The Great American Hoax Hoax

Perhaps the most obvious hoax on the American people is that which claims that most news reports that oppose their beliefs are hoaxes while none of the reports that reinforce their beliefs are hoaxes. There are many examples of this phenomenon, of course. One that continues to thrive in July of 2017 regards whether news reports of a Trump-Russia connection are a hoax. Whether we are labeling these reports as humorous deceptions or malicious deceptions, there are informative news reports that present verified facts; they are not "hoaxes."

I’m not sure whether many people are amenable to changing their mind about whether the news reporting on the Trump-Russia connection is factual. It’s extremely difficult to let go of a belief that any of us have embraced. If you aren’t interested in knowing information that might question the Russian-Trump "hoax" belief, I respect that. I know I have strongly held beliefs that I’d have a hard time giving up. I believe that direct statements and observable actions by politicians tell us what these people are saying or doing; anything else is a secondary source that is likely to cherry pick “facts” or is a theory about what we don’t actually know to be true. Sometimes those primary sources are telling the truth, but all you can say about what they’ve said is “this is what they said; this is what they observably did.” I’d have a difficult time changing that belief about primary “evidence” being the best source of information! I also believe that conspiracy theories are damaging the U.S. as a nation and that the Russians are exploiting this phenomenon. At least that’s what I’ve heard a Russian operative say in a recorded interview.

I’m thinking we might want to consider what Donald Trump, Jr. has shared directly of his email messages and his personal comments rather than citing the “reprobates” at CNN, for example. To wit: He tried to collude with Russian operatives to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton but (at least as of July 15th) claims he got nothing and instead was lobbied to lift sanctions on Russia. Both activities are illegal; neither attempt by the Russian operatives was reported to the CIA at the time. Someone left that room with a folder of papers that arrived with one of the Russian operatives who attended the meeting. Who took the papers had not been confessed as of July 15th. There should be no speculation but a lot of further investigation.

President Trump is now saying that, yes, the meeting took place; yes, his son and son-in-law (and others) were eager to know what dirt the Russians had on Clinton. However, Trump, Jr. did not do anything wrong. “Opposition research” is the name of the game in politics, and Trump, Jr. didn’t realize it was illegal to deal with the Russians on this. (The Trumps are new to politics, after all, say the apologists. For the rest of us, ignorance of the law does not confer innocence.) Jared Kushner has gradually added over 100 incidents in which he met with Russians when providing his security clearance application form. The additions have come after he was given a security clearance. Reports of these situations are not hoaxes. Trump, Jr. and Kushner have acknowledged these facts. That they did not report these facts in a timely way is not proof that they did or did not know it was wrong to deceive. Knowing the intent for the deception (or oversight) is extremely difficult to prove, so jumping to conclusions about innocence or guilt about intent is not appropriate. However, it's what they did that matters.

Back to one of my beliefs: Avoid all second-hand sources, whether it’s CNN or FOX, Hannity or Maddow. Look at the collection of email exchanges that Trump, Jr. released and clearly stated are what went on (including his “I love it!” statement regarding Russians interfering with U.S. elections). Listen to what Trump, Jr. and the others who attended that meeting are saying about what transpired. Even information about who was in that meeting has been released like a slowly dripping faucet that needs a new washer. There may be more details coming, but Trump, Jr. has already made it clear that there is a “Trump-Russia thing” (to quote Trump, Sr's term).

All of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. government had independent investigations regarding whether Russia (via operatives or directly with Putin’s leadership) interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections (not just with the presidential election). All of the intelligence agencies came to similar conclusions: Russia did interfere and they know many of the situations where this took place (e.g., state elections as well as federal). It is not a hoax that Russians interfered. It is almost surely not true that all federal agencies are in collusion against Trump and, therefore, are going after an innocent Russia or an innocent member of Trump's entourage. Look for transcripts of summaries of those reports; listen to the directors’ public comments on the subject.

CNN has been accused (and found guilty) many times of rushing forward with a story that is unconfirmed in order to have a larger audience. That they pushed forward with a Trump-Russia story before we had the facts we have now would not surprise me, but the timeline suggests that CNN’s Van Jones spoke before having the facts that were revealed the week after his sidewalk comment that there was little substance to reports of the Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian operatives and less substance in Democrats’ response to what was known at that time.

