Trump

The Death of Civil Discourse: Libtards, Nutjobs, and Trolls

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Civil discourse is dead in America. Considered thought, rational analysis, and meaningful discussions are a lost art. Name calling is the new debate tactic.

Whenever I write something others may disagree with it is often met with invectives and name-calling rather than rational argument. While this is not universally true (many people who disagree with me engage in intelligent disagreement) it is a growing theme in the national discussion.

Those on the “left” (another shallow, meaningless label) are libtards, trolls, shills, or, my favorite, barking moonbats.

And on the “right” (not correct by default, just different) we have wingnut, nutjob, Rethuglican, and teatard.

Labels accomplish nothing. There are as meaningless and crass as calling someone with glasses four-eyes, an amputee stumpy, or an acne-ravaged teen pizza face (which we did to one of my dearest friends in school.)

Name calling is the equivalent of a playground argument where one yells. “I am taking my ball and going home.”

This country faces serious issues. Whether you see President Trump as the face of the solution or the problem doesn’t matter. If, in a discussion, you resort to name calling over presenting, and listening to, arguments you add nothing to our progress.

Arguing about something a previous administration did as justification, or excuse, for the actions of the present administration is another logical and intellectual fallacy. It is not a valid argument or excuse for continuing behavior.

If you don’t believe me, try this. Next time you get a speeding ticket, go to court and argue there were other drivers speeding. See if that gets you off.

I admit to one thing. I take a somewhat perverse pleasure whenever I receive a vehement response to something I write. I have this mental picture of this person, frothing at the mouth, wailing and gnashing their teeth, as they pound out their response to my words. If the response is virulent, it heightens my enjoyment.  Nothing quite so satisfying as striking a chord that prompts a reaction.

 

Born in the USA: The Bright Shining Lie of Uninformed Patriotism

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Last night we went to the first of six Pawtucket Red Sox games which feature a themed firework display after the game. (I know this may seem like heresy from a Yankee fan, but it is a nice place to watch a game despite the Red Sox aura.)

For the Memorial Day Weekend, the theme was a patriotic one. Commemorating the lives of those who served in the military and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, defending the freedom of this country and others around the world.

There is much for which this country should be proud. We’ve been willing to sacrifice our young men and women for our ideals.  In the words of President John F. Kennedy, we’ve been willing to,

“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

We survived and thrived because we valued dedication, intelligence, and determination in pursuit of these ideals. We haven’t always been perfect, no nation or people are, but we have always been willing to learn from our mistakes.

I wonder where that brilliance has gone.

One song chosen to accompany the spectacular and inspiring display was the Bruce Springsteen song, “Born in America.”

Odd how an anti-war, anti-military-industrial complex song critical of the way we treat veterans has somehow become a rousing “hurray for America” theme. It strikes me as an indictment of our inability to think things through anymore. Our failure to find solutions to problems. Favoring slogans to rouse emotions over doing the difficult things.

To quote the lines I found most troubling amid the applause and cheers of the crowd,

“Got in a little hometown jam

So they put a rifle in my hand

Sent me off to a foreign land

To go and kill the yellow man”

I couldn’t help but notice the families of many Southeast Asians in the crowd. I wonder what they’d think if they knew the lyrics?

This underscores the rising rampant dangerous nationalism within this country that screams for a “target of opportunity.”  Today’s target is Islam.

But our failing to even bother to understand the meaning of these songs we use as a soundtrack to patriotic displays underscores our failure to understand the nature of warfare today.

In World War I and II we helped defeat a military-supported government seeking to impose themselves on others. One can debate the many reasons behind how these wars started, but the goal was clear.

Today is a different world.  Today is a world of asymmetric warfare requiring asymmetric thinking. We face any enemy of ideas, not divisions and tanks.

We must fight the genesis of these concepts of twisted jihad with intelligence and thoughtful policies, not B-1 stealth bombers and cruise missiles.

Weapons such as these have their purpose, make no doubt about it, but we could double the stockpile of weapons and it would have no effect on the enemy. Calling for the leveling of Mecca or Medina may make for rousing sound bites but would be a wasteful, inhumane, and ineffective policy.

Perhaps we should think about the ideas behind Springsteen’s lyrics.

Wars are started by ambitious politicians but fought by young men and women.

Wars are won and lost by these same politicians. (See Vietnam as an example.)

