Politics

Trying to express coherent thoughts on politics seems more difficult to me than a previous effort on faith. Aristotle put a far better mind than mine to the task 2500 years ago in “Politics” and they eventually ran him out of town. I’m hoping for a less dramatic result.

While there are politics in many aspects of our lives, I’m specifically thinking of those concerning the governance of the activities of our country, states, and associated entities and the decisions that apply to all citizens. Like religion, it’s a topic that may be best to avoid with friends which was made crystal clear to me earlier this year.

A friend frequently posts positions on religion, social behavior and politics that are most often associated with ideas that are considered conservative in todays lexicon with a few being a little to the right of that. Many of the ideas strike a responsive chord in me although I often disagree with their suggested method of implementation or if a view is not truly applicable to all citizens (ideas based on a particular religious preference, for instance, but are promulgated for all ). Since my friend readily expresses their opinions on social media, I thought they might be amenable to other points of view that could be considered in the process of validating their position. On some issues I had empathy with their position but came to a more nuanced understanding after calming my emotions and examining the situation and facts (kneeling during the National Anthem for instance). I commented on others when a position was based on verifiable factual inaccuracies or crossed over the “bite your tongue line” when they seemed to support behaviors that I believe are inhumane or indefensible for me as an American. Most of my friend’s posts were just cheerleading for a particular point of view, stronger borders or smaller government for instance, with the now mandatory hyperbole for emphasis. Boy was I wrong.

My friend eventually responded with an unexpected tone and approach. In particular, I took it as a suggestion that I was not patriotic (okay, I can be a bit touchy and use hyperbole too). My friend concluded that my “…liberal opinions and comments” would no longer be accepted. The rest of the response was actually a bit stronger. I was both hurt and shocked. Hurt because of a friendship wounded and shocked because my opinions and comments were considered both liberal and offensive. I don’t consider myself a liberal, don’t align myself with many positions taken by those purporting to be liberal, and certainly didn’t mean to offend. I find many positions supported by those who claim to be either liberal or conservative equally problematic.

I went back and reviewed the few ideas and comments I had expressed. I truthfully think most were right down the middle. Facts are neither liberal nor conservative. For instance, corroborated facts supporting or refuting human effect on climate should be assessed without prejudice. A different point of view on a problem is not always conservative or liberal in itself. Political parties often change positions on issues or say one thing and do the opposite.

So, this incident confirmed what I had suspected all along; thinking that I have ideas, information, or opinions others might be interested in is pretty hubristic on my part. Also, when it comes to politics (and religion) opinions and courses of action are often determined in the absence of factual information or relevant experience and, once made, resist being altered by any line of reasoning, no matter the basis. Sentiment and emotion often trump rationality and seem to be the overwhelming criteria on decision making on both sides in the current ultra adversarial political environment. That approach may be fine in the relentless support of your alma mater’s athletic teams (go Zips) but good governance is not a game.

At the risk of losing what few friends I have left and possibly alienating family members, I still decided to offer some additional thoughts that will probably be diverse enough to irritate just about anyone who might stumble across this and have time to waste.

POLITICAL PARTIES

First, a few thoughts on political parties from some of the founding fathers.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” John Adams.

“Political parties… agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindle animosity of one part against another.” George Washington.

“Nothing could be more ill-judged than the intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” Alexander Hamilton.

“If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would rather not go at all.” Thomas Jefferson.

Sounds like they might be independents in todays political climate.

Before I lay myself bare, a bit of self disclosure is necessary. I am personally fiscally conservative and slightly left of center (if there is a center) on social issues. My heritage is with the Democratic party. My grandfather was heavily involved in local politics in Ohio and proudly stated he had never voted for a #&*@ Republican in his life. My mother was a chip off the old block and made the same statement without the associated profanity. My father was apolitical but knew better than to rock the boat. I voted for Gore in 2000 but could have voted for McCain in 2008 except for Sarah Palin. I didn’t want Hilary and could have easily voted for John Kasich in 2016 but he wasn’t able to get any traction in the Republican primary.

