• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

186     Politics 2

9/23/2020

0 Comments

 
In my last post, I said that I found some of Mr. Trump's behaviors to make him the less desirable candidate for President in the upcoming election.  This time, I wish to share some additional thoughts relating to the upcoming election.  First, I should point out that I don't believe that Mr. Biden, if elected, would, quickly and easily, resolve all of our difficulties and create the "more perfect union" which we might desire.  But I DO think he might be able to start some movement in that direction.
 
So, why do I say that?  Do I think that Mr. Biden has all of the answers and will be able to wave some sort of magic wand and resolve all of the differences and difficulties which our country faces?  I don't think so.  Could it be because I'm so committed to the Democratic Party that I believe that only the Democrats can restore America to greatness?  No!  In fact, I suspect that Will Rogers had it right when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party.  I am a Democrat."  It's also true that I really don't buy into the idea which the Republicans have been so anxious to spread that the US has "fallen" from greatness and still has to be "made" great again, by them.  (An obvious admission of their failure to do so in the past four years, which their reigning VP, Mike Pence actually suggested, but that's not the point, either.) 
 
Be that as it may, I think what Will said is true, that it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as being particularly well-organized, so why would I want to be a part of that disorganization?  To be honest, precisely because it IS disorganized!  To me that suggests that the Democrats DON'T all agree with each other and move in some sort of lock step towards a defined utopian future where everyone agrees on everything and we are all likely to die of boredom because we are all just cookie cutter copies of the same sort of thinking.  
 
I LIKE the idea that it's just possible that democracy isn't supposed to be a situation of conformity to the wishes of some sort of "supreme leadership council" (or, Heaven forbid, a "supreme leader") who will lead us to the "glorious future" of world envy, and/or domination.  I find it very hard to accept that much of what has been preached by the current crop of "Trumpublicans" is really what the Founding Fathers intended, or even the Republican Party of the not too distant past envisioned as the destiny of our nation.  
 
Now, the Republicans I remember from a few years ago tended to fit into the general category of what is called "Conservative."  They tended to be anti-union, pro-business, against taxes, for "small" government (keep the government out of my personal business; also known as personal freedom), and (to go back a few years further) to believe that, if there were social problems in the country, the solution was to provide the wealthy with greater wealth and that they would allow/encourage that wealth to work its way down to those of us who might not be as well off.  This was, generally, referred to as "trickle down economics."  They also, generally, supported a policy of not getting the government involved in any form of "social engineering" as school integration, health care, employment, environmental concerns, job safety practices, etc.  
 
Then things started to change.  In order to attract traditionally white southern conservatives to the Republican Party, they created a "Southern Strategy," of attracting southern whites away from the Democrats, in large part by seeking to make laws which were anti-black, and which would appeal to religiously "conservative" ideas.  So, limiting black voter's rights and being anti-choice was good, although the death penalty was still a good idea.  Protecting the "right" of the white "Christian" Church to have significant influence on the political scene was also a part of this strategy, as it provided an excuse to be pro-segregation and to keep those "uppity" folks in their "proper" place.  And, of course, in the process, they were protecting white, male supremacy by attacking efforts to grant women the right to equal pay, fair employment practices, etc.
 
Still, having lived through those years, I don't remember the changes which the Republicans seemed to desire actually having too much impact.  In fact, the lot of a fair part of the middle and lower classes actually seemed to improve, although mostly in those periods when Democrats were in charge.  (Check the records.)  But even so, I also remember that most of those Republicans did, in fact, seem to think that the political system of argue, debate, and compromise worked reasonably well.  It's true that nobody ever really got everything they wanted (which isn't, necessarily a bad thing) but solutions were reached which did seem to work reasonably well and we did, overall, move in the general direction of resolving some of the issues of civil rights, greater equality, and a general sense that the country was becoming fairer to all than it had been, say, 20-50 years earlier and it seemed that this sort of advancement, while slow, might continue.
 
Then something changed.  I think the first big change was the Roe v Wade decision.  All of a sudden, the, mostly white, male, politicians (very few of them with a medical background) felt they had lost control over "theirwomenfolk."  After all, if a woman could actually CHOOSE not to have a baby (thereby making them unsuitable for employment outside the home) then men had lost some of their ability to dominate them.  They might actually want jobs and equal pay for equal work and men might have to compete with women and prove the just being male didn't automatically make them better qualified for whatever job they wanted.  So, they started all sorts of actions to say, "Okay, the Courts gave you that right,  but we are going to do all we can to minimize your ability to exercise it."  And they went and tried, and they are still doing so.
 
