Reaping the Whirlwind

Who is most responsible for creating the Frankensteinian, presidential candidate Donald Trump?

There are likely many who might claim a hand in molding Trump, including such nebulous groups as reality TV watchers and media outlets that currently give him constant free coverage.  For me I believe that the most influential hands that have sculpted this comic candidate Trump into leading candidate Trump belong to none other than Ronald Reagan. 

No, it's not because they both had names which had previously reached national recognition as part of the entertainment industry. Nor that they were both lifetime Democrats before having their come-to-Jesus-Republican epiphany.  

There is nothing we are aware of about Ronald Reagan, the man or politician, that inspired Trump, anymore than the Bible/Art of the Deal literary one-two punch inspires the Donald. It is merely coincidence that their first names rhyme. No, it was something Ronald directed in 1987 with all too little public debate.

In 1987, at the direction of then President Ronald Reagan, Dennis R. Patrick (Reagan’s appointed chairman of the FCC), ended an FCC doctrine that had been in place for 40 years.  It was called the Fairness Doctrine. 

Simply stated, it required that all licensed broadcasters (radio and television) present both sides of any controversy of public interest.  In the wake of the one sided broadcasting that helped make World War II possible, someone in the Truman Administration came up with the crazy idea that honesty, equity, and balance might be better served if the media, as part of their licensure, could not give just one side to any controversy they chose to report on.

Congress agreed, as did the Supreme Court 20 years later.  After seven Presidents, it took Ronald Reagan to see the wisdom in allowing mass media to spew whatever they wanted without the necessity of being held accountable. Congress passed legislation to make the doctrine law, but it was met with a Reagan veto. 

Who was the first person to take advantage of Reagan’s insight? Arguably, in 1988, it was the former disc jockey, college drop-out, four times married, drug addict named Rush Limbaugh.  At least he has been the most successful in taking advantage of Reagan’s acumen. Many followed. 

Initially, AM radio was the most utilized tool. It still is. Television prior to the advent of cable programming was too expensive to target select polarized audiences.  Even today, bias cable programming (Fox News, MSNBC and so forth) is reluctant to go too extreme for fear of poor ratings.  Not so for radio.

Targeted radio programs from Rush and other (almost exclusively) radical Conservative pundits have expanded their followers by the tens of millions.  Personalities such as Rush, along with notables as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Carl Levin, and a veritable host of Limbaugh wannabes reach every corner of the Country.

Like Wal-Mart, their audience started mostly in rural markets and slowly expanded to larger and larger urban areas.  Also like Wal-Mart, with the increased followers came the tens, then hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from sponsors and endorsements.  

It was an easy discovery that the more polarized, more vitriol, more fear laden the message was, the more dedicated and expanding their less educated listener base became.  Cha-ching. 
 
I have listened to all the big players and many small ones, sometimes at length.  More often I can’t even believe what I’m hearing.  The hate, lies, and half-truths presented as representing both nationalism and religious dogma is nearly an insult to the senses let along the intellect.

So how has the main street Republican Party, the bastion of political Conservatism, reacted to this growing Godzilla in their nest?  

As the audience numbers grew, Republicans embraced the talk show group enthusiastically and routinely included them as supporters in their campaigns.  What was said on these shows paled against the numbers delivered by the possibility of an endorsement or even simple supportive commentary. 

Then it began to change as the messages became more severe, the hate more expressive, and the fears more unstable.  Given that, you’d think the Grand Old Party would react by calling out these radio pit bulls and begin to distance themselves from them.  Not so.

To this date no major (or even minor, that I’m aware of) Republican politician has taken a proactive stand against Conservative Talk Radio and addressed the reality of what they espouse.  They have remained supportive by omission.  And what have they received for this tacit support? 

Ahh yes, a full grown Godzilla, otherwise known as Donald Trump.

The Conservative radio crowd loves Donald Trump without regard to his past and without regard to the fact that in matters of domestic and international politics, and in historical awareness, he is a complete, I repeat a complete idiot.  The Republican leadership cannot comprehend how the lunacy that spews out his mouth can resonate, but then I’m confident they really haven’t been listening to the radio either.  Or if they have, they discounted it as not meaningful to their Party.  They shouldn’t discount it any more.

They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind  is a gem derived from old Hebrew texts.  Ronald Reagan planted the seeds and with each season the harvest gets bigger.  Donald Trump is truly the first major storm from that sowing and, all things being equal, he won’t be the last.

Stupid is...