Many Americans believed that those closest to Trump and his campaign would not have met directly with Russian operatives, but now know they were wrong. CNN’s Van Jones could have been post-rationalizing about his nothing-burger comment on the day after O’Keefe published his edited version of Jones’s dialogue. However, the nothing-burger comment and its post-rationalizing was made before all the factual revelations came to light. At the time of the nothing-burger comment, a lot of people thought that Liberals were attempting to light a bonfire without any wood. Jones was apparently one of those people. And, let’s face it, the Democrats are not getting out a coherent message that people are listening to.

Believing this hoax theory after the Trump entourage's confessed activities were made public is amazing, but not surprising. It’s a belief that some Americans are holding on to, though fewer since Trump, Jr's statements indicate that there’s a lot of burger in that sandwich.

Can President Trump "make America great again"?

“Great again.” The question is, how will we measure “great” and “again”? What were the halcyon days of the United States and in what ways?

The GDP Definition of “Great”— The White House, despite all its internal, warring factions, is defining “great” strictly in terms of economics: GDP, job numbers, and Americans’ disposable income (a questionable indicator of The American Dream). You would think that by paring down the dozens of issues that affect the U.S. and its people to these three would make it very easy to be “great.”

The Historical Definition of “Again”— But maybe, not great again; even during the Reagan years, people in the bottom tiers of the U.S. socioeconomic classes were struggling, some kinds of taxes were replaced by other kinds of taxes. Unemployment tends to follow international economic swings, so the fact that things actually got worse while Reagan was president is somewhat similar to what President Obama inherited as the globe was taking an economic dive (in large part due to financial institution over-extension with debt offerings). Again? Under FDR? Truman? Nixon? Reagan? Bush #1? Bush #2?

The 2017 Federal Budget Definition of “Great”— Almost every issue is now framed in terms of theories about what will make the U.S. GDP grow faster than that of other countries. The exceptions are increases in military funding, Dept. of Homeland Security funding, and a $1T investment in “infrastructure” (to be a shared expense with businesses that participate). “The Wall” is based on a different theory of economic benefits vs. the cost of construction, maintenance, and staffing. Drawing from the White House budget document, we can see the places where Americans can expect less:

• Major reduction in healthcare insurance availability and in healthcare services available.
• Reduced and eliminated financial institution regulatory oversight (reintroducing the circumstances that led to the financial institution collapse of 2007–2008)
• Substantial reduction in access to Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, temporary financial assistance (aka “welfare”), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program for families living in poverty
• Substantial reduction in government oversight/administration of student loans
• Substantial reduction in funding for teacher training, after-school programs for children living in poverty, and programs designed to give children living in poverty and those with disabilities or other learning disadvantages a “boost” in completing their education and being prepared for post-high school education/training; move from support for public schools to greater support for private and religious K-12 schools
• Reduction in support for farmers/agriculture (plus the elimination of much of the workforce that plants, tends, and picks the crops)
• Reduction in retirement benefits for federal employees (other than senators and House representatives)

The devil is in the details. For example, a quick look at the spreadsheet in the budget document shows that the federal deficit decreases as percent of GDP for a couple years, and then it increases as percent of GDP. Another issue is whether the targets for these reductions are achievable. As an example, look at reductions in Medicaid as a way of understanding what’s behind some of these cuts. The major fraud committed with Medicaid comes from healthcare providers. (In Medicare, the major fraud is split between insurances billing for services not received by patients and healthcare providers delivering treatments that are not needed or are over-billed.) However, the “remedy” being offered in Congress and the White House is to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid. It’s not clear how remedying something other than the root cause of the problem will make things great for anyone other than those insurance companies and healthcare institutions that are unscrupulous.
And then there’s this: The theories about rapid GDP growth for middle- and working-class Americans and for the working poor are based on a premise that has been proven false: When corporations make more profit, their shareholders benefit, especially if they don’t expand their workforce. By law, corporations are required to maximize shareholder returns. The stock market rise is based on the belief that corporations will continue to make record profits, not that they will expand their workforce.