Then, to make matters worse, a BLACK guy named Barack Obama was elected to be President, and, with a tiny margin, the Democrats had control of the Congress and were able to start considering social legislation which was, generally, opposed by many "Conservatives."  This led, a couple of years later to a Republican dominated Senate and the expressed desire of Majority leader Mitch McConnell that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  (I certainly can't prove it, but I have always suspected that this attitude had a lot to do with the fact that Obama was an African American.)  I find it quite likely that some folks simply wanted to make sure that no "uppity N*****" was able to succeed as President, especially considering more recent developments.
 
Most of the next six years were dominated by attempts to "repeal and replace" the healthcare reforms which, in fact, had been legally made law and were, generally, approved of by most Americans.  It is noteworthy, I think, that the Republicans, while anxious to repeal, never actually got around to offering up any sort of replacement.  They still haven't done so, despite many promises to do so.  In fact, I don't think it would be too much to say that, other than trying to abolish the gains of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans really didn't do much of anything for about six years except to try to stall/defeat ANY action by the Congress, or the President.  
 
Mitch, and the boys, even went so far as to refuse to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court for over a year because they couldn't stand the idea that they might even consider a person selected by a President not of their Party, "so close to the election."  I think it was at that time that the Republican Party lost me completely, and I think I am justified in my belief that this was not just a political, but a racist action.  It's worth noting that Mitch made a statement within hours of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate" in spite of the fact that the election will be in six weeks.  And, of course, Donald desires a Senate vote "without delay" proving that neither he nor Mitch are honorable men.  Julius Caesar III,2,52 ff comes immediately to mind to me.
 
Since I retired, I have been able to follow politics more closely than I had while I was working, and I must say that I have been appalled.  Up until the past few years, while I often didn't agree with the Republican (Conservative) position on many issues, I frequently thought that the points they emphasized were worthy of consideration and were, often, of some value in preventing the Democratic positions (generally more Liberal) from becoming too dominate, which MIGHT be a good thing.
 
 [An aside: When did "liberal" become a pejorative?  I always thought it suggested open-mindedness, tolerance, etc.  Now, many people use it like a curse word.  I've even heard of folks objecting to the idea of a "liberal education."  This seems sad to me.
​
And, by the way, the opposite of "radical," a word Trumpublicans use interchangeably with "liberal," is "reactionary."  "Radical" and "Reactionary" are extremes, as opposed to more "middling" positions of liberality or conservativism.]
 
To continue, while current Republicans say that they are "Conservative," it seems to me that many of their actions tend more towards "Reactionary" than traditional "conservative" values.  Okay, I understand nostalgia for the "good old days," but I'm afraid that the days of "Leave It to Beaver," "Ozzie and Harriet," or even "Happy Days" are gone and never really existed except on TV.  I don't think that most American women really want to return to the days when they were expected to spend their lives as housewives and mothers, with little opportunity to ever hold a job, except, possibly, as a nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, or waitress.  Even then, of course, the REAL goal, for a woman, was ALWAYS assumed to be marriage and family and taking care of (being dependent on) the "hubby." Anything else, of course made them a "failure as a woman."  
 
I don't think that Black and Brown Americans are likely to be willing to return to segregation and the other, more obvious forms of racism.  There's still plenty of racism around that hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way.  I also doubt that the LGBTQ community is going to happily go back in the "closet."  Nor do I think that many people would be happy to back to a "males only" "Selective Service" process to feed the need of the military.  Do we really want to return to street corner abortions, or "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools?  
 
Whether we like it, or not, the world has changed, and we really can't go back to those days even if we wanted to.  I, for one, don't wish to do so.  Yes, change is hard, but it is a FACT.  Suggesting that we can reestablish those, "wonderful(?)," old days is, in reality, an "alternative fact," that is, an UNtruth.
 
In the current political climate, we seem to have two, conflicting points of view.  One, represented by a group which claims to be Republicans, but which often displays behaviors and attitudes which tend towards exalting nationalism (and probably race) above the individual; that seems to stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and appears to advocate a fairly high degree of economic and social regimentation by an elite class; and the forcible suppression of opposition.  It pains me to point out that these are the definitional characteristics of a political system known as Fascism.  Which leads me to note that it is popular in "Trumpublican" circles to blame demonstrations (even when they can't be stirred up into riots, so that they can be suppressed more authoritatively), as being led by Antifa, which seems to be the current name for them to call anyone who protests anything they don't support.
 