When it comes to international agreements and treaties entered into by the United States the general population is, as a whole, always clueless.  Very few citizens are even interested or have any sense that it affects their lives. Of those who do, even a smaller number have any in-depth knowledge of what the agreement or treaty entails.  That small number can be even further shaved by those who lack the historical awareness to interpret the agreements in any meaningful way.  Likely the populations of other nations are even poorer at being notably engaged.

For better or worse, this Nation, as a whole, depends on leadership to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the American People, more than with any other actions taken by the Federal Government.  Historically, the US has been pretty good at this, with limited political complications.

So how come nearly the entire US television watching population has seen, perhaps multiple times, ads denouncing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iranian Deal)?  How does anyone seriously believe a 15 or 30 second ad can explain an argument against this 159 page agreement? Who’s paying for these ads? What do they want to accomplish?

The easy answer of course is that they want to influence political leadership by swaying potential voters.  However, there is no referendum in process, so the influence they hope to achieve is through public polling and the potential loss of financial support in upcoming elections.

The Republicans fell in line immediately, essentially before the ink was dry. It is a revealing statement of its own that every single Republican Congressmen denounced this Plan, a plan which is enthusiastically applauded or supported by virtually every single nation on this planet except one, as well as every international organization (such as the UN and NATO). This is the leadership on which we depend? Are these robots?

I attempted to read as much as I could of the 159 page Agreement (109 on paper) and eventually yielded to read a couple of the best objective summaries I could find.  Then I stepped back and tried to see what was happening.

The Agreement on its face is good.  It links extensive controls over the enrichment of natural uranium and supporting hardware, limiting the production of U-235 to enrichment levels well below those necessary for weapons (limited to 3.6% vs the necessary 90%).  150 inspectors will work full time for the next decade and a half.

Even though it ends in 15 years, Iran has agreed to never produce a nuclear weapon and to rejoin the non-proliferation protocol which will put them in a more vulnerable position than they are now for international sanctions and possible military action. 

The arguments against the Agreement are entirely based on what ifs; what if Iran cheats, what if Iran can dodge the inspectors, what if they use the money to promote terrorism (money which like it or not is theirs)? These and other arguments in effect preclude any diplomatic solutions.  Therein lays the real story.

The governing body in Israel does not want a diplomatic solution.  Netanyahu’s history and that portion of Israel’s government that support him have had a long history of managing Israel’s security through military actions.  He still revels in the glory of the 6-Day and Yom Kippur wars in which he participated (actually fighting in the Yom Kippur War). 

He and his supporters want a military solution because they feel it would be more conclusive and, if they were honest, more magnificent than mundane diplomacy.  The key is they also want the United States involved militarily.  What he wouldn’t give to have Lindsey Graham as President.

So who is funding these ads? Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson are cutting the checks. He’s a zealot supporter of Israel who has huge investments in casinos in the Middle East, and (as an aside) funds anything that opposes Obama.  Sheldon and those like him are the ones hoping to sway the electorate to pressure the few Democrats, such as NY Sen. Chuck Schumer, who are vulnerable to that kind of influence.

If Sheldon succeeds then, well Forest Gump said it best: Stupid is as stupid does. It’s just too bad that the ignorance of the public matched by the stupidity of Washington politics could possibly result in the human tragedy of war.

I Don't Like...

So I’m watching this young woman, probably in her late 20s or early 30s, walking into a house and saying; “well (a shake of her head)…I don’t like THAT!” She’s looking at wallpaper.  Then she spies a small light fixture hanging from the ceiling and shakes her head again. “This has GOT to go”. Later she’s looking at an obviously updated, granite kitchen counter and casually remarks; “I can’t live with this.” 

She’s looking to buy a home for herself (plus spouse), maybe her first.  It’s another episode of House Hunters which occupies significant space on the cable network HGTV, the network which acts as pornography for women.

My wife Jan doesn’t just watch HGTV, she lives HGTV. If, like the little girl in Poltergeist, she was sucked into the TV by nefarious and super natural forces…I’d know where to tune her in. Unlike in Poltergeist however, my problem would not be in how to get her out, it would be how to talk her into leaving. “Walk toward the Tiny Houses”, I might wail (she hates the Tiny House craze –“why don’t they just buy an RV?”).

As such, I find myself inadvertently watching various episodes of real estate marketing and home improvement as it exists in the alternate universe known as reality television.  It is often the price I have to pay for eating ice cream in an immobile yet comfortable body position.  

I spend some of this HGTV emersion making wise comments about what I observe (much to the chagrin of my wife): “Oh, look how surprised they are peeking into that bonus room and turning on the light.  I wonder if they’re equally surprised to find a camera crew in there as well”. However, sometimes I can regard many of these HGTV players who are not professional actors and, even with careful editing, those aspects of their personalities spilling forth on the screen.