Our enemies today are enemies of everyone who opposes their ideas. We must bring the world together to fight these insidious twisted 14th-century concepts, not push ourselves into an America first isolationism.

Before entering into both World Wars, we sought to stay out of the “European” problem. That was the world where most people never traveled more than fifty miles from where they were born. Where communications between countries took weeks.

That is not today’s world.

The time of unleashing “Ole’ Blood and Guts” military leaders of Patton, Eisenhower, Marshall, and MacArthur is over. Now, more than ever, we need intelligent policies that utilize the selective application of military power to compliment our once formidable determination.

It is the only way to change the conditions that breed these terrorists.

We have the big stick, we need to remember to walk softly.

I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime, but I hope for a day when we celebrate the passing of the last veteran. For when that day comes, all the sacrifices of every veteran will be worth it.

Giving the Donald his Due

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

There are not many things I can think of to compliment President Trump about. I disagree with just about everything he’s done so far. TrumpHis performance has been dismal as illustrated by the many disasters in such a short period of time.

Although I do not think his golf game suffered, his country has.

There are many items to consider.

His fundamental ignorance of diplomacy and intelligence matters.

His policy of slash and burn over domestic assistance programs.

His wanton destruction of Universal health coverage.

His ignoring established science on global warming.

His courting of tyrants and oppressive governments.

His arrogance toward the press.

His selection of sycophants as advisers and cabinet members.

But, if I am to expect fairness I must give it in return.  A recent decision by the President shows some flashes of brilliance. Not the self-proclaimed bigly beautiful kind, but real sound judgment and decisiveness.

By hiring an attorney to protect his interest, in what now is clear to the world is a criminal investigation into Russian influence within his organization, he shows he can do the right thing.

In his own words, “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” So, I suppose it’s good news he won’t need to do that.

Or will he?

Perhaps we can get an answer to that from General Flynn. Or the President’s consigliere, Stephen Bannon.

Still, I must defer to the facts.

Finally, I have something to admire in this President.  He is at least smart enough to “lawyer up.”

While he’s at it, he can add a new theme song to his campaign organization.

I suggest “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” by Warren Zevon. Get a coffee, click the link, then let the vitriol begin.

“Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money…the shit has hit the fan.”

The Presidential Black Hole

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

It would seem to many the Trump presidency is collapsing under its own weight of arrogant incompetence. Within months it will be a black hole from which nothing, not even light, can emerge.

But would this be good for the country?  Wouldn’t it be better if the process of our government, imperfect and often clumsy as it is, molded (or pounded) Mr. Trump into some form of effective President?

I, like many of you, disagree with most of his policies. For the ones I find some agreement with, I abhor their implementation. Immigration reform, changing entitlement programs which promulgate a lifestyle of government dependency instead of independence and self-sufficiency, to name just a few.

Part of me takes an almost sadistic delight in the problems, most of them self-inflicted, besieging the President. Another, less emotional, part sees his administration as an anathema to the country. His policies, pronouncements, cabinet choices, and nonsensical tweets seem to be geared to dragging America down in order to fulfill his promise of making America great again.

There is much work to do in making America better. Many aspects of our country are no longer the envy of the world. Our education system, health care, the scourge of gun violence all issues infinitely more dangerous to ordinary Americans than the perceived threat of terrorism.

We are more a danger to ourselves than anything else.

Yet I wonder if hoping for a catastrophic demise of Mr. Trump is good in the long run. I wonder if it would be better, by demonstrating that we can still control our elected officials with our efforts even after the election, we will show the world the real power of the American people?

Mr. Trump acts like a petulant child. Deflecting all responsibility for his failures on others, the lying press, the former president, etc.  As with any child, what he needs is a firm hand to guide him to maturity.

Congress just gave him a lesson in reality in which the President must work with them to accomplish his goals. The voices of America made it clear that health care is not something to be politicized.

The conservative icon Ronald Reagan, for all the god-like worship bestowed on him by the right, had a cooperative working relationship with the Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. The ideological differences between them could not have been more stark. Yet, they found a way to cooperate.

They learned to share the toys.

Trump is still in mid-tantrum mode. Still lashing out rather than listening. But that’s what child-rearing is all about.

Let him scream and yell. Soon he’ll either learn that he must listen and act with reason and rationality, or we will take our ball and give it to someone else.