We’re already great! The U.S. is already great. In fact, in many ways, it’s the best it’s every been… even if you just look at GDP. Yes, the U.S. can get even better, but that’s different from claiming it’s not great now and it will be later. Unfortunately, “Make America great again!” has a sound bite advantage over “Make America even better than it’s ever been!” American nostalgia for what never was is infamously resistant to facts.

U.S. Quality of Character— Since the November election the rest of the world has been judging the U.S. more harshly. They had their frustrations with G.W. Bush and Barack Obama— frustrations that pale in comparison to what they’re feeling now. They’re judging the President and the 63 million Americans who voted for him because the White House’s notions of what makes a “great” country should include a lot more than GDP.
Let’s assume that a “great America” has something to do with the “quality of character” of the nation in the way that it treats its citizens, residents, and world neighbors. Quality of character includes being

• honest & prudent
• self-disciplined in behavior
• respectful of others
• collaborative
• well-informed
• generous/benevolent
• dependable
• persistent & consistent
• principled (making decisions and behaving based on fundamental ethical principles)
• benevolent/generous (of spirit and deed)
• responsible (taking responsibility for one's words and deeds, plus looking out for all Americans, in our case)

In other words, for the U.S. to be “great,” its leader(s) need to have these qualities of character. Of the eleven characteristics listed, President Trump demonstrates about one (persistent but not consistent; principled in some ways and lacking integrity in others— awarding 1/2 for each).

Quality of Character and Treatment of Americans— Further marginalizing people living in poverty, including the working poor (67% of those on Medicaid), taking funds from the public schools that working-class and poor families must depend on for a quality education, and increasing the financial assets of the upper class disproportionately more than that of the middle- and working-classes are actions that are contemptuous of many, if not most, Americans. This is a consistent mentality: The wealthiest nation on Earth should do whatever it can to accelerate its economic growth, even at the expense of others. And the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. should do whatever they can to accelerate their financial growth, even at the expense of the rest of the nation. This is not a mentality we normally associate with a high quality of character. It is selfish in terms of assets and power. It applies to many in the current White House.

Quality of Character and Treatment of Allies— Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency, he has maligned, snubbed, and disrespected U.S. allies and their leaders while praising despots like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Rodrigo Duterte. His profound deficit in knowledge about world affairs is not just a deficit in being "well-informed"; it is actually a deliberate preference not to know the facts: He would not attend intelligence briefings after the election, deeming them a waste of his time; he says he does not like to read and prefers to base decisions on his “gut.” In a meeting with President Xi Jinping, Trump volunteered that ten minutes spent talking about North Korea introduced him to some of the complexities in dealing with Kim Jong-un and that government. (And that statement was given the same importance, by Trump, as noting that the chocolate cake they’d had was “fantastic.”) However, it is not just Donald J. Trump who is treating allies with disregard. There are others in the White House who are rabid nationalists (not just Steve Bannon, by the way). To be clear: Most members of the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, recognize the importance of respectful and tactful international relations… especially with allies. They, too, represent the nation and, in that capacity, their quality of character should be acknowledged, at least in that regard.

Can President Trump make America great again? Probably not, unless we consider only GDP and not who within the U.S. benefits from that. Surely not, if we consider the quality of character of the nation’s leadership and the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.

Signs of Patriotism

I was recently asked whether Liberals’ vocal opposition to President Donald Trump is unpatriotic. Actually, the question was, “Why are Liberals so unpatriotic?” The questioner made the argument that not “getting behind” President Trump was especially dangerous in this time of war. The questioner argued that Liberals’ criticism is putting the country and its military in greater danger, even going so far as to suggest that Liberals’ criticism is encouraging terrorists to attack the U.S.

This was my response:

Christopher Hemphill said, “Although poles apart ideologically, they are both unashamed of their patriotism.” Most fundamentally, patriotism is a feeling of strong attachment to one’s country— not to a particular politician, a particular political party, or particular culture within that country. We are all, in some sense, idealists. We have a vision for what our country could/should be. We have notions of what needs to change and what we need to hold on to. The “United States of America” means different things to different Americans.

With an understanding of what “patriotism” actually means, we can proceed to consider how those of a particular political ideology might or might not be patriots. But, first, let’s consider the “concerns.”