Our neighbor’s daughter was featured on an episode of House Hunters International.  A perfectly lovely young woman, her thoughtful and engaging persona shown through, even though the search for the ideal apartment in Brussels was compete horse-poopie.  She had been living in the apartment she “finally chose” even before being picked for the show.  The search was, in the words of the Bard, much ado about nothing.  My neighbor’s daughter, on the other hand, was genuine.

So it is reasonable to ponder on these characters that lay out their lives and temperament to a national audience.  The personality traits they demonstrate, by virtue of their amateur status, may be the only reality in this particular corner of “reality” television.

What I’ve been pondering are the two distinct types that walk through these staged buildings passing judgment on such important items as electrical outlet covers and doggie doors. 

There are those who make the vast majority of their observations as a testimony to why they enjoy life.  They’ll go into a room that looks like the archangel of the 1970s threw up on the walls and say, “Ooo…there’s so much potential”, or squeeze by a partially collapsed floor that looks down into the depths of Hell and remark; “Well…that looks like an easy fix.”  I don’t think these are the people HGTV wants.

The producers of HGTV probably want the type of person I was watching who, while trying to decide on a $748,000 California bungalow, are appalled at the sight of a crooked lamp on a night table or the crimson velour grandma drapes in the spare bedroom. As these observations have nothing to say about the quality of the house, they have oodles to say about the observer and that’s what the producers love.

There are people who go through life who simply don’t like.  Don’t like what, you ask?  They just don’t like…you fill in the blank.  They base their world view not on what they enjoy or value, but rather on that which they find annoying and distasteful.  They also feel some sense of individual superiority to pass judgment critically.  Even on things they like they can find some small shortfall to comment on; “…boy that was a great dessert, except for the odd way the raspberry sauce was streuseled on the plate”.  They focus first on what they don’t like; what they see, what they eat, what they encounter.  Whether weather is naturally produced or has inside conditioning it is an endless search for improvement.

Okay…okay, everyone is like that to some extent and realistically no one is a pure Pollyanna.  I don’t like 4 out of every 5 movies I see…oh dear. Still the bell curve on this is not tall and the distinction between those individuals who heavily lean positive and those negative are pretty easy to flesh out.  On HGTV it’s a snap! 

Most of the viewers actually enjoy disliking those obnoxious house hunters and home renovators.  I’m not like them, you think.  But take a listen in your reality and see how often you hear “I don’t like” verses “I like” (or their verbal equivalent).  If people are truly interested in changing their lives for the better then they need to focus on all those little things they find they don’t like and…well…shut up.  Because this isn’t reality TV and, frankly, no one really gives a damn about what you don’t like.

Evolutionary Ethics and the Conservative Mind

In last month’s news one possible conclusion emerged; that people in Minnesota are paying entirely too much for dental care.  Walter J. Palmer, the Bloomington, MN dentist who also fashions himself a big game hunter (emphasis on the word ‘big’) can now be internationally known as Dr. Shameless.  Still, the fact that he and others like him exist at all is far more a revelation to the general public than the fact that root canals and crowns can allow a relative nobody to spend $50,000 to shoot a big cat.

Throughout most of recorded history killing big animals would rarely raise an eyebrow, if at all.  Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, when the need to hunt for food and clothing was effectively eliminated and wealth could be produced remotely, the killing of big animals somehow became sport. Few found a problem with it. From Theodore Roosevelt to Ernest Hemingway, to the capturers of King Kong, generations viewed such “sport” Romantically rather than repulsively.  That’s not the case anymore, we love our buffalos. So what happened?

As there has been social evolution for human beings generally throughout our history, so have ethics evolved.  Quite different from sluggish biological evolution, evolutionary ethics over the past few centuries appear to be changing at increasingly faster rates. The changes seem to coincide with both the expansion in human population and speed of communication. There is hardly a youth introduced to history who isn’t amazed by what we considered ethically correct only two hundred, one hundred, or even fifty years ago. In fact, one only needs to read the Bible and observe how long people have adhered to its archaic rhetoric.

Yet in the present, behavior that can seem so blatantly unethical on its face can also feel painfully slow to change. One primary reason is an irrational fear of change and blind self-interest which, most often, lays deep in the Conservative psyche. 

Perhaps one day I’ll meet a poor, old, black lesbian with cancer.  She will be a very special person, indeed, for she embodies most major human traits that over the past one hundred years or so Conservative America has fought tooth and nail from being ethically acceptable.  You won’t see a statue of her on Monument Avenue, but you should.  On it would be carved: Once I Wasn’t You, but Now I Am.

