Ism It True

Upon overhearing in our gym locker room rather tame observations regarding an inept comment or tweet by Donald Trump, an unassuming member stormed off to the showers muttering angrily “I don’t want to live in a socialistic country”. The segue-way of his thinking matters.  How does he get from inane comments by our National leader to the fear of being disenfranchised from his national identity?

We are now already vividly experiencing the Republican campaign we never got to see in 2016. What started slowly at the end of last year is virtually an everyday warning expressed in comments, interviews, and (of course) Tweets. If Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination this recent onslaught is exactly what we would have experienced.

I have not kept record, but it is my impression that not an audience in recent months has passed before Trump without hearing about the specter of Socialism.  Conservative radio and television talk show personalities have always defined anyone not a blue-blooded Conservative as a Socialist, but now like sharks smelling blood they are circling in a frenzy.  It is why a minor, freshman Congresswoman (Alexandra Ocasio-cortez) has become such a gigantic hunk of floating red meat.

With such an inept party leader in Trump, Republicans generally are jumping on this term to define a fear they feel their constituents can sink their teeth into. “Vote Republican” they might say, “you may get Trump but at least you won’t get Socialism”. They will ramp up this rhetoric hoping that enough Americans will view anything out of the mouth of a Democrat as a sirens’ song luring patriots to their demise. It might work.

Once again the Republicans define the language and thus the debate. Democrats just don’t get it. If they are unsuccessful in defining the terms used to show where they want this country to go, they end up spending their philosophical capital just defending themselves.  Trump just walks away from blatant and repulsive anti-social behavior (Access Hollywood e.g.) while Elizabeth Warren wallows in self-incrimination for extraordinarily minor assertions.

Conservatives generally and Republicans specifically have defined such terms as welfare, healthcare, taxation, freedom, faith, and patriot (to name a few) and assigns to each an interpretation to exploit.  The phrase “the base” now has a meaning of stalwart conservatism while everyone else is essentially wishy-washy. Democrats use this definition as freely as Republicans.

Our friend from the locker room actually thinks Socialism is a thing, like a light switch. He probably also believes Capitalism is the same switch which, thanks to God, has kept his world lit throughout his life. Switch off Capitalism and what do you get…you guessed it.

Those who want to profit from his fears obviously don’t want him to understand the truth; Socialism and Capitalism are inherently components of a whole, not the whole itself.  Red blood cells and white blood cells are quite different, but they are hardly independent of the fluid that keeps us alive.

Yet Conservatives have defined Socialism as bad and Capitalism good…black and white. Liberals who think they can simply push the pendulum the other way by displaying equal exclusivity are missing the boat. Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio-cortez labeling themselves as Socialists doesn’t help.

A model called Social-Capitalism (Google it) would probably work better as a definition of where most Americans land.  Democrats could embrace that; however Democrats need to get off defense and start calling the plays.

Liberals need to label Conservatives as anti-social and anti-capitalist, things that they are clearly not although they unwittingly contribute to those ends. If Republicans want to demonize Socialism, so let them demonize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disease control, disaster relief, universal healthcare, a clean & sustainable environment, education (K-12), air traffic control, roads & bridges, crime prevention, recycling, affordable housing, agricultural subsidies, and on and on. That understanding might mitigate Conservative fears.

Republicans successfully attack all these social efforts and more by undermining Capitalism and allowing for huge unproductive accumulations of Capital that are not churned back into the economy. Instead they rely on accumulated debt to keep the lights on.  Democrats have barely done better.

When Trumps states (as he recently did) “show me a country where Socialism has ever worked”, the answer to that is “show me an authoritarian country that has ever worked for its general population, regardless whether it is labeled Socialist or Capitalist”. There is no point in choosing an “ism”. They’re both in your garden, my locker room friend.  Either they both grow, or the weeds take over.

Getting Drunk on Kavanaugh Beer

In the infamous hearing of Brett Kavanaugh regarding his encounter with C.B Ford, the most important question asked of him was the very last one. Asked by (now) Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she entertained no follow up.

Harris: “Judge Kavanaugh, did you watch the testimony of Dr. Ford earlier today?”

Kavanaugh: “No”.

Perhaps if that had been the first question Democrats directed at Kavanaugh the line of inquiry might have veered away from FBI investigations, and he said-she said-they said. It seems in today’s public analysis of morality there is a sink hole of attempting to reconstruct history and a black hole of awareness about what is happening before our very eyes.

Kavanaugh did not watch Ford’s testimony because he didn’t need to. He had a sense of his life as a youth and it didn’t include attempted rape.  For Kavanaugh he obviously felt his time was better spent preparing to attack his “accusers” and play himself as the victim.  Regardless of the absolutely convincing testimony by Ford, his strategy prevailed.

Should Dr. Ford’s account of what happened disqualified Kavanaugh from confirmation?  I don’t think so. What should have certainly disqualified Kavanaugh was his irrational, self-centered, injudiciously emotional, and politically bias testimony.  I think it’s safe to say we hired an egotistical nut-case to the Supreme Court. What he turns into over the next 40 years is anybody’s guess.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford were both telling the truth, as best they could recall it. The giveaway was Ford’s testimony that Kavanaugh left the scene laughing and bouncing off the walls.  In my opinion, the reality was that the event in question had as casual a meaning to the 17 year old Kavanaugh as it had a traumatic meaning to the 15 year old Ford. That certainly says something about who those individuals were at that time.

However, does that define who we are looking at standing before us? It certainly defines what we socially had considered less than criminal behavior in times past and perhaps shamefully so.

Today in Virginia, Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax’s possible rise to becoming Governor has uncovered behavior on his part that has put his current position, and career generally, in jeopardy.  Those who are, for either ethical or political reasons, calling for his immediate resignation or impeachment are feeding into a new narrative that, like Kavanaugh’s, is more divisive than healing.

Fairfax’s response to his behavior has been as poor as his accusers have been lacking in explanation, just as Kavanaugh’s had been. Fairfax has definitively claimed each encounter was purely consensual when that was clearly not the case. However, it’s entirely possible that from his perspective it was.

It may be that his actions were criminal. If so, there will be others coming forward who demonstrate encounters with him that contains the threats we associate with criminal assault. If that is the case, let him face his crimes.

I am troubled, however, with this new recounting of history that applies current ethics to the past without the understanding of where we came from.  The French in 1789 so hated their monarchical society that they sought to change its obvious abuses. Their moral conviction however did not justify the Reign of Terror that ensued or predict the reactionary result of that terror.

I thought Al Franken had the potential to being one of the great Senators of our time. He is brilliant, a humanist, and a consummate communicator.  His humor both simultaneously satirical and self-deprecating showed him to be less egotistical than your average politician. Yet a picture of him holding his hands above the breasts of a sleeping woman years earlier during his life as a comedian was enough to lead him to the political guillotine. This is not moving us forward.

We need to recognize the importance of how our liberal values evolve, not devolve into moral camps of opposition.