• Criticizing a president during a war: There has been no U.S. war in which our freedom of speech, including our right to oppose the positions taken by our government or our president, has not been our highest right. That right is established in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution: There can be no law “... abridging the freedom of speech....” Did Republicans criticize President Obama for eight years about his approach to the existing Afghanistan and Iraq Wars? Yes, they did. Were they being unpatriotic? No; they were exercising their First Amendment rights. It is an important sign of the health of a nation when it allows, listens to, and considers diverse opinions and ideas, especially in times of severe adversity such as war.
  
• Putting the U.S. and its military in danger: What puts the U.S. in danger is not citizen criticisms of its president, legislators, or judiciary. Did Conservatives’ criticism of U.S. strategies in 2008–2016 put the U.S. in additional danger? Did those criticisms put our military in further danger? No. It is the Commander-in-Chief who puts our military forces “in harm's way.” It is our generals, in executing a war, whose strategies and tactics have the greatest impact on the safety of our troops.
  
• Encouraging terrorists to attack: Currently, the U.S. is dealing with a few kinds of terrorists: Islamic extremists, White Nationalists, and Russian operatives are probably the big three.

• Islamic extremists: On September 11, 2001, Islamic extremists coordinated attacks on three locations in the United States: two planes headed toward the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane headed toward the Pentagon, and one plane commandeered to hit the Capitol Building or White House. This terrorism did not happen because some Americans were critical of President G. W. Bush. Since then, acts of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil have been by radicalized individuals. One can theorize about what caused them to become radicalized, but we know it is not because, say, Conservatives were criticizing President Obama.

• White Nationalists: Hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, and LGBTQ people have increased within the U.S. as White Nationalist groups announced that they have a political figure to look up to, one who would support their latent aspiration to make the U.S. a White-dominant, Christian nation (by some interpretation of what Christianity means— an interpretation that a lot of Christians find abhorrent). Was it criticism of their favorite candidate, Donald Trump, that made extremists begin to damage synagogues, mosques, churches that serve Black communities, social places for members of the LGBTQ community? Of course not! If there is no loud criticism of these hate crimes and the anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, (etc.) rhetoric coming from politicians (in particular) and voters, these White Nationalists will feel even more empowered. It is our patriotic duty-- whether we’re Conservatives or Liberals-- to condemn such domestic terrorism.

• Russian Operatives: There are many kinds of terrorism. But one kind we often don’t think about is cyber-terrorism. When a foreign government or its operatives attempt to destabilize another country’s way of governing, the results have the potential to be far more damaging to a nation than an AK-47 going off in a school yard or a fire set in place of worship. During the 2016 presidential and congressional campaigns, Russians took advantage of the existing hostilities between Liberals and Conservatives to undermine those federal elections. They took advantage of a predisposition of so many Americans to believe anything bad about one of the candidates, including a whole lot of stuff that simply was not true. Easy work for the Russians. They just made stuff up and trafficked in innuendos. Many Americans were so eager to believe the nonsense that they didn’t even stop to find the actual facts in order to determine whether any of the social media posts were true. The Russians took advantage, in particular, of Conservatives’ criticism of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to further sow seeds of distrust about the U.S. elections. But, should we blame the Conservatives for this? Of course not! Dissent is at the foundation of what it means to be an American. There will always be tyrants who try to use our freedom of speech and freedom of thought against us. However, we should not blame Conservatives who were critical of President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton for Russia’s motivation to conduct political cyber-terrorism.
  
• Standing united behind the president: In 2008, President Obama won the popular vote by a margin of 52.9% to Senator McCain’s 45.7%. He won the Electoral College vote by 365 to 173. In other words, neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote was close. Was it unpatriotic for those who did not believe in President Obama’s vision for the U.S. to criticize that vision? Of course not! It was their patriotic duty to speak their minds.
  
  Now we have President Trump in office. Secretary Clinton obtained 48.2% of the popular vote to President Trump’s 46.1%. The Electoral College gave President Trump a 304 to 227 (for Secretary Clinton) win. Here we have a popular election in which one candidate won by almost 3,000,000 popular votes while another candidate dominated the Electoral College vote. Is it unpatriotic for those who do not support President Trump’s vision for the U.S. to criticize his vision or his behavior in office? Of course not! It is their patriotic duty to speak their minds.
  