Let’s briefly take a look at what this lady has had to endure in her struggle to become one of us.

First she’s black.  Forget the Civil War, in which the entrenched Conservative South was more than willing to sacrifice everything to preserve ethically acceptable slavery. Instead, start with Jim Crow laws that most of the Nation didn’t have a problem with for decades after the Civil War ended. The segregation that existed up to the civil rights laws of the 60s was, by in large, accepted social order, even sometimes by those who were repressed by it. 

Segregation and prejudice still exist today, whether by choice or economics, but only on the fringes would anyone say or feel they are ethically correct today. That same Conservative mind fought the legislation that codified the new ethic, not just in the Conservative South, but also nationwide (think government institutions and the military). It took generations to change the ethic.  Even today foolish symbols of supremacy and ego, such as flags, cannot resist the changed ethics on race as they might have 25 years ago.

Second, she is a woman. She is one of a class of human beings that have been essentially the chattel of men since Homo sapiens wiped out the competition.  She made little progress toward full human status for the first 160,000 years or so.  The ethic that condemns the idea of women as the possessions of men didn’t finally change until the first half of the 20^th century, yet Conservatives fought that ethical evolution for centuries.

The 19^th Amendment (woman’s suffrage in the US passed in 1920) refused to be ratified by most states of the old Confederacy until decades after it had passed, as late as 1984. In many cases women’s equal status was fought with overt discrimination, violence, and personal abuse. It often still is. However, it is hard to argue the correctness of such inequity, even as Conservatives continue to oppose equal rights legislation for women and conservative religious zealots practice scriptural female exploitation in the US and around the world.

My lady is also poor, old, and sick.  Perhaps because the over 65 population is so large, the ethic that it is socially and morally wrong to let the poor and aged rot in the streets once they can no longer work has gone mainstream with Conservatives. Still, we only have to go back 100 years or so to see how Conservatives fought vehemently, up through the 1930s, what became Social Security, or what led to Medicare in the 1960s.


The patron saint of Conservatism, Ronny Reagan, campaigned as a spokesperson across the country that Medicare would destroy Capitalism in America.  How far would he have gotten in the 1980s with his gray patriots if he advocated the repeal of Medicare? Today self interest drives the opposition for means testing, but the ethic is fully adopted and the solutions to solvency for SS and Medicare won’t turn against it.

The Affordable Health Care act (aka Obamacare) is in the midst of the same battle.  The ethic that supports a reality in which everyone in the US would have adequate access to health care and that no one should be made bankrupt simply because they got sick is not shared by Conservatives.  Not yet. They will lose the fight, possibly at great cost to everyone by delaying the control of medical expenses. When they do finally lose they will embrace the new reality as if it was always theirs, just as they have with racial ethics, women’s ethics, and elder ethics.

Finally, she is gay. The acceptance of her sexual orientation still awaits the death of the current senior generation of Conservatives.  Once they are gone, a marriage of a same sex couple will garner less notice than a change in hair style.

If my extraordinary lady lived in say 1914 and I proclaimed she was free to go where ever she wanted to, she could vote without restriction, after she stopped working she would be given an income for life on which she could survive, if she got sick her medical care would be covered in full, and she could have all that while married to another woman with whom she has sex, I would have been vilified (if not shot) as a Socialist-atheist-anarchist-Satanist, anti-American hybrid. Yet all those social benefits are accepted today as ethically sound and many a diehard Conservative would defend most of them as such.

A fear laden, Fox watching, Reagan loving Conservative mind would run a Republican out of town for suggestions of eliminating Social Security and Medicare and scoff at calls to repeal a woman’s right to vote or an African-American’s right to equality. Yet, they continue to support those that benefit from the status quo.  Limited health care, unrestricted access to handguns and assault rifles, restrictions on gays, a woman’s right over her own body, institutional executions, to name a few, are issues to which Conservatives will ultimately relent as they take up arms to delay the next evolving ethic.

How someone who has even a rudimentary knowledge (and understanding) of history can proudly call themselves a Conservative is a befuddlement.  The evolution of ethics in modern America is mostly our attempt to modify our behavior to deal with the numbers in which we populate this planet and share information and resources.  The post-enlightenment social Conservative wants to ignore both.  More likely that Conservative mind sees their social ethics supported on a three legged stool.  One leg is fear, one is ignorance, and the third is greed or (more kindly) self interest.  Pull out just one leg and the whole thing falls… none too soon