Our Father, who art in heaven, what the hell are you thinking?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 4 Comments

The establishment clause of the church-and-stateConstitution is clear,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The interpretations provide the government, and the governed, a clear path to follow. The Government has no place in supporting or subverting religious practices. Nor acting against those who chose to hold no religious faith.

I, as many of you know, am of the latter category. My progression from Catholicism to Doubt (or cynic in the tradition of Diogenes and Epicurus) makes me particularly sensitive to governmental line crossing.

When I watched the Trump rally in Florida, I was taken aback by the First Lady’s recitation of a Christian prayer. One may argue that being a political rally, President Trump can conduct this in any manner he chooses.

I disagree.

There is no such thing as a “time-out” from being President. Wherever, whenever Mr. Trump is, he is the President. He need conduct himself as such.

What’s the big deal, you may ask?

Imagine the reaction if Melania read a Sura from the Koran? The Christian conservatives would lose their minds. It would illustrate the double standard in evidence here.

A “Christian” prayer is a harmless invocation recognizing the importance of religion to most Americans. A recitation of a Sura, I dare say, would be taken as an insult.

Make no mistake about it. The recent ban on entry to the United States is a direct attack on a specific religion. Something clearly prohibited by the constitution.

Many are quick to wrap their guns in the Second Amendment as being inviolate and clear in its intent. Yet find it convenient to parse the language of the Establishment clause.

This is not a debate on the validity of any religion. I’ll save that for another time. My point is to illustrate the disingenuous nature of this administration. Trump plays to the lowest common denominator of emotion. He sees most Americans are Christians as a justification for ignoring the constitution. He plays to their fears and lack of understanding of those of different faiths.

That many Americans applaud and support such tactics is frightening. We cannot let this stand.

The President must be the calm and sober one, containing the raw emotions of nationalism and fear not feeding them. They must play the part of the adult in the room. I fear this one never will.

Apologies to the Future of America

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

Hello,

This is America from the early 21st century. If you read this, if there are any of you left to read this, you’ll no doubt be confused by the legacy we left for you.

You may have questions as to just WTF happened to cause a normally sober and rational people to elect “the Donald” to the presidency.

An excellent and unanswerable question.

We can hope the 45th President wasn’t the last.

Arising from the fears of an ignorant elective confused by what is required to serve in the position, he was elected by anger fueled with barroom logic screaming “throw the bums out.”

Fear trumped rationality. Anger replaced discourse and dialog. Nationalism couched as patriotism blinded the reality of a changing world. We wanted to return to the cocoon of an insular America.

We tried to turn back time to an era that was neither better nor great.

Some will argue this missive is premature. We are a mere three weeks into this debacle. But one can use logical deduction to see the future. If he can mangle things this much in 21 days, what will a full year look like?

Supporters see his “take no prisoners, school-yard bully” approach as refreshing. Yet it flies in the face of 300 years of maturing American style of diplomacy and managing domestic affairs.

We elected a maniacal, Machiavellian, misanthrope with delusions of rationality to serve as the leader of the free world.

All I can do is ask your forgiveness and hope you manage to survive to read this.

Washington left us a legacy in words. Lincoln left us the poetry of his Gettysburg Address. John Kennedy’s words inspired us to go to the moon and join the Peace Corps.

Trump tweets trash. 144 characters not worth the effort to push the delete key.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, we can only hope Trump doesn’t tweet while America does the same.

In the words of the Don Henley song,

We are

Beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man to be elected king

I have nothing to offer up in our best defense but an apology for our wanton disregard of your once bright future. We have no excuse for overseeing the end of the innocence.

So please accept our apologies. If you found a way to right things, we applaud you. If there is no America left to read this, we accept our responsibility for your demise.

Sincerely,

Your apologetic past

 

Is President Trump Channeling the Ghost of Huey Long?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 3 Comments

Many rational people across the globe are trying to understand the Trump phenomenon. His manner and affectations offer little in the way of encouragement. Unless one believes building a wall and destroying years of social progress a good thing.

I recently came across a challenging book called,

Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America

Author: Richard Rorty

Publisher Harvard University Press

1998

The book is not an easy read. In 1998, Rorty predicted the rise of an American strong man. He wrote,

“One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out.

Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. … All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unaccept­able to its students will come flooding back. All the resent­ment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. …

After my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly betray the expectations of his supporters, make his peace with the international super-rich. … People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left?