As I understand it, after some brief research, there is NO specific organization which can be called "Antifa," because it isn't really that organized, as it's even less organized than the Democrats.  About all it seems to stand for is "Anti-Fascism."  Does that mean that the "Trumpublicans," who say they are anti-Antifa (therefore anti-anti-fascist) are actually PRO-fascist?  The use of a double negative in English is usually considered to resolve into a positive.  Oh, well.
 
To get to the real point of this post.  I've watch Mr. Trump for over four years now as he has lied, name-called, bullied, bragged, ducked responsibility, etc.  I find little to respect there.  On the other hand, I've been aware of Mr. Biden for quite a while, certainly since he ran for Vice President, but even before that, during his tenure in the Senate, which began in 1973 and lasted until 2009.  I didn't know a lot about him, but I did, occasionally hear about something he had done, or a position he supported.  I've recently learned that he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English, and, later, obtained a Law degree from Syracuse University.  (Remember, Trump's only education culminated with a B.S. degree in Economics.)  I admit to a certain prejudice towards B.A. degrees, but a double major WITH a minor, and then a degree in Law as well.  I find that moderately impressive.  All things considered Joe's educational record seems more impressive than Donald's.
 
I confess that I have been impressed by Joe's having largely overcome the stutter he had as a child, which I know is a challenge.  I find that making fun of it when it occasionally shows up, as Donald has done, to be offensive and certainly not becoming anyone who wishes to be thought of as a leader.  I never had such a challenge, but I have studied such things just a bit, and have a very modest insight into how challenging it can be.
 
Joe has also overcome the personal challenge of dealing with the death of his first wife and their daughter shortly after being elected to the Senate and proceeding to serve effectively enough to be reelected multiple times while also raising his two motherless sons.  I find those actions to be signs of strong character, dedication to dealing with adversity, and a willingness to face the future in spite of difficulties.
 
While I don't agree with everything that Joe has done in his career in the Senate and as Vice President, that doesn't surprise me.  In fact, if I did, it would really surprise me.  What his record tells me, however, is that he is a man who has a record of doing the people's business in a fashion which was good enough to get him reelected six times by his constituents in Delaware.  I doubt that all of those voters always agreed with everything he did, but they trusted him to represent them at least most of the time.
 
Then, as Vice President, he, apparently, served Mr. Obama well enough to be kept around for a second term and was entrusted with a number of specific tasks for the Obama Administration in addition to his other duties. Perhaps the most valuable insight I have heard about Joe actually comes from President Obama, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me."  I think that's a great quality for a Vice President, and I think it would be valuable in a President, as well. 
 
So, do I think Joe Biden is perfect?  No!  But we are dealing with a binary choice here.  After all, there may be various other candidates on the ballot, but the Presidency is going to come down to one of two people.  I think my choice is pretty obvious.  I trust Joe Biden to consider the options and make a decision based on the best information available from a variety of sources, especially from those who actually know what they are talking about.  I have enough academic and scientific training to think that it's generally wise to trust the opinions of those who have thoroughly studied whatever problem is under consideration.  I don't think that "trusting your gut" because "I'm so smart" is likely to produce the best possible choices.  Nor is relying on TV pundits instead of seasoned, qualified professionals.
 
If Biden is elected, do I suspect that I will agree with all of his decisions?  No, but I think he is likely to try to get the best information available, make his decisions based on the advice of knowledgeable people, and give each matter careful thought.  If (when) he makes a mistake, I expect he will admit it and try to rectify the problem he created.  I don't think he will refuse to accept responsibility for it and blame others.  I'm pretty sure that we really can't ask much more of any President.  Except, of course, not to lie to us, because, in his opinion, we "...can't handle the truth."  I think we can handle the truth just fine, it's the lies which we can't (and shouldn't) handle, but I won't go there.
 
Register & Vote!  Vote EARLY, if possible!  It's important!  It's the essence of democracy.
 
LLAP
 
Dr. B

0 Comments

185     Six Years of Blogging - Politics 1

9/9/2020

0 Comments

 
I realized the other day that it's been six years since we moved to Omaha.  I had retired at the end of the academic year 2013-14 and Bonnie retired from the Honors College later that summer.  That September, having moved and, mostly, settled in, I decided I would create this blog and the website which supports it as a bit of a lark and to do something that I thought I would enjoy. 
 
