had already been done by previous administrations).
And those of us who were not happy with this worked within the political process to stop him. After he came heavily under fire from the business community for his legislation stripping LGBTQ protections, he backtracked on it, which is something, I will note, that Pat McCrory, who signed similar legislation in North Carolina, did not.
So I didn't like him, I disagreed with pretty much all of his policies, I didn't vote for him for governor, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for him for President. But if he was President now, if he had been elected over Hillary Clinton in an election as fair and free as the election we have gone through, I would not be reacting to him the way I am reacting to Trump.
I would, I think, be playing my part in the usual post-election squabbles and recriminations. I would be complaining about third-party voters, and about bad polling, and about the electoral college and the ineffective campaign Clinton ran and all of that other horse-race stuff.
And I would be working to build bridges the way all the politicians say to do after every election. The equivalent of a friendly post-game handshake. I would be rolling my eyes at my conservative relatives who voted for him rather than declaring them dead to me.
Because electing President Pence over President Clinton would be a repudiation of Obama's policies and of Clinton personally. Electing President Trump over President Clinton was a repudiation of the principles and values which have been the core of this country since its inception. A President Pence would delay or reverse progress. The election of a President Trump forecloses the possibility of progress under our current system.
To me, the single scariest thing about Trump is what you see when you look at him through a historical-critical lens, the people who say the kinds of things he said when running for office, and the kinds of things those people do when they reach office. And people who don't have a historical-critical understanding are not going to see that. You compare him to Hitler and they say "Oh, pshaw! Everybody gets compared to Hitler," and they're right. You compare him to Mussolini, and they have no idea who that is.
Mike Pence does not require us to change our values. You can respond to Mike Pence the same way you would respond to Sam Brownback, or George W. Bush, or Dennis Hastert, or Ronald Reagan. There is a continuity between them. We can disagree with them, we can say that they present a certain threat, but Trump requires us to re-examine our assumptions about what America is as a country and who we are as humans.
There is an upside to this, which is that by going through this process of examination we better become able to confront those injustices which we blind ourselves to, or write off as the cost of our freedoms.
More significant, though, is the downside, which is that those of us who fail to respond to this challenge to our implicit values - which will inevitably be most people - are at risk of losing entirely the protections afforded by those values, as the systems into which those values are encoded come under attack.
So no, I don't think Mike Pence is "as bad" as Donald Trump.
But I do want to address Mike Pence, and I think the things people say about Mike Pence point to a certain failure of differentiation, as well as a failure to recognize the unique threat to democracy Donald Trump poses. People say that Pence is "as bad" as Trump or "worse" than Trump, and I don't think that's a meaningful statement because I consider the two categorically different.
Mike Pence was my governor for four years. I didn't like him at all. I didn't agree with his policy positions. He had the support of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress statewide, and he used that power to push through some fairly socially regressive legislation. He pushed through legislation against women, he pushed through legislation against the LGBTQ community, I'm pretty sure he pushed through legislation against workers' rights (though most of the damage there had already been done by previous administrations).
And those of us who were not happy with this worked within the political process to stop him. After he came heavily under fire from the business community for his legislation stripping LGBTQ protections, he backtracked on it, which is something, I will note, that Pat McCrory, who signed similar legislation in North Carolina, did not.
So I didn't like him, I disagreed with pretty much all of his policies, I didn't vote for him for governor, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for him for President. But if he was President now, if he had been elected over Hillary Clinton in an election as fair and free as the election we have gone through, I would not be reacting to him the way I am reacting to Trump.
I would, I think, be playing my part in the usual post-election squabbles and recriminations. I would be complaining about third-party voters, and about bad polling, and about the electoral college and the ineffective campaign Clinton ran and all of that other horse-race stuff.
And I would be working to build bridges the way all the politicians say to do after every election. The equivalent of a friendly post-game handshake. I would be rolling my eyes at my conservative relatives who voted for him rather than declaring them dead to me.
Because electing President Pence over President Clinton would be a repudiation of Obama's policies and of Clinton personally. Electing President Trump over President Clinton was a repudiation of the principles and values which have been the core of this country since its inception. A President Pence would delay or reverse progress. The election of a President Trump forecloses the possibility of progress under our current system.
To me, the single scariest thing about Trump is what you see when you look at him through a historical-critical lens, the people who say the kinds of things he said when running for office, and the kinds of things those people do when they reach office. And people who don't have a historical-critical understanding are not going to see that. You compare him to Hitler and they say "Oh, pshaw! Everybody gets compared to Hitler," and they're right. You compare him to Mussolini, and they have no idea who that is.