Why was it only rightists like [Pat] Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossessed?”

The words seem almost prophetic. In looking for similar pieces, I came across a novel by Sinclair Lewis called, It Can’t Happen Here.

One of the novel’s characters is Berzelius “Buzz” Windip, a politician who defeats FDR for the presidency. His campaign is based on fomenting fear and promising drastic economic and social reforms all to the backdrop of Patriotism and “traditional” values.

Things change after the election. He imposes a plutocratic totalitarian regime through a paramilitary force. The plot focuses on journalist Doremus Jessup’s opposition to the regime and his part in a liberal rebellion.

Critics connected the novel to Louisiana politician Huey Long who was preparing for a run for the presidency in 1936. Long was assassinated in 1935 just prior to the novel’s publication.

A time when America was resisting entanglement in the European turmoil leading to World War II.

History unveils the difficult decisions facing FDR. Americans were fearful of events in Europe. Such fears offered a politician such as the one in Lewis’s novel an opportunity to arise.

The fear of immigrants and refugees was powerful then and mirrored in our own time.

One of the little talked about aspects of the “Greatest Generation” is the rampant anti-Semitism that permeated American society. Once we entered the war, FDR had to balance the perceptions. He could not let our entry into the conflict appear to be a war to save the Jews.

There is much to be proud of in this country. The bravery and courage of the military, the resilience of Americans to bear any burden, and our past stands against injustice, yet we sometimes overlook the truths of history.

There will come a time when future generations take the measure of our actions. It would appear now that courage and determination to do the difficult and face down the enemy is sorely lacking.

As we face a new wave of innocent refugees, America must look them in the eye and choose. We can offer a beacon of hope with welcoming arms or the cold bayonet of fear.

Perhaps Americans need to step away from their insular iWorld and read a bit. It could be iOpening.

In All Fairness

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. The rancor and rejection by those who oppose Trump now rises to a new level of vitriol. I place myself in the ranks of those who did not vote for Trump. I find his initial actions in office to be counter-productive at best and terrifying at worst. I have great apprehension for the near future of this country.

But, with that said, let us not forget the process of government given to us by the founding fathers. One created to weather such storms.

Let us not forget the constitutional concepts upon which these nominations proceed to Congress. They are to “advise and consent.”

When President Obama (oh where, oh where have you gone?) nominated Judge Merrick Garland, the Republicans acted like fools. Spouting all sorts of nonsense about election year nominations being improper.

No doubt someone will point out that more people voted against Trump than voted for him. They’ll suggest this as a reason he should not nominate anyone.

Nonsense. As much nonsense as blocking election year nominations.

Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing. They subverted the constitution. They knew the hearing to “advise and consent” is not about the nominee’s positions, but about their qualifications. Garland was as qualified as Gorsuch appears to be, philosophical differences aside.

These differences are not a basis to reject a nominee.

We cannot scream about violating the spirit of America with a religious test (couched in fear) that bans immigration based on being a Muslim, then seek to block an otherwise apparently qualified nominee for the court because we disagree with his opinions.

Democrats need not follow the Republican circus act. They can follow the rule of law and Senate decorum.

Quotes are like friends, we pick them because we like them. Facts are like blood relatives, often uncomfortably embarrassing. We can quote all we like by cherry-picking decisions by Gorsuch. The fact remains that on the surface he appears qualified for the position. If a Senate hearing discovers otherwise, so be it.

And that is all the constitution requires.

History is replete with justices who turned out to be much less rigid than expected.

If Justice Gorsuch demonstrates his qualifications for the Supreme Court, the Senate should advise and consent. If we demand the Republicans follow the law, and criticize them when they don’t, we must ourselves take the high road.

To do otherwise is to cast aside 200 plus years of our way of conducting the people’s business. There are those in Congress who do not care, those of us with some rationality left should.

The alternative is inertia in government.

A Prescient President

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

President Dwight David Eisenhower faced a myriad of daunting tasks during his professional life.

As Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, he faced the task of building a coalition of forces to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese. There were many times when the outcome of that war was uncertain.

After the war, he contributed not to the punishment of Germany or Japan, but to the rebuilding and reforming these former enemies into democracies. He, and others like him, saw the folly of the post-World War I decimations of the defeated countries that led to the inevitable rise of militant nationalism.