Both parties seem to have lost their way now. More fiscally responsible “Reagan Republicans” have apparently abandoned that principle in favor of whatever Trump wants. We’ll see if the promised magic of business tax cuts can fuel enough growth to support government spending plans. They seem to be morphing into the “party of the mean” in their approach to opposing ideas, name calling, belittling rhetoric, and encouragement to ardent supporters that borders on supporting violence. Not only have they failed to “drain the swamp”, they’ve enlarged it and now see it as an attractive part of the landscape.

Democrats don’t have much to be proud of either. The current rhetoric from some is very similar to the most absurd from the Republican side. Obama was like a favorite in a horse race that gets pushed to the outside and doesn’t have what it takes to recover. He was greeted by the worst recession since the Great Depression and threw money at just about everything in hopes of turning things around. The ship was saved but barely afloat. The Affordable Care Act started with promise but degenerated into a complex debacle that suffered from inadequate conception, terrible rollout, and Obama willfully misrepresenting it. The recovery from the recession was steady but painfully slow. He seemed to lose interest in governing and was ineffective as a party leader. He permitted the opposition to take political advantage on almost every issue and actually seemed to give up in the last couple of years. He permitted himself to be pushed into band aids for hemorrhaging issues rather than pragmatic solutions. Now the party has started to move too far left for me. They are permitting good ideas to be overwhelmed by far left rhetoric and intolerance and the promise of “free stuff”.

We’ll see what happens but I find it difficult to align with either the party of “mean” or the party of “free”.

Maybe the thoughts already expressed don’t sound much like Coherent Pondering. Let me express a few more on some current issues before you make a final conclusion.

SCHOOL PRAYER

The Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale decided in 1962 was probably the single most important issue responsible for the rise of what we now call the “Christian Right”. Actually it didn’t “kick God out of schools” as some claim. It did state that “…it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.” What it did serve to do was eliminate the dominance of one faith, Protestant Christianity generally and the Baptist version of Christianity in the south, from advocating a religious preference in schools and government entities. While application of the ruling has varied from state to state, it didn’t prohibit praying in schools. Students are free to pray as long as there is no disruption in the school or interference with the rights of others. Parents are free to put a scripture reading or prayer in a lunch bag for their child to ponder before that first bite. Students are free to silently pray to whomever they want prior to that science test they didn’t study for. Teachers just can’t have everyone recite the Lord’s Prayer from the Christian bible.

If the ruling is somehow overturned at the request of the Christian religious right, they may unleash more than they bargained for. While Protestant Christians may be able to lead the Lord’s Prayer in public schools or place creches on school grounds at Christmas, Muslims will certainly request and be given equal time (and space) to roll out prayer mats at noon and again in the afternoon (that will set off those on the Christian right). As a Catholic parent, I might advocate for a rosary or mass once a week. Hindus may sing and chant the “Gayatri”. Jewish believers may see the need for teachers to lead a prayer from a Siddur.

The God I believe in would not be happy with all these charades. It seems to me that God’s preference, no matter religious persuasion, is best expressed in the Christian bible in Mathew, chapter 6, verse 6. “Whenever you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in private”. Christian parents concerned about their children’s prayer life might want to read the “Sermon on the Mount” in Mathew and see how they measure up as an example. Parents are a child’s most important teacher and prayer leader.

ABORTION

I find it difficult to internalize the pro abortion/choice position and reasoning. I’m sorry, but it often sounds like they are arguing for the right to return something they don’t want to Walmart. I know, “My body, my right” and I don’t mean to trivialize firmly held views. I have strong empathy for pro abortion/pro choice positions. I can’t imagine being poor, scared, a teenager, single, or already mothering (or fathering) too many and discovering I’m pregnant, or learning I am bearing a child with a serious handicap. In a secular government, it seems like the abortion question revolves around legal definitions of several terms including personhood, life, death, risk, and rights. Since all those definitions seem subject to social structure of the times (consider the Constitution’s de facto legal acceptance of slavery for instance in 1787) any determination made today probably won’t last. We complicate things more when we throw strongly held religious positions that also change with the times into the mix.