Now, six years later, I find I am still enjoying finding things to think/talk/write about, although I will admit that some entries are more successful than others.  I really had no idea that this would become such a part of my life, although it is by no means the only thing I do.  Still, it gives me an excuse to spend some of my time doing something which might be construed as being "productive."  I don't know if it's my Puritan roots, or what, but I enjoy being "productive," although I prefer mental productivity to something like digging ditches.  That's probably my academic training and heritage coming through.  So, I intend to keep on blogging, at least as long as I can find something to say and to do the research necessary to satisfy myself that I have some idea as to what I am writing about.  Since my sources of amusing signs, jokes, comic strips, etc., don't appear likely to disappear any time soon, I suppose that I can keep on with these posts without too much difficulty.
 
I have, mostly, avoided getting into political topics in these postings.  There are a lot of reasons for that.  I have always felt it was important not to let political opinion intrude into my classroom.  I was not teaching political science.  Yes, many plays can have political content and I have never tried to avoid discussing those facts or including such content in productions where I had significant influence on interpretation, but I always made serious attempts not to allow my personal, political ideas invade my work in the classroom.  I felt that my job was to assist students to acquire the best, most accurate information available and to help them develop the skills to assess that information based on reasonable judgement and sound thinking.  It was NOT my job to tell people WHAT to think.  And, I tried to follow that in my classroom.
 
The situation has now changed.  I am no longer in a classroom and, while I still don't think it's my place to tell people what they should think, I do not have the ethical requirements of the teaching profession to prevent me from expressing my own opinions with a bit more candor than I felt appropriate in an academic setting.   So, this blog, in the future, may, at least from time to time, have some greater emphasis on specifically political content than it has had in the past.  
 
If that disappoints or upsets some readers, I'm sorry.  But I'm not going to shy away from expressing what I believe.  Politics is too important.  I acknowledge that my ideas are only that.  You are welcome to disagree with me.  However, I would like to believe that I don't get far enough into an idea as to write about it without putting some thought and effort towards getting information about that idea from sources which seem likely to be reasonably well informed.  I don't consider myself a "prime" source of most things political.  I try to pay some attention to the news, so I believe that I have some handle on the facts.  I also think I am enough of a scholar that I am hesitant to draw conclusions without at least some supporting evidence.  I think I am willing to listen to others who can produce arguments which contradict my ideas, provided they are based on reasonable evidence, not just emotion.   So, consider yourselves warned.  I have thoughts and I've not afraid to use them.  
 
After watching the news fairly closely for the past few years, I have come to believe that Donald John Trump is a danger to our country.  I don't believe this because of a specific political philosophy which he has espoused.  There have been many of our leaders with whom I disagreed on various issues.  No, I'm concerned about Mr. Trump mostly because I have never heard him espouse any political philosophy except that he is the "savior" of the country; that he is the one to save us  from all of those other people who aren't "real" Americans like him and who are, at least to hear him tell it, are clearly inferior sorts of people who should be ignored and distrusted.  More specifically, however, it's because of a number of specific actions I have observed him engage in over the last four, or five, years.  Let me provide some examples.
 
First, I find it hard to have faith in the leadership of a person who seems to have no ability to espouse reasons/explanations for many of his actions, except to indicate that, "I know what is best because I'm so smart; and the proof of my great intelligence is my great wealth."  Okay, he appears to be rich, but he has left a long string of corporate bankruptcies; accusations of, at best, quasi-legal business shenanigans; documented fraud (Trump "University"); and other questionable activities (including racist practices and accounting gimmicks) in the record of his business career.  This career, by the way, certainly appears to have been based on money which he was "loaned" or inherited from his father, not built from his own efforts.  So, I find it hard to accept his much-touted record of great deal-making, especially when he refuses to reveal his tax or business records and requires "Non-disclosure Agreements" from, apparently all of his business associates, so that his record is almost completely unverifiable.
 
Second, he told us in his campaign that he "...knew all the best people" and would place them in appropriate positions of authority within his administration.  His record in this area has been one of a constant flow of people into and out of various offices in his administration.  People brought into office as "perfect" examples of the best our country has to offer are then quickly replaced with comments that they are examples of complete incompetence and stupidity whom we should be glad he fired.  This gives me little confidence in his judgement.  This is especially true since the firings all seem to occur shortly after these appointees displease him in some fashion, suggesting different motivations.
 
Third, it's easy to see many examples of a pattern of Trump trusting his "gut" over expert advice because, he says, his "great intelligence" proves that he "knows more than the generals," highly experienced public health officials, or, apparently anyone else about almost everything.  Personally, I haven't seen what I would consider much evidence of Mr. Trump's great intelligence, especially since we are told that he doesn't read, often does not pay attention to briefings, etc., and seems more responsive to his supporters on Fox News than to the information from the country's intelligence services and other, qualified, experts, but that's beside the point.  A more provable point is that his claim of "superior" intelligence does not seem to be borne out by his educational accomplishments, which consist of a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968.  
 
