Mediating Truth

No matter whose camp received your support in the 2016 election, it seems clear that our country is in disrepair: an unsettled energy permeates our sociopolitical institutions.  Dysfunction prevails, extremism has replaced our cultural fulcrum, and uncertainty has taken up residence in our lives.  My human instincts – the ones that I don’t validate against some accepted norm – tell me that the American standard has shifted.  My knowledge of history makes me harken to repressive eras and cautions me to prepare, now that their hallmark signs have begun to surface.  I say these things, not because my candidate didn’t win, but because the same instincts operating within me (even now) that engender empathy, cooperation, and progress now suddenly feel unacceptable, if not criminal.  But, whatever.  Empathy, cooperation, and progress also compel me to set aside the urge to retreat into resignation and, instead, seek reconciliation on exactly those grounds.

This idea now seems timely, the notion that labeling and self-interest must stop.  I’m not talking about identity politics as pejoratively described by some pundits.  Rather, I refer to a recent, hostile unwillingness to see ourselves in others.  Only with extreme effort or willful ignorance does one deny the existence of innate human worth – this is nothing new.  Lately, though, the drive to exclude and dehumanize is vehement.  So, whether the impetus is current economic hardship or past generational prejudices, we are witnessing the warmed over practice of defining groups of people using outward perceptions necessarily aligned with our fears.  When one appreciates the convergence of these behaviors, acknowledgment that this newest constituency has as its standard bearer the President of the United States is beyond frightening.  While we have much work to do, I believe that it is possible to withstand this wave of separatism and emerge a stronger nation.  I believe that we have been presented with a most unexpected and fertile ground from which to create a reincarnation of America that is home to all manner of class, gender, ethnicity, and immigrant.

This country has, from its beginning, narrated its autobiography in terms of exceptionalism.  Its leaders are ever noble, and its people are righteous in all things.  Revisionist history takes on a life of its own to perpetuate this false “persona.”  To a majority, though, this caricature is the reality they navigate daily, dishearteningly pushing the true knowledge of our national DNA to the margins of historical significance.  In that sense, each of us has been fooled.  We have been spoon fed that version of history that complements rhetoric, without regard for times like these, when clarity is critical to charting our future course.  There is no more persuasive argument to strip our realities bare and confront our biases than that laid at our feet by this chief executive.  This President is now under investigation.  However, it is worth noting that both the leadership and the hardline support of the party that ensconces him tries desperately still to validate his legitimacy.

Amid this dissension, we must do the hardest thing and recognize our hypocrisy despite the social advantages it brings: How do I demand respect of my philosophies and decisions, yet boldly deny the same to you?  How do I characterize a group of people without reflection, but except from that group the one neighbor or one coworker who somehow revealed her humanity?  Though it may be rehearsed, this practice continues in its counterintuitiveness.  Recall, for example, that Africans were happier as slaves than freed men and women, and indigenous people just wanted a westward vacation – this also is nothing new.  So, what do we see and fear in each other that justifies the active withholding of those rights we deem basic for ourselves?  This question is critical to beginning the process of national accord among current oppositional forces.  The ensuing dialogue, however, requires that we refrain from spouting canned justifications and retorts.  Rather, now is beyond time for analysis into how we created this sociopolitical impasse; honest inquiry into who we aspire to be as a people; and passionate advocacy from those who responsibly answer the call.

I predict that things will get worse for American interpersonal relations before they get better – change is hard.  Despite the current level of unrest observed in communities and Congress, within protests and the White House, I nonetheless have faith that there are more of us who value the outcome that results when we want as much for our neighbor as for ourselves.  More importantly, these times have revealed the deep chasms that now seem uniquely formed to the contours of the challenging circumstances we now face.  This signals to me an historic window of opportunity to not only showcase our better angels but to save our very souls.

President-Elect Trump…  Then, What?

I will defend any citizen’s ability to exercise her or his fundamental rights, whether on the grounds of the First Amendment or on the simple principle of self-determination.  I believe this to be an inviolate hallmark of American citizenship and democracy.  Therefore, in and of itself, any potential disagreement with another’s viewpoint is academic, and such should be fairly seen as a foundational element of discourse.  I become a little more than concerned, though, when even a collective decision has the potential to decimate the very core of our governmental system.  It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Americans can decide to elect, say, a 35-year-old florist who has devoted his life to amazing arrangements, but would we actually place a 21st century presidency in his hands?  In our world of sophistication and complexity, a positive outcome of the democratic process properly depends on a responsible electorate.

What, then, does the Trump supporter anticipate will be the outcome if his candidate is successful this November?  What sort of philosophical governing standard does she expect will be set by a President Trump?  What kind of fiscal policy does she gather has been proposed by Trump’s statements thus far?  In what form will our national security take shape?  And, what of the image he will project onto the world stage, where diplomacy and deliberation are needed for effective dialogue?  These are not mere rhetorical questions but, rather, are only a few of the minimum requirements for the office of our chief executive, the person in whom is embodied all that we have historically laid at her feet.  It is true that Donald Trump has mentioned each of these and other topics that typically arise on the campaign trail.  He then proceeds to make sweeping and grandiose sound bite promises about what should be done, what we now know he, alone, will do.  Trump’s supporters are convinced of his suitability to be President of the United States because he is unabashed about giving voice to what they think and feel.  To be clear, however, Trump has actually said nothing of substance, resorting to now common catch phrases of “radical Islamic terrorism,” “disasters,” and the wall, among others.  This is a problem on at least two fronts – the competence of this candidate and the mindset of his supporters.