While I’ve mostly used examples of the ways in which Conservatives’ criticisms and complaints are examples of patriotism, you can turn that around to understand that Liberals’ criticisms and complaints are also examples of patriotism, that this exercise of our First Amendment rights does not cause terrorist attacks or harm to U.S. troops. It is what our U.S. troops fight for every time a president places them in harms’ way: a fight for our Constitution (and all its Amendments) and our way of life.

How Can Liberals Understand Conservative Thinking?

The greatest imperative in understanding someone with political ideologies other than yours is to listen without interruption.

Right now, Republicans are having difficulty “understanding” each other. So, “the other party” is, for now, not so easy to characterize. However, the basic tenets of political ideologies in the U.S. answer just a few questions (that you can ask of Conservatives whom you know). For each question, understanding comes from asking the follow-up question, “What reasons do you have for believing your position?” Listen. Don’t even think about using a tone of voice that could be interpreted as accusatory.

• Is federal government or state government where the seat of governance and the provision of services best located? This is the argument of federalism vs. confederalism that has been part of U.S. history since states were trying to decide whether or not to sign the Declaration of Independence. This was the essential question of the U.S. Civil War. It is a war that is still being fought.
• How much of social welfare is the responsibility of the government (either federal or state)? Conservatives rightly point out that at the founding of the U.S., social services were not central to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of the government. However, the U.S. Constitution speaks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, starting with freedom of the press, of speech, and of religion. Major events over the past 240 years, such as economic disasters, have taught us that national security and national stability are strongly linked to economic stability— of institutions and individuals. Most social services came about as a result of economic disasters, like the Great Depression, or the impact of national and foreign wars.
• Do people in certain demographics of the United States have inherent obstacles to achieving economic well-being? If so, is there an obligation on the part of government to lessen these obstacles? There is the Horatio Alger portrayal of disadvantaged Americans as people who just need tenacity and hard work to achieve “success.” There is the cultural belief in the right to achieve “The American Dream” (owning a home, having food security, being able to take vacations away from home, etc.).
• Who is deserving of legal protection against biased treatment? This starts with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. But most Conservatives believe the law has gone too far. Protecting people in the LGBTQ community? Muslims? Hmmm.
• How much should the government regulate? For national regulations pertaining to the financial industry, the same economic disasters have driven the addition of regulations. The most recent motivation for asking this question was the Great Recession of 2007–2010. Sub-prime mortgages and other forms of very loose lending— not just in the United States— are credited/blamed for this recession (from which some industries and individuals have not yet recovered). In 2017, there seems to be a difference in interpretation of what happened in 2007. Get past those interpretations and understand a Conservative’s belief about if and when the government (and the semi-independent Federal Reserve) should assert itself into the economy.
• Which alternative to free trade is best for the U.S. in the long-/short-term? For international agreements, all political ideologies talk about “free trade” and no party actually wants it. The question requires some understanding of the global economy and the ways that trade agreements and trade, itself, are tied to political foreign affairs. So, the question to a Conservative is to understand which alternative to free trade they think the U.S. should pursue (and why).
• What are the pros and cons of the separation of Church and State? It’s difficult to understand at least the majority of Conservatives without understanding their beliefs about how religion (especially, Christianity) should influence such things as Supreme Court decisions and Acts of Congress. Noting the preponderance of pros vs. cons will tell you a lot.

In my experience and as a fundamental belief, there is no better way to understand the thinking of “Conservatives” than to talk with then (not at them). “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)

Political Tribes

I was asked why the U.S. can't have a "logical combination" of liberalism and conservatism rather than turning politics into only these two political ideology choices.

As in many countries where people have a say in their government, there’s a tendency for people in the U.S. to identify with a political “tribe.” To do that, they have to overlook some differences and focus more on commonalities. In fact, different people have different priorities; for example, they might seek out commonalities on fiscal policy and shut their eyes to social policies that don’t match their values.

I don’t think it matters whether there can be a logical combination because a lot of politics is driven by emotions. Perhaps we could think of that as “emotional logic.” Voters’ reasoning definitely doesn’t adhere to principles of analytic logic! At the very least, in analytic logic, self-contradiction is not allowed. In emotional logic, cognitive dissonance is common. You can actually hear or read people who say opposite things within the span of a few minutes or paragraphs. And there are other people who reason analytically after making some very emotional decisions, in other words, post-rationalization.