Mike Pence does not require us to change our values. You can respond to Mike Pence the same way you would respond to Sam Brownback, or George W. Bush, or Dennis Hastert, or Ronald Reagan. There is a continuity between them. We can disagree with them, we can say that they present a certain threat, but Trump requires us to re-examine our assumptions about what America is as a country and who we are as humans.
There is an upside to this, which is that by going through this process of examination we better become able to confront those injustices which we blind ourselves to, or write off as the cost of our freedoms.
More significant, though, is the downside, which is that those of us who fail to respond to this challenge to our implicit values - which will inevitably be most people - are at risk of losing entirely the protections afforded by those values, as the systems into which those values are encoded come under attack.
So no, I don't think Mike Pence is "as bad" as Donald Trump.
Uniquely unqualified.
I'm rolling around in my head my previous statement that Donald J. Trump is morally unfit to hold the office of President of the United States of America. It is a bold statement, and there are many ways to challenge it.
For instance, if my contention is that Donald J. Trump is _uniquely_ unqualified to hold the office he was elected to - and, give or take the marginal case of Andrew Jackson, this is my contention - by what empirical and objective test can he be so disqualified? It's not like our Presidents are a gallery of saints. He lies? Every politician does. It's basically part of the job description. He mistreats women? We had a President who took one of his slaves as a concubine, and we put his face on a fucking mountain. He disrespects minorities? Yeah try just about EVERY PRESIDENT EVER.
The answer I have right now is a surprising and ironic one. We have a President-Elect who spent a great deal of time publically questioning whether our sitting President was a legitimate US citizen. This President-Elect also belongs to a party some of whose members have advocated, as a policy measure, the ending of American citizenship as a birthright.
I contend that, on the day Donald J. Trump was elected President, he was not capable of passing a naturalization test to become a citizen of the United States of America. I further contend that his inability to meet this minimal qualification disqualifies him from the position of executive leader of the United States of America. He cannot possibly meaningfully conform to the oath he will make to uphold a Constitution he does not understand.
I don't think this is an argument as to moral unfitness. So I do think I was wrong to argue that Donald J. Trump is morally unfit to hold the office he was elected to, because I can't support that argument to a standard I am personally satisfied by. And of course it's not a particularly strong legal argument, because I just made up out of thin air a new rule with no precedent or explicit basis in the Constitution or in law.
Well, I mean, I don't want to underestimate lawyers. Somebody very clever might be able to make a legal case by, for instance, saying that the Oath of Office is legally binding and that Trump's ignorance makes him legally incompetent to swear that oath. I wouldn't place money on it, though.
But mostly it's that I think it's a sensible argument, and a valid argument, and me personally I really need a reason to dissent other than that the guy scares the ever-living shit out of me.
For instance, if my contention is that Donald J. Trump is _uniquely_ unqualified to hold the office he was elected to - and, give or take the marginal case of Andrew Jackson, this is my contention - by what empirical and objective test can he be so disqualified? It's not like our Presidents are a gallery of saints. He lies? Every politician does. It's basically part of the job description. He mistreats women? We had a President who took one of his slaves as a concubine, and we put his face on a fucking mountain. He disrespects minorities? Yeah try just about EVERY PRESIDENT EVER.
The answer I have right now is a surprising and ironic one. We have a President-Elect who spent a great deal of time publically questioning whether our sitting President was a legitimate US citizen. This President-Elect also belongs to a party some of whose members have advocated, as a policy measure, the ending of American citizenship as a birthright.
I contend that, on the day Donald J. Trump was elected President, he was not capable of passing a naturalization test to become a citizen of the United States of America. I further contend that his inability to meet this minimal qualification disqualifies him from the position of executive leader of the United States of America. He cannot possibly meaningfully conform to the oath he will make to uphold a Constitution he does not understand.
I don't think this is an argument as to moral unfitness. So I do think I was wrong to argue that Donald J. Trump is morally unfit to hold the office he was elected to, because I can't support that argument to a standard I am personally satisfied by. And of course it's not a particularly strong legal argument, because I just made up out of thin air a new rule with no precedent or explicit basis in the Constitution or in law.
Well, I mean, I don't want to underestimate lawyers. Somebody very clever might be able to make a legal case by, for instance, saying that the Oath of Office is legally binding and that Trump's ignorance makes him legally incompetent to swear that oath. I wouldn't place money on it, though.
But mostly it's that I think it's a sensible argument, and a valid argument, and me personally I really need a reason to dissent other than that the guy scares the ever-living shit out of me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)