I’m sure my faith persuasion (Catholic) has a strong influence over my emotional response. But I am not convinced that the Catholic position is all that rock solid or has been held with such firmness since the time of Peter. Likewise, the Evangelical Christian position promoted today is not without nuances as is the position held by most elected Republicans. Goldwater famously evolved into a pro abortion position. Reagan signed a bill permitting abortion in the case of rape. President Trump was pro abortion/choice until it became politically advantageous to switch to pro life. In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention worked for “…the liberalization of state laws to permit abortion not only in cases such as rape and incest but fetal deformity, and in the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother”. Author Frances Fitzgerald expands on this in The Evangelicals. They were also vehemently anti Catholic and may have considered this a “Catholic” issue. In 1968, prominent Evangelical theologians and physicians located personhood at birth in the document “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction”, probably in response to the Pope’s Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”. (See Fitzgerald’s book noted above for more). Apparently religious positions as well as political ones are subject to change with the wind.

My own skepticism of the pro life movement overall is based on its lack of outrage if it truly believes that over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade is murder. It seems to me that the Catholic Church should literally risk it all ; property, money, tax status. everything in continual and progressive civil disobedience to work against what they consider an abomination and government sanctioned violence. Instead, we hear sermons, wave some placards, maybe protest some Sunday at an abortion clinic or read about some priest refusing to give communion to a pro abortion politician. Evangelicals and the Christian Right suffer from the same feigned outrage. They align themselves with a political ideology that advocates the reduction or elimination of financial support for programs that help reduce unwanted pregnancy (birth control), or provide support for poor mothers (food stamps, WIC, and Medicaid). The attitude and approach does seem to reinforce the criticism of conservative religions that traditionally held the woman responsible for sexual transgressions. My personal experience was several years ago when my wife worked as paid staff at a “crisis” pregnancy center and was responsible for fund raising. A dozen or so Protestant Evangelical churches in the area proudly proclaimed their association with the center while very quietly donating a pittance towards its support and almost no support to clients after they gave birth. Perhaps things have changed but I am skeptical. As a sidelight, I find it interesting that “all life is sacred” except life created by rape or incest. Looks like Republicans and some Evangelicals don’t really believe in the sacredness of “all” life.

There are undoubtedly many who believe that life and personhood begins at conception and any interference in the natural progression is immoral based on their religious beliefs. I respect and affirm their right to believe this and live their lives accordingly. But as long as we want to maintain a secular society, we must respect the rights of others who hold just as firmly to an alternative point of view. For the government or majority (or minority) to legislate using a particular religious point of view as grounds is far more than a slippery slope to theocracy but a giant step towards replacing state recognition of religious freedom with a national freedom based on state mandated restrictions with a particular religious premise.

But the current free for all on this issue does seem to denigrate and cheapen the value of human life. Arguing over definitions and resorting to political placard waving and chants ignores the importance of life and the central place of the family in successful child rearing. It seems like a more comprehensive solution is required. A solution that would support successful child bearing and birth by providing support to those who need it (medical as well as affordable daycare) and alternatives (like adoption) for those who choose to give birth but don’t see themselves as successful parents seems wiser, although more difficult politically.

Stepping back, the issue is bifurcated and, if we are to maintain a secular society that respects religious beliefs, we need a bifurcated solution. So I would posit that those with firmly held views against abortion based on their religious views should practice that belief faithfully and live a life in support of that view that will generate admiration and emulation. As Saint Francis purportedly said; “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching”. Likewise, those who think the religious perspective of those advocating making abortion illegal is an infringement of their freedom, need to be respectful of any opposition and promote viable alternatives (adoption and viable day care options for instance) not just abortion as possible solutions.