In countries where elections involve the formation of alliances among political parties, it can be pretty difficult to figure out what the “logical combination” is. There are behind-doors negotiations of the nature of I’ll-go-along-with-this-thing-that-you-want-if-you-go-along-with-this-other-thing-that-I-want. Negotiation used to be the way the U.S. Congress worked. I think you’re asking why it isn’t that way now.

In the U.S. I think it’s all about the tribe mentality. Humans are not bonobos. Tribes fight to keep their territory. Tribes work to distinguish their identity from that of other tribes, who can be seen as enemies. In 2010, it was tribal rhetoric that resulted in a fairly dramatic change in the way politics are conducted at the national level. There’s a tribe that has the power to give no quarter to the other tribes. In fact, there’s a splintering of tribes, with some tribal members now being “enemies.”

This splintering is evidence that U.S. politics is not binary. People argue over ownership of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Those to the left of what used to be the center of the U.S. political spectrum are now splintered into Moderate Liberals, Progressives, fiscal Liberals, social Liberals, etc. Those to the right of what used to be the center are now splintered into Moderate Conservatives, Tea Party Conservatives, the Freedom Caucus (very conservative representatives in the U.S. House), the Christian Right, White Nationalists, etc.

Therefore, the U.S. appears not to have reduced politics to a binary choice but rather to have created many splinter groups. Those further to the extremes of the political spectrum are more intransigent than those who are more moderate. And those groups, especially among more radical Conservatives, are very loud. If one only listens to them or their counterparts at the left end of the spectrum (beyond “Progressives”), you’d think that there is zero possibility of a “logical combination.” Practically speaking, that’s right. But not because there cannot be a balance between federalism and confederalism or between free college for all Americans vs. pay-or-don’t-go education “opportunities.”

Until the tribal leaders recognize that their war-at-all-costs is costing their tribe too much, they will not be amenable to negotiating a logical combination of political policies.

An Open Letter to Conservative Comedians

Dear [conservative comedian's name here]:

I have been disappointed in the lack of humor you have displayed with respect to both Conservatives and Progressives in 2016. In fact, some of you have only contributed to laugh-out-loud caricatures of Conservatives by acting like one.

You seem to have struggled most with what’s worth a good laugh about Progressives. I hope you will not give up because there is going to continue to be so much material for Progressives to use for their standup comedy about Conservatives that you could end up not getting on nighttime talk shows. A conservative lampooning show in the style of the progressive satires in The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight cannot happen without you making a better effort to identify and exploit Progressives’ more eccentric traits. Therefore, I am offering a few ideas to get you started.

First: There are some things that are not funny to Progressives or Conservatives. For example, (1) the Progressives’ insistence on equal civil rights for all Americans, (2) the Progressives’ insistence on fair and equitable treatment under the law, and (3) the Progressives’ insistence on the right of everyone to have comparable K-12 education and healthcare access, regardless of socioeconomic class. These are the kinds of things that conservative comedians and commentators have tried to state as being absurd Progressive beliefs. However, many Conservatives would not find it funny that all Americans should have equal civil rights or that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. Those who believe in excluding the LGBTQ community are dead serious about it. Don’t make jokes about progressive issues and positions that many Conservatives are dead serious about, whether for or against. Those jokes will fall flat (and, as you know, have fallen flat) unless your audience is full of White Nationalists. That’s currently too small an audience if you want to make a living with your comedy act.

What Conservatives could exaggerate for a set of jokes is Progressives’ pounding on the fact that Hillary Clinton “won” the popular vote in a landslide when the U.S. Constitution says that it’s the electors of the Electoral College who elect the next president and vice president (separately). The Electoral College is designed to add weight to the voices of less-populated states, a weighting that is a combination of the proportional representation of the House and the highly disproportional representation in the Senate. Telling Progressives to "read the Constitution" would be pretty ironic, since Progressives tell Conservatives to do the same quite frequently.

Also, December 19, 2016, is Election Day for the president and vice president, not November 8, 2016. Let’s see if Progressives stop whining after December 19, 2016. If not, they are flogging a dead horse and that would make a great political cartoon or a good slapstick comedy bit.