As president, he faced the rise of the Iron Curtain, a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, and the collapse of Nationalist China. He faced the war in Korea and the initial involvement of the US in Vietnam.

He was a lifelong Republican and strong military leader who saw that the world of combat was changing. Our weapons technology was reducing our opportunity to resolve conflicts peacefully. He recognized the quest for security through military superiority alone as the biggest risk to our democracy.

He saw the rise of the internal threat of the military-industrial complex as more ominous than any external enemy.

Several days before John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, Eisenhower shared some prescient words with the nation. Words that we need to consider. This was a man who understood the nature of evil, the horrors of war, and the risks of letting fear drive national policy.

Do yourself a favor and take a moment to read these words from a man who understood the office of the Presidency, the power of the American military, and the risk of losing sight of our democratic principles.

“In the council of governments, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

He went on to bemoan the rise of the government control, through federal grants, of research and scientific experiment.

“In this revolution research has become central. It has also become more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of the federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists, in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

His vision continued with a warning on our responsibility to the health and welfare of the planet.

“Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we–you and I, and our government–must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”

We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.  

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as we do, protected as we are by our moral economic and military strength. The table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”

And this, his most telling line.

“Together we must learn how to compose differences–not with arms but with intellect and decent purpose.”

Today, we have a president who calls the flu vaccine a scam, seeks to run roughshod over the environment by executive fiat, and excludes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director National Intelligence from his National Security council.

Perhaps Eisenhower saw the future and left us a moral compass to follow.

Dissolving the American Dream

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment
As an optimist, I look for the positive in all things. Sometimes, it is all but impossible to find. Yet, even within the turbulence of the first week of the Trumping of America, there is a shiny element of good.
Trump pulled the bandage off the ugly festering wound that is prejudice in the form of nationalism in America. His rabid bulldog approach to immigration offers an opportunity. Now that we see this insidious infection, we can treat it.
There are those who support these policies celebrating in the street. Proud in their contempt for everything and everyone they perceive as un-American.
Keep out the terrorist.
Build that wall.
Tax the Mexican products to make them pay.
The only thing missing is goose-stepping thugs ensuring compliance. But it’s only been a week.
I travel out of the country quite often. Never, in all the time I’ve been doing this, have I ever been anything but proud of my country. Yet, this time in Costa Rica, I could sense a difference in the perception of the United States.
They felt sorry for us. So did the Canadians on the trip with us. It was as if the sports legend used steroids. Our reputation tarnished and diminished.
America has always offered hope to the world. Our openness and willingness to accept others, no matter where they came from, perceived as a strength, not a vulnerability.
That we, as a people, were willing to risk the harm of a few to offer an opportunity to the many was evidence of our courage.
That perception is fading. We are becoming a huge paranoid isolated society, shying away from our fellow man.
No measure of border protection or walls can stop a determined enemy. Every effort to strengthen the openness of the America I love chips away at those whose hopelessness is the source of these terrorists.
Every effort to prevent the rest of the world from coming in diminishes us.
This is no longer a disconnected world. Something that happens in Des Moines, Iowa can have an effect in Berlin.  Something that happens in Seoul, South Korea can affect Boston, Massachusetts.
As history shows, something planned in medieval-like Afghanistan can affect New York.
The solution is not simple, making the problem worse is.
Words matter. Perceptions matter. The words announcing this blockade of immigration carry more than simple meaning. Wiping Islamic terror from the face of the earth. Opening our doors to Christian, but not Muslim, immigrants from Syria. These all play into the hands of those who twist the words of the Quran into a recruiting tool.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same Abrahamic God. They interpret the words in a different manner. The issues in the Middle East are not a recent phenomenon. The Palestinian problem is thousands of years older than the United States.
The issue of asymmetric warfare, in the form of terrorism, is not solved by the stroke of a pen or a wall.
The solution is an open and courageous people willing to stand up to the risk of terror. One way to do that is by living in a country that serves as an example, not a convenient target.
The whole world is watching us. Those that are our friends are scratching their heads trying to come to grips with this new America. Those who wish us harm are taking delight in their ability to imprison the Great Satan behind a wall.
To borrow a line from the song by Lee Greenwood, “I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.” How long will those words ring true?
If the American people no longer have the courage to keep our society open, our pride will disappear.
We, the people, are better than that.