Any abolition of abortion by the current religiously driven politics will probably be short lived. Science will be driven to provide more elegant solutions in the way of better birth control and alternatives to the surgical abortion options currently employed. A change of political power will make the wind blow in a different direction and will probably result in the same failure as prohibition.

CABLE NEWS PUNDITS

I belong to a demographic group that spends entirely too much time watching cable news. I can sum up my thoughts on this topic rather succinctly.

1. If you spend a predominant amount of time watching a particular “cable news” outlet, you aren’t watching news. You are exposing yourself to propaganda and mind control. That goes for all three major cable outlets; CNN, MSNBC and FOX.
2. You don’t have to watch Morning Joe, Fox and Friends or whatever CNN has on in the morning to know their position about anything. Likewise Hannity, Maddow and Cuomo are predictable in the evening hours.
3. Only a few cable personalities try to elicit intelligent insights into news and policy. Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith try at Fox, while Jake Trapper does the best for CNN. Margaret Brennan at CBS (not a “cable” outlet) tries hard. Meet The Press and its daily cable clone continues its slide to mediocrity. I’ve lost track of NPR after Gwen Ifill died.

Almost all the cable news outlets employ mostly highly paid entertainers disguised as news casters pandering to a specific political and demographic sector without regard to truth or nuance in what they report or discuss. Distortion seems to be commonly accepted by all. Any attempt to stray from that strategy and provide additional insight that differs from network orthodoxy is met with highly predictable outcomes.

In short, most do not offer fair and informative assessment on almost any topic and are a colossal waste of time. Better to subscribe to a respectable news aggregator and read a few good opinion writers on both sides of the political spectrum rather than permit an entertainer to be your sole source of information. If you insist on watching, change channels often to try to balance the misinformation.

INTERNET TROLLING

I continue to be amazed at what is put forth as fact on many internet sites. I’m equally amazed that people will take the hook on the most outlandish claims. Some enjoy several reincarnations especially if they fit a narrative a particular partisan group wants to believe. I’ve seen made up stories from 15 years ago surface as a current event. While some are akin to simple cheerleading, others are outright fabrications or distortions. I try to be very careful in analyzing information and try to fact check it as much as I can before letting it influence my ideas, or worse, pass it on as something it isn’t.

PATRIOTISM

Prologue: I completed this portion of this essay several weeks prior to publishing this essay. A controversy arose a few days prior to the ending of my remarks (which have taken on a life of their own) regarding the cancellation of a Nike shoe style. The shoe, with a 13 star American flag embroidered in the backstay portion (heel), was to be released to celebrate the July 4th holiday. The news stories indicate that the design was recalled after the prime instigator of the NFL kneeling protest objected , supposedly because it came from the slave era and many would find it offensive. Since then, there have been stories that the design is being used by some white supremacist groups. Perhaps the backstory will have more compelling reasons but my understanding is the “Betsy Ross” flag represented a unified resistance to British rule, not slavery. While I understand revulsion at continued glorification of all things Confederate (flag, monuments, etc.) that are directly associated with slavery or the “Jim Crow” era, this seems to be a fabricated rationale for creating a problem that didn’t exist. Perhaps I’m just an old white guy that isn’t “woke” yet, but as I’m pondering this, it is effecting my confidence in my original assessments regarding the “kneeling” protest and its ultimate purpose. I am letting my reflection found below stand for now pending time for more information. I may have to amend my assessment that follows accordingly. Coherent Pondering doesn’t mean ignoring new information.

Early on in this essay, I indicated that some information I provided to a friend to consider before passing final judgement on those kneeling during the National Anthem was rejected and I thought the response implied I was unpatriotic. I actually think the actions, attitudes and feelings I have displayed throughout my life have always been patriotic. When compared to the comparable actions of any of our last four presidents, I may be considered a super patriot. I actually volunteered for active duty in the military during an armed conflict (Vietnam) and served for three and a half years. Clinton may have used political connections and a “fake” commitment to join ROTC in order to extend a student deferment. Bush, also with apparent political help, joined the Air National Guard, a common ploy at the time for avoiding active duty and Vietnam, and failed to even complete that responsibility. Obama appears to have never considered military service and Trump famously received a deferment after submission of a doctor’s letter stating he had bone spurs. In my estimation, three of the four probably qualify as draft dodgers (the draft had been abolished before Obama was eligible).