I’ll leave for another discussion how the GOP created the model for a nominee like Trump.  His political existence is a reality that we should now face in a constructive manner, for it is indeed edifying.  The Republican nominee is a businessman and reality television personality whose success was subsidized first by his father, then by less than ethical business dealings.  He has never held political office nor has he aspired to any other than the Office of the President of the United States.  Both now and as an abiding character trait, he has made it clear that his only real constituency is himself.  He demonstrates an obvious lack of civic interest or knowledge, showcasing at every turn his ignorance of central constitutional tenets and the democratic process.  He characterizes every domestic and international issue in cataclysmic terms, and marshals support by baiting his audiences with dog whistle buzz words.  For those of us who don’t support Trump, a glimpse into the future bears witness to a schizophrenic, egotistical, singular minded leadership experiment with the lives of 324 million people.   If we do no more than take him at his word, we can be assured that this individual in the White House will employ bombastic and spontaneous governance, directed by a loosely woven and meandering platform of ideas.  From this standpoint, Trump has a little less political acumen than a high school student council candidate.  We should be forceful in our declaration that this man is the least qualified presidential candidate in our history and also quick to focus attention on the potential that his effort could materialize nonetheless.

At the heart of this potentiality brews the very real ire of his base: disgruntled white males who somehow see in him a representative of their cause.  They are citizens as am I, entitled to express their grievances through the electoral process.  But, a deeper examination and analysis is required as part of this process if, again, we are to maintain the integrity of our democracy.   I can only deduce that their reasoning takes some form of the following: Trump aptly identifies their perceived problems, so it must also be true that he has the ability to solve these problems.  Inherent in this syllogism, however, is a major misapplication of logic – one cannot reasonably conclude that speaking to an issue makes one competent to solve that issue.  But in a democracy, even illogical thinkers can cast a ballot.

All of this speaks to an American phenomenon that, while not new, has been unveiled at a most remarkable time, where contemporaneous killings of black males and white police officers, once juxtaposed, create two vastly different narratives.  The Trump supporter is as aware of it as I am, although we will likely ascribe to it wholly different descriptors.  The white male demographic about which we’ve heard so much will proudly tell you that Trump is an outspoken, apolitical businessman who will get things done.  I submit, though, that this ‘beleaguered’ demographic that now feels liberated to fully speak its mind has, in fact, been given permission by Trump to stir in public the pot it has been stirring at home for as long as it can remember.  On a subconscious level, certain segments of white America still operate from a self-declared pinnacle of superiority.  This concept informs them that they belong at the top of whatever social and economic construct is currently in dispute, and they make no qualms about vigorously protesting challenges to this position.  To say so is not a dig, and it’s not a hasty retort.  In fact, it is historical and deeply ingrained, such that its persistence should be surprising to no one.

The historical, social, and political causes for these various interpretations of the strife we’re seeing are multitudinous and intertwining, and I believe that we search in vain for solutions without examining first their origins…but this is exactly what we are unable or unwilling to do.  Through the lens of history, we must do the hard work of recognizing and accepting that our past has built the stage on which is produced a drama of distrust, anger, and marginalization.  And, the potential for a fulfilling future designed for us all is forever locked in that unreconciled past.  Trump’s most loyal supporters may seize on his exclusionary rhetoric for their own benefit, but doing so takes us nowhere as a country.  To be sure, the white man in Anytown, USA who senses a decline in his standard of living and opportunities would be wise to look forward for answers rather than backward to any notions of inherited privilege, for doing so is as out of step with current reality as his dated philosophy of entitlement.

This is the issue central to the 2016 presidential race: vision.  As a nation, will we honestly look at the collateral damage that racism, classism, sexism, and nationalism have done to our collective psyche?  Are we willing to look directly at the source of misplaced beliefs held by a sizeable minority that they deserve to prevail at all costs and their eagerness to trust the stewardship of that task to a man woefully unable to deliver it?  The former is a question essential to the rehabilitation of our nation.  More remarkably, the latter is disturbing proof that living among us is a population of voters motivated by bigotry and hate and as oblivious as their standard bearer to fundamental democratic ideals.  Just this morning, a Texas Longhorn clad supporter noted that, although Trump can’t seem to stay on message, he nonetheless spoke resonantly to “[his] people.”  Never mind that ‘Mr. Trump’ has no more in common with his supporters than he does with the very groups he takes great pains to malign.  Never mind that Trump rallies and press conferences are self-aggrandizing soliloquies containing no plans to address our national priorities.  The sole interest for these voters -- these fellow Americans -- is the immature continuation of an us-versus-them mentality and an abject disregard for the viability of our nation as a result.

The bloc of voters that has little interest in or active disregard for the blueprint for our future cannot be trusted with our future – on this we must be clear.  If he doesn’t implode before Election Day, a massive voter turnout will be required to assure Trump’s defeat.  Beyond this first order of business, we should capitalize on the opportunity he has made evident and deal with the divide unveiled by his bid.  I want never again to think of how close we came to President-Elect Trump without understanding well the forces that created him.  As a country, we could conceivably realize the dawn following some of our darkest political days.