If Progressives want to win the White House, they need to understand the issues that face "Middle America" and convince those people that the Democrats are addressing those issues. And they need to stop using the term "progressive" or "liberal" when talking to farmers, manufacturing workers, manual laborers (electricians, plumbers, et al), and those who've been unemployed for a long time. Kind of makes their recent approach look clueless. Right? That one set of politically clueless missteps could make for a very funny, long sketch-- maybe more. All I can imagine is that they were thinking that presidents are elected by popular vote, but there could be funny alternative, made-up reasons for why they ignored the American Heartland. A decent conservative comedian should be able to come up with three suggested reasons off the top of her head.

Another unending source of jokes about some Progressives is their willingness to sign 85 Facebook petitions a day (often, without reading the text of the petition). Petitions? What do they change? Are they kidding? Another is their insistence that voters should read only reliable news sources that have checked the facts. Get the masses to read? Are they kidding? More than a headline? Are they kidding? Facts like the distortions stated in those petitions? Oh. Many don’t read the petitions before signing. And the petitions are not coming from reliable news sources. There's so much to work with there!

It doesn’t matter that your caricature doesn’t fit all or even most Progressives. The goal is to caricature a visible subset of the Progressives who make for good comedy.

What makes for good standup comedy are jokes about the personality quirks of Progressives—either collectively or individually. And, lucky for you, Progressives will not go quietly into the shadows come January 20, 2017. So, start practicing. If you want a test audience, ask some Progressives to see your act. They know what’s ridiculous about themselves—even those who are the very caricature that you draw. If it’s funny to them, it’s going to be hilarious to a conservative audience.

Sincerely (well maybe not so much),

--Patricia

How Do Progressives Proceed with Respect for the Republican President?

The key for Progressives with the coming Republican White House is to respect the office of the president. There are certain things that simply should not be said by congressional representatives; for example, they should not call future-President Trump a liar when he addresses a joint session— an unfortunate incident that President Obama did experience. It means congressional Democrats do not boo during Trump’s addresses to the Congress. Taking the high road means that Senate Democrats participate in hearings for Trump’s Supreme Court justice nominations, even if they ultimately find the candidates poorly matched to the job. It means that House Democrats on the budget committee do not hold the government hostage just because the proposed budget came from the Republican White House. It means that when changes to the Affordable Care Act are proposed, congressional Democrats participate in the discussion and are open-minded about how to improve the ACA, even though the suggestions might be coming from the Republican White House. Should congressional Democrats want to stage a sit-in to protest policy decisions, that seems quite acceptable. That is not demeaning the president or fellow congressional representatives; it’s focused on the policy decisions they believe are wrong-headed.

All that said, I can’t imagine how to have respect for any person who is a misogynist, racist, religious/ethnic bigot, or an arrogant person who “doesn’t like to read” (quote directly from Mr. Trump)— especially when that person claims he wants to be the president of “all Americans.” That last part, I simply resent. Stating facts as facts (read the definition of a bigot and you’ll see it describes Trump’s statements and behaviors) isn’t in the same league as the recent comment by a Republican voter that First Lady Michelle Obama is “an ape in heels.” That was so far beyond disrespectful that I don’t have a term for it other than “extreme racism.” Anyone who makes derogatory comments about Melania Trump’s immigrant origins is out of line.

The issue of respect by Progressives (whether Democrat or Independent) is whether they can recognize their own bigotries and stereotyping and discipline themselves to stop immediately. Calling Trump supporters “bigots” is just not acceptable. Many people (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) voted for Trump in spite of his bigotries, but that does not make them bigots themselves. Calling “white people” racists (as if all white people fit into a single category) is not acceptable. Calling blue-collar workers and less formally educated people “stupid” is not acceptable. This is not a matter of showing respect for Mr. Trump; it is a matter of showing respect for fellow Americans. Any Progressive who thinks their own bigotry and stereotyping is okay is the ultimate hypocrite.

Why do Progressives believe that Donald Trump will not help unify the country?

Neither Progressives nor Conservatives are hopeful that the United States (its citizens, voters, or elected officials) is about to unify anytime soon. Divisive thinking is now pervasive in the culture and has become systemic. Systemic conditions are extremely difficult to change.