While I am proud of my time in the military, it was not particularly commendable. The only ribbon I was personally awarded (others were awarded because I was breathing) was for expert marksmanship in 1967 and was actually the last time I recall firing a weapon. My performance reports were excellent and I was recommended to become a regular officer in the Air Force. I faced no dangerous situations and didn’t volunteer for any. I flew home from my last duty assignment on Okinawa in full uniform and no one spit on me or verbally accosted me. I returned to civilian life and reflect on my active duty time with no regret. I have a deep respect for those who choose to serve and especially for those who continue serving as career military.

I stand proudly for the National Anthem, place my hand over my heart and sing the correct words, not famously try to lip sync like our current president, and know and can recite both the pre 1954 and post 1954 versions of the Pledge of Allegiance. When someone doesn’t stand or remove their hat during the Anthem, I notice. I also notice when fans at sporting events choose that time to get an adult beverage or use the rest room before the game begins. I also notice when people stand but chit chat or look at their phones. While I may wish that all of those individuals alter their behaviors and show their gratitude for the country and system we live in, it is too much of a leap for me to brand them as “unpatriotic” or suggest they be removed from the event.

Millions of Americans refuse to stand for the Anthem or recite the Pledge for deeply held religious views, mostly Christian in nature. They are not universally denigrated today, fired from their employment or otherwise threatened. It is part of the freedom we enjoy as Americans. When a couple of hundred professional athletes chose to sit or kneel during the National Anthem, I was initially upset and insulted. But I had to step back and assess what was going on. While I might wish they had chosen a different method of protest, they certainly had a right to express their anger with what they reportedly considered racial injustice in a peaceful and noticeable way. I take their concern as sincere. No property was destroyed, no individuals hurt and no laws were broken. Is this chosen method of protest materially different from remaining seated for religious beliefs? Is it really a slap in the face of those who served in the military and in particular, those who gave their lives for their country? It seems to me that their right to protest in that manner and for that cause is a large part of what our military protects and why soldiers risk their lives.

So, if my assessment is the liberal one; that is, while the type of protest is problematic but the expressed gravity of the basis for the protest has validity and it deserves some deference, is President Trump’s reaction the conservative one? Do conservatives hold as a core value that U.S. citizens should be fired, fined, or maybe not even be “allowed to remain in the country” for exercising a constitutionally protected right? Or, do they dispute that there is a continuing problem in the justice system where minorities are concerned ?

While none of the protesters rise to an equivalent of Martin Luther King, it might pay for all of us to reread Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” written in 1963 when he faced criticism for his choice of protests against racial injustice to provide a broader perspective. As an old white male, I’m not particularly concerned that my grandson, granddaughters, or my new great granddaughter needs to be given “the talk” about dealing with the possibility of repeated and unprovoked police stops related to the color of their skin. I don’t have to worry that one of those stops could become violent because of a misunderstood direction or mistaking a cell phone for a gun. Police have to make life and death decisions, often with little or no time to do a textbook assessment of a situation. White officers, black officers, and those of other minorities have been involved in incidents that resulted in deaths that seem to have been avoidable. Kneeling to draw attention to what they see as a continued injustice when those incidents are adjudicated doesn’t seem so bad. The flag stands for “…liberty and justice for all”. Kneeling to bring attention to what seems to be a need to have our country improve the meaning of “for all” seems somewhat patriotic in a quest to make America great.

So, if being in the military isn’t a prerequisite for being considered patriotic (as attested to by our last four presidents), standing for the National Anthem seems to be a tradition for most rather than a heartfelt expression (or maybe a time for going to the restroom), what may be real indications of an individual’s dedication to one’s country and support of efforts to get as close as possible to the idealized American way of life? Here’s just a few thoughts.

1. Vote. Not just cast a ballot, but vote after examining issues and individuals to the best of your ability.
2. Assisting in your local community to make it better for all whether it be by volunteering for something as simple as a park clean up day or working in a more organized endeavor such as “Habitat for Humanity”.
3. Support powerful leadership but not leaders who want power.
4. Put yourself in the shoes of those with different ideas, racial background or religious affiliation and walk a few miles. It may be enlightening.
5. Recognize your own blind spots before passing judgement.
6. Internalize the idea that different is not automatically wrong. You can disagree with someone’s politics or religious beliefs without needing to denigrate them.
7. Love and support this country not only for what it was (there is much to be proud of but much to be ashamed of also) but for what it has the potential to become.

I think you get the idea and can add several of your own. Loving America and being a patriotic good citizen is multifaceted. As a part of speech, love can be either a noun or a verb. The noun merely names an emotion associated with an attachment or endearment. The verb form necessitates some action. Love of country requires action and participation, not passive acquiescence or selective reminiscence.

IMMIGRATION

Let me start this portion off with enough ammunition to irritate those on both sides of the current issue. First, some irritants for my left leaning friends.

1. The fact that hundreds of thousands of unknowns cross our southern border annually seems to qualify as a real crisis. The fact that it’s more or less in any given year doesn’t change that.
2. Walls are not inherently immoral.
3. Some evil people are sneaking across.
4. Individuals who cross the border illegally and stay will pose a near term and long term burden on US taxpayers.
5. Most illegals crossing are for economic reasons. While they may be admired for their courage and desire for something better for themselves and their families, that alone does not constitute a valid reason for circumventing immigration laws.
6. The asylum process and implementing laws are broken and need to be revised.

Now a few things that will irritate my conservative friends.

1. Stop whining that the Democrats are keeping the wall from being built. Trump had his full $25 billion for the wall in exchange for a deal on the “Dreamers” 18 months ago but the ultra right scuttled it.
2. Demonizing a whole culture and sensationalizing some criminal behavior to achieve a political end is a deception.
3. Democrats are not for crime and drugs.
4. Republicans had the house, senate and presidency for two years and did nothing.
5. Immigration, asylum and refugee policies all need to be updated based on needs and capability, not racial demagoguery.
6. Separating children from parents or blood relatives is immoral. It was when Obama apparently did it and it is now under Trump.
7. Be realistic. The 12 million plus illegal immigrants currently in the US will not be deported en masse. Establish a way to “legalize” them so you deport only the undesirables.

In a way, Trump is right: Illegal immigration issues could be resolved in a couple of days with a pragmatic approach rather than those of ideologues.

I can’t end this section without another swipe at my friends on the Christian Right. Your tacit support of some of the tactics and actions used to enforce current immigration laws is deplorable. You read the bible daily and fail to internalize Jesus’ most basic teachings. You don’t need to advocate for “open” borders but you do need to advocate for humane treatment and respect for human dignity. Policies that require detention rather than release to await a hearing need to be accompanied by the necessary resources that assure all are treated compassionately. Hearing wait times should be reduced to the minimum by providing adequate legal resources. Family separations, squalor, deprivation, and lack of basic medical resources are a stain on a country that purports to be that “Shining City on a Hill”.

CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM

First, a couple of things. Socialism is not Communism. Capitalism is not inherently evil. Cable pundits on both sides of the current political assessment of economic systems are throwing around terms and criticisms designed to cause emotional rather than rational assessment of proposed ways to improve our way of life.

I am an old white guy that benefitted from all the advantages of capitalism (and a lot of luck) during my working career and now, in my retirement, benefit from two socialist programs, Social Security and Medicare. Seems like I have the best of both systems.

Capitalism has failed to fairly distribute the prosperity realized from the efforts of all providing inputs into production over the last 45 years, or almost two generations. Almost all the income improvements and associated wealth went to the upper income brackets. Although productivity continued at approximately the same rate, wages for those in the middle class stagnated while those in the top tiers (top 10 % for instance) increased dramatically. While there are many factors effecting this trend (education, being a significant one) it is clear that the promise of just “working hard” isn’t producing the promised results of an improved standard of living. The resulting societal unrest and search for alternate solutions is nothing new. During the depression communism had an allure related to its promise of more equal treatment. It should be no surprise that blue collar workers who feel they have followed the rules, worked hard, and paid their dues but see almost all the results of their efforts accrue to white collar employees might be open to considering economic approaches that promise change. Enter the expanded interest in socialism.

I remain a capitalist. It seems like it holds the greatest possibilities of providing the necessary incentive for economic growth. But, its proponents must get creative and find a way to more fairly distribute its benefits to all. The risk of not finding a workable solution is not only continued pressure to augment or replace it with alternate systems, but an increase in the possibility of related social unrest.

Republicans are trying again to show that lowering taxes on the prosperous and corporations will result in reduced income and wealth inequality. Results from similar past attempts seem to indicate that the trend of the rich getting richer while the rest stagnate continues without abatement. While it is too soon to pass judgement on the current attempt, early assessments are not promising. Trump’s claim of being responsible for tremendous job growth and reduction of unemployment rate under his administration actually just follows the same trend line started in 2009 under Obama. There has been a marked slowing of that growth in the last 18 months and his accomplishments in those areas are quite modest when compared to Clinton, Reagan or Obama.

Democrats, at least those running for president, seem to espouse some type of nirvana associated with socialistic programs and government intervention. Rather than “free” stuff, I would prefer an emphasis on policies that encourage making things “affordable”. Affordable health insurance for instance probably correlates more to cost of delivery than associated premiums. Arbitrarily lowering my premium may lower my personal insurance cost, but not system cost. If I pay less, someone else has to pay more to cover cost or the system will bankrupt. The key to lowering cost is to attack the “drivers” of cost whether it be distribution systems, lack of competition, supply shortages, incentive systems, encouraging unnecessary treatments, or a myriad of other functions. “Medicare for all” seems to just propagate a system that is currently unsustainable. Payment options I have seen don’t seem any more sustainable than the current one. What we need is support for a medical system that can be developed across political divides. Going to our corners is not a solution. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a workable idea. But unlike tax cuts that primarily benefit the already prosperous, we need a more elegant solution if we hope for improved results.

CONCLUSION

Finally. Even I was tired of hearing my own thoughts: I can only imagine how exhausted a reader must be. I managed to bore you with about 6000 words. I remember groaning when asked to write a 500 word essay in high school. But I can’t end without a couple of observations on President Trump.

I can’t know how historians will judge him in 25, 50 or 100 years. If his approaches to international issues result in denuclearization of North Korea, Iran embarks on a more peaceful non nuclear approach with their neighbors, and he comes up with some method of easing tensions in the Mideast, he may be compared very favorably. If the economic prosperity continues unabated, trade tension with almost all the rest of the world ease, and he finds a way to begin to bring a divided nation together, he may be regarded as one of the best presidents.

I personally find him abhorrent. His brand of narcissism, subtle racism, feigned patriotism, ability to unabashedly lie about anything, failure to take responsibility, embarking on and creating political and economic quagmires without consideration of possible negative ramifications, apparent need to denigrate opposing ideas or individuals to support his own ego, blind spot to inhumane treatment unless it is politically advantageous to him, and total inability to project any desire to bring the country together create an apprehensive tension within me. He does not come across as trustworthy or sincere. He need not be perfect (most presidents and heroes aren’t); he can golf any time he wants, his past sexual dalliances are probably no worse than JFK, Clinton, or even Martin Luther King (unless charges of rape or unwanted molestation by Trump can be substantiated), and he can orchestrate any kind of 4th of July celebration he wants. But proceeding to govern in a way to satisfy his own ego is the sign of a despot. I hope my observations are wrong and I pray daily for the well being of the United States and that we continue every day to become better and truly be that “Shining City Upon a Hill”.