Now, Trump frequently brags about Wharton (notice he never says "UPenn) being the "best" school and has often spoken of his place near the top of his class.  Yet, he threatened to sue Penn if it released his specific records (grades, etc.), which, according to the information I was given as a Faculty member at Western, are NOT publicly available without permission of the student, so they couldn't be released without his permission, in any event. (As an aside, I was told that, as a faculty member, I could not, under Federal law, release grade-related information even to a student's parents without the student's permission.)  Apparently, he is not familiar with these laws.  Clearly, however, Mr. Trump would prefer that the public not know the details of his academic record. 
 
On the other hand, commencement programs ARE publicly available.  The program for the University of Pennsylvania's 212th Commencement Ceremony, held on May 20, 1968 is available @ https://archives.upenn.edu/digitized-resources/docs-pubs/commencement-programs/program-1968.  It shows that Donald John Trump graduated with a B.S. degree in Economics, just as he states.  However, in the section of that program where "Academic Honors" are indicated, the same Donald John Trump is NOT indicated as graduating "Cum Laude," "Magna Cum Laude," or "Summa Cum Laude." 
 
Now, speaking from my experience in attending many commencement exercises over 43 years of teaching, universities are ALWAYS proud of their "Honors" graduates.  They ALWAYS want to celebrate those students who have achieved the "best" academic records.  If Trump had, as he has suggested, graduated near the top of his class, it seems likely that he would have received some sort of recognition of that fact by the university on this occasion.  After all, twenty-some others DID receive such recognition.  I do not wish to denigrate Wharton, nor any of its graduates, but I find it hard to accept that a fifty-year old non-Honors B. S. degree in Economics and a questionable business career qualifies one with the knowledge and ability to know more about military matters than all the generals, more about international relations than seasoned State Dept. professionals, and more about medicine and public health than those with advanced degrees and many years of experience in dealing with such matters.
 
What this, and more, seems to add up to, at least to me, is that here we have an individual who appears so insecure in his own abilities; so insistent that his ideas are the only ones which matter; and, so concerned about proving his own importance that he is dangerous.   Just my limited knowledge of psychology from Psych 101 & 102, suggests that one who constantly brags of his own superiority, belittles anyone who disagrees with him, and bullies almost everyone frequently, has a desperate need to convince others that he is THE "man."  I think one could reasonably suggest that this comes from a high degree of insecurity regarding his confidence in his own abilities, but I am not a trained psychologist.
 
However, his constant need, as President,  to "rule by decree" and tweet; his inability (or unwillingness) to assume any responsibility for even his own actions; his constant belittling and name-calling of any who disagree with any of his ideas; his pattern of labelling reports of his own changes of opinion as "fake news"; his paranoic obsession with polls and ratings, (which are "wrong" when they don't support him it spite of the proven objectivity of such measures); and his constant appeal to the tactics of contemporary "strong men" leaders and the application of methodologies which are strangely similar to those used in the 1930's by Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler and more recently by Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin are all disturbing.  
 
His insistence on personal loyalty to himself as leader, and his encouragement of armed "militias" and efforts to make the Dept. of State, the Dept. of Justice, the organs of public Health and the intelligence agencies arms of his political ambitions are frightening.
 
I cannot support a "leader" who declares a "National Emergency" based on the emergence of a new strain of virus. (quoted below):
 
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020
 
and then proceeds to tell the Governors of the various states that they must assume the responsibility for the citizens of their states because declaring such a national state of emergency should not be taken to imply anyresponsibility on the part of the national government to actually DO anything, except, perhaps, to "help you out when you can't handle it yourselves."  I come to this conclusion based on the established fact that Trump, to this day, refuses to accept any responsibility for the fact that we have no national strategy for preventing the spread of this virus in spite of millions of cases and close to 200,000 deaths.  And growing.  
 