As an example, a business culture can become so systemic that even getting rid of some of the people in the organization and replacing them with others rarely changes the entire business culture. Often, the new hires (at any level of the company) evolve to conform to the existing culture. Changing the CEO to someone with very different behaviors (a new role model) and a set of articulated, new expectations can help, to the extent that the CEO is strong-willed and aligned subordinates can weed out employees (starting with managers) who won’t or can’t conform to the imposed culture. If the company is sufficiently large, this change can take 5+ years to happen. Meanwhile, the company will be quite divided. Consider Carly Fiorina during her tenure at Hewlett-Packard (a name which she strategically referred to as “HP.”) She was strong-willed and discarded most of “The HP Way,” a statement of values advocated by the founders and embraced by many employees. With Fiorina’s imposition of a new culture, employees left in droves as they were committed to those long-time values—some resigning, others fired. But Donald Trump cannot fire members of Congress. He cannot fire Progressives. Governing the U.S. is not reality television and it is not corporation management. Progressive thinkers have a vote.

Progressives have been watching and listening to Donald Trump’s direct comments and behaviors for a long time. Many believe that the best predictor of the future is the past. In a few ways (not many), President-elect Trump is not as extreme a Conservative as those who are becoming the new establishment, that is, the alt-right and Tea Party Republicans. If congressional Republicans decide their best hope for keeping their jobs is to line up behind Trump, there will be only a very few points of political policy on which there’s a chance for Progressives and Conservatives to find common ground. Mostly, the distance between progressive thinking and conservative thinking is growing as the alt-right cements their power.

Why would even moderate conservative politicians line up behind President-elect Trump’s political positions? They might hope that lining up would reduce gridlock in Congress. Voters are tired of congressional gridlock… and might actually come to realize that if they keep voting for Republican incumbents, that gridlock is not going to go away.

Those who voted for Trump in the primaries were clearly not disturbed enough by his personality and open bigotry to vote for another Republican primary candidate. And 47% of those voting in the general election chose Trump. (Well, actually, it’s the Electoral College, since Secretary Clinton received almost 3,000,000 more popular votes than Trump. But the point remains that 47% of voters chose Mr. Trump.) The division is with the voters. There are people who will accept having a man committed to discrimination and there are people who won’t stand for that in any elected official, much less the president of the United States.

Five days after the election, President-elect Trump announced that he will not totally rescind the Affordable Care Act. I guess he still doesn’t understand separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, as such changes are the responsibility of Congress. But if he pushes for the ACA to be improved and not discarded entirely, Conservatives in Congress can line up behind that. They don’t have to be 100% opposed to the entire ACA anymore because it can stop being called “Obamacare.” Their congressional home base will not desert them. It remains to be seen who has the most to gain with the modifications: healthcare providers, healthcare insurers, or the populace.

It is on social issues of equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal treatment that Progressives are certain there is no possibility of finding common ground. Progressives know that Trump is closer to progressive beliefs in only a very few of his political positions and that he has been quite the bigot in his own professional life. Many Progressives believe that Trump mostly played to his base of bigots and misogynists to gain prominence with large, admiring crowds and that Trump wants to keep those bigots’ support for another presidential election in 4 years. Appointing Stephen Bannon, well-known white nationalist and alt-right spokesperson, to the position of chief White House strategist and senior presidential advisor says volumes about where Trump is headed on civil rights. It is not toward anything that even moderate Conservatives could support, let alone Progressives.

Trump is not a deep thinker (he has volunteered that he prefers shallow thinking), but he has street smarts and instincts for how to be top dog. Progressives’ biggest concern is that civil and human rights will regress under President-elect Trump’s leadership. Already, we are seeing more hate crimes and hate speech from other bigot, xenophobes, and misogynists who feel they’ve been empowered by Trump. Appointing a white nationalist to a senior position states clearly that President-elect Trump could not care less about being a unifier.

People of color, women, people with disabilities, non-Christians, and people with non-straight gender identities can expect to experience day-to-day discrimination that is more open and more pervasive. Enforcement of existing civil rights legislation and of the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for equality with respect to race, national origin, religion, and gender is not going to become stronger under Donald Trump and his chosen administration.  Will Progressives embrace this? These attitudes and behaviors are repugnant and antithetical to Progressives’ beliefs.