The national strategy for developing a vaccine, such as it is, seems to be to throw billions of dollars at any drug company which has developed a candidate vaccine so that they will go into production of millions of doses of unproven treatments in the hope that something (ANYTHING) might actually work.  Now we see statements that we should be prepared to "miraculously" have a vaccine JUST before the election, thus proving that Donald is the "savior of the country."  If that idea doesn't smell of political desperation and attempting to manipulate public health policy for personal, political ends, I don't know what does, especially when the recognized medical and public health authorities strongly suggest that adequate testing of a candidate vaccine can't possibly have been accomplished within that time frame.  These are NOT "alternative" facts, they are just news reports from what Trump usually describes as the "fake" news.  Personally, I will take my medical advice and opinions from licensed doctors and practitioners, not someone with a mediocre record in finance and business.
 
I also find Trump's constant harping on the "great success" of the economy disturbing.  Just because the stock market is doing well (which it has been), does not mean the economy, overall, is in good shape.  I am not an economist, but it IS true that the government has been spending trillions of dollars which it doesn't have and won't get because big business is enjoying great tax relief and relaxation of anything resembling regulation.  But real people have lost jobs and retail sales are down, in spite of the fact that Trump's nemesis, Amazon, is doing okay; government services (the Postal Service) are in decline, apparently because Trump considers voting by mail to be bad, in spite of the fact that he does it; evictions are up; food banks are empty; COVID-19 is running rampant; etc.  All things considered, it doesn't seem to me that the overall economy is doing all that well; and is unlikely to do so at least as long as we can't resume "normal" activities without being concerned about dying of COVID-19. 
 
And, even then I believe that the "new" normal will be quite different from the old.  I would suggest that the concentrated business centers of big cities are doomed as the COVID crisis has demonstrated that a lot of business is capable of being conducted without assembling the workforce in common workplaces and that much work can, in fact, be accomplished remotely.  I do think that education will return to a more traditional model, mostly because the social skills of group activity have considerable value for society.  But "downtown," as a center of business, appears doomed in large measure, along with the shops and restaurants which have supported it.  Factories will continue to exist, but they will be increasingly robotic and require fewer workers.  No, it's too bad, but the "new" normal is unlikely to be the same as the "old" one, but I digress.
 
To return to my previous thread, to top off the other concerns, Donald seems to believe that he, personally, can be the one to judge whether, or not, the upcoming election has been "fair" and "correct”; and, if he decides it hasn't been, he has the right to refuse to give up the office when the Constitution says a new President's term would begin.  Now, it is possible that Trump could be reelected, although it's fairly obvious that I don't believe that he should be.  But, if he is not, his suggested unwillingness to leave office at the appropriate time could, I'm afraid, touch off a second civil war, testing whether any nation "... conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...." can long endure.
 
I believe that Trump's actions have made it quite clear that he is dedicated to the creation of a nation which is ruled, not "...by, for, and of the people;" but by and for Trump.  His actions in exerting personal influence over our systems of justice, foreign affairs, public health, etc., strongly suggest that he is less interested in being President and more interested in being a "strong man" dictator like those he so admires.  
 
Some may suggest that I simply hate Trump, but I believe them to be wrong.  I pity him.  His inadequacies have apparently been carefully honed by those whose love he desperately sought.  I hope that he will someday find the peace to accept his own, frequently revealed mediocrity.  Those who have profited from his pitiful failings, and I believe that there are many of them, should be punished to the full extent of the law.  Their abuses, not only of this poor man, but of our country, are acts as heinous as those of the Holocaust, if on a somewhat smaller scale.  Rather than assisting Trump to acquire the assistance he so obviously needs; they have continued to use and abuse this pitiable figure for their own ends.  Their guilt is unforgivable.  
 
I would urge others not to vote for Trump, not just because I find little to admire in this sad, little man, but because I find much to admire in the U. S. Constitution which he clearly sees as an impediment to his achieving what he wishes to believe should be his personal destiny.  Do I think that the Constitution establishes a way of life which is perfect?  No.  However, I am unable to conceive of a better basis upon which to establish a government.  It even has a process of amending itself in order to provide for needed changes, a process which has been used numerous times.  Even with the imperfections which I see in our system, though, I can't accept that the crowning of some sort of all-powerful "Leader" is likely to lead to the establishment of the "more perfect Union" which our Founder's hoped to be starting.
 
What this suggests is that voting is the lifeblood of our country.  We can vote in elections, or we can vote with our lives, but voting is how we achieve a better nation.  Be informed.  Take care.  Vote as if your life depended on it.  It probably does.
 
Next time I plan to make some comments relating to Mr. Trump's opponent, Mr. Biden.  I'm not convinced that he is going to be the "Savior" of our country, either.  Of course, I'm not convinced that's really what he wants to be.  Nor am I convinced that a "Savior" is what we should be seeking.
 
LLAP,
 
Dr. B

0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly