Not worth the fight

Article

Mike Pence’s Wise Family Practices Expose a Deep Divide Over Human Nature

Summary

David French writing in the National Review supports the Pence family's rules because putting men and women together in intimate or intense situations will inevitably lead to sexual relationships.

Quote

"God made men and women for each other. People can and do reject that notion and emerge unscathed. People can understand that truth and still fall. Life can’t be reduced to formulas. But what do you do when you understand that truth? The Pences know. Most Christians know. To defy reality is to needlessly and arrogantly risk ruin. To understand reality is to embrace humility and prudence." 

Understanding

One of the roles public figures play is to reflect, even amplify, the social issues of our times. Our chatter about the Pence family rules exposes the gulf between belief systems that creates two of the most divisive tribes in our country.

On the Right is the conviction that men and women were created to complement each other. Deep and powerful forces of attraction are bound to come into play when two members of the opposite sex share a meal alone together.

On the Left, men and women are seen as people, not genders. The Left finds it odd and sexist to believe that a man and a woman can't have dinner together on the same basis of friendship or professional collegiality as a matched gender pairing.

(Note the possibility of sexual attraction between two men or two women isn't even mentioned in French's commentary. Its absence says something about the author's worldview that is worthy of separate consideration.)

The premise of this debate inflames an unnecessary and unhelpful cultural battle. The fundamental reason we are even talking about a private family decision is that it gives us an opportunity to poke the other side, rile up some rhetoric and demonstrate the superior values of one group versus the other.

This is a case where we should live our own lives and let others do the same.

Moderation is the virtue for these times

Article

Nuke 'Em 'Til They Glow

Summary

Kurt Schlichter writing in Downhill accuses democrats of constitutional violations, political malfeasance and character flaws to make the case for true conservatives to aggressively assert their power; beginning with invoking the "nuclear option*" to affirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

*The nuclear option is the phrase Senator Harry Reid used to describe the rule change allowing the Senate to approve presidential nominees by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

Quote

"The libs need to suffer some more, so the GOP must move aggressively and without mercy to place as many reliable conservatives on the bench as we can. Let the battle cry sound fourth {sic} across this land!

Hiroshima!
Nagasaki!
Gorsuch!"

Understanding

Schlichter's screed reminds me of the line Karl Hess wrote for Sen. Barry Goldwater's speech accepting the Republican nomination for president in 1964 -

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Schlichter is clear in his conviction that our courts should be politically neutral, but if that is not possible, the judiciary should be conservative defenders of the constitution. OK, that's a reasonable position, but I wonder why he chose such spiteful rhetoric for this commentary? He sounds like someone outside the boardroom trying to get noticed. In fact, his team occupies all the seats of power, so why do they have to be ruthless?

It feels like there is a strain of vengeance animating the opinions, and perhaps the policies, of some in the Republican party. To the extent that is true, moderation will be the most effective response.

The integrity question

Article

Religious Trumpians Suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

Summary

Ben Shapiro writing in the National Review calls out conservatives for abandoning their political philosophy to back Pres. Trump.

Quote

"In other words, many conservatives have become religious Trumpians. There is nothing Trump can do to lose their love and respect. If he turns to the left, they’ll blame conservatives for failing to kowtow to leftist policy. If he gets nothing done, they’ll blame everybody else on earth for failing to support Trump properly. The god must be appeased."

Understanding

Personal integrity faces many challenges. Is our conviction strong enough to withstand suffering or the easy way out? What are we willing to lose, or not accept, to remain justified? Are we certain our principles are correct or could we be swayed by a leader's charisma? Must we stand alone when the crowd surges past us?

Conservatives who set aside their traditional policy positions to beat Hillary now face a reckoning. Since Pres. Trump is no longer a sure-fire winner, do they continue to blindly follow his lead or do they revive the philosophy of their heritage?

Good question. I'm glad they are asking. I look forward to the result of their reflection.

Compassion is our compulsion

Article

The False Compassion of Liberalism

Summary

Stephen Moore argues in Townhall that expecting government to fund compassionate policies and services constricts individual charity.

Quote

"The liberal creed seems to be: "We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people's wallets to solve these problems."

Understanding

The money that goes in and out of our bank accounts is personal. We claim it as ours. Our work generates the paycheck. We get to decide how to spend it. Of course taxation, especially when we oppose government policies, can feel frustrating and unfair. It usurps our sense of individual liberty and personal property rights.

OK, I get it. But let's not judge, label and denigrate, all right?

Certain acute, specific issues come to our attention, and we might respond to the particular matter with a donation earmarked for that cause. Most of us can't give enough individually to fix the problem but we get to do some small part to help.

What about the problems we don't see? What about unjust systems that are too big and complex for an individual to fathom let alone affect? For those challenges, our government magnifies our individual tax payments for the greater good of society. Taxes allocated to social services are an investment in order and opportunity. The dividends pay down the public burden of welfare and incarceration costs.

We're all in this together and both answers are correct.

A perspective on terrorism

Article

Do Muslims Commit Most U.S. Terrorism Attacks?

Summary

The Libertarian publication Reason cites a Georgia State University study into U.S. terror attacks and media coverage that found -

1. Of the 89 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last five years, 11 were perpetrated by Muslims
2. Those 11 attacks generated 44% of the media coverage on the 89 incidents
3. Eighteen of the 89 attacks were against Muslims

Quote

"Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114. Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective." 

Understanding

The New York Times published an article Sunday, "One Nation Under Fox," that chronicled 18 hours of programming on the popular TV network last Thursday. The Times found that the amount of coverage Fox news anchors, program hosts, reporters and commentators gave "radical, Islamic terrorism"  was disproportionately greater than other mainstream news sources.

Why do we vilify others and fear phantom threats? What need in us does this stereotyping and anxiety fulfill? Divisiveness and violence will persist until we understand why we create and perpetuate the bogeyman. Identifying how the terrorist, the immigrant and the ni**er satisfy a need in our character is how the healing will begin.

We have created the other for some purpose, to solve some problem. Can we find a different solution?

The aftermath of failure

Article

The range of responses to the defeat of the AHCA are found in the links below -

1. We're moving on
2. It's their (Democrats) fault 
3. It's their (Freedom Caucus) fault
4. It's his (Ryan's) fault
5. It's his (Trump's) fault
6. It's not his (Trump's) fault
7. Somebody (Republicans representatives) will pay for this
8. Get back up and try again 
9. It's their (Democrats) problem now 

Summary

Blame belongs to that person or those people

Quote

"The hopefully temporary deferral of the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare represents a great opportunity to simplify the tax code and re-organize federal welfare payments."

“We had no Democratic support,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “They weren’t going to give us a single vote.”

"This is an utter disaster for U.S. health care, not to mention individual liberty, and the responsibility rests squarely on shoulders of a small cadre of political opportunists with the effrontery to call themselves the “House Freedom Caucus.”

"Yes, AHCA failure is a failure for the president, but it’s much more a failure for House leadership and Paul Ryan."

"It appears President Trump cared a lot more about getting a win than about what, exactly, he would be winning. And that lack of focus on the details helped deny him the victory he wanted so badly."

“There is no question in my mind at least that the president and the team here have left everything on the field.”

"Deflated Republican voters may similarly find themselves done with their representatives on the Hill."

"They have spent seven years saying they were going to replace Obamacare. They didn’t say they were going to spend a few weeks on a half-baked plan and then give up. Back to work, ladies and gentlemen."

"The message today that is sent is: Democrats own ObamaCare," Spicer said. "It's a failing system - skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, and fewer choices. But it's now squarely in the hands of Democrats. They own this."

Understanding

How we respond to defeat and failure says so much about our character. So far, only Paul Ryan has hinted at the need for self-reflection and personal accountability rather than blaming others.

This jockey can win no matter which horse finishes first

Article

Why Steve Bannon Might be the Winner of the GOP's Health Care Civil War

Summary

Gabriel Sherman writing in New York magazine says Steve Bannon has positioned himself so that Pres. Trump, and to greater extent,  Paul Ryan and Congress will shoulder the blame if the American Health Care Act fails.

Quote

"The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda."

Understanding

Powerful people encounter at least two compelling priorities -

1. How do I use my position to do what is right?
2. How do I preserve my power? 

How powerful people work through those internal questions can lead to great good or great corruption.

Mr. Bannon's alleged goal of deconstructing the administrative state gains some juice if the AHCA fails. Bannon's agenda might gain even more momentum if the AHCA passes and disappoints. That scenario could strengthen the argument of the Freedom Caucus that government has little or no business in health care and entitlements are an archaic vestige of the Deep State.

We might be wise to review Machiavelli's The Prince or look carefully at how Thomas Cromwell maneuvers in Hillary Mantel's historical novels on the court of Henry VIII. The forces of power are at play in the public strong-arm tactics of Pres. Trump and in the shadows where men new to power privately whisper and smirk.

Stop it

Article

Trump's warning on illegal immigrants proves grimly prophetic

Summary

Sean Hannity focuses on some recent crimes and his own experience to make a case for Pres. Trump's immigration policy.

Quote

"President Trump is right: We can never forget those whose lives were destroyed by illegal immigrants. And we need to demand a secure border and an end to local policies that allow illegal immigrant criminals to prey on innocent Americans."

Understanding

Hannity cites unattributed statistics to make his case, so I wanted to see what other data might indicate -

1. A NY Times article from March 6, 2017, "Here’s the Reality About Illegal Immigrants in the United States" references Migration Policy Institute estimates that about 300,000 of the 11 million undocumented residents of the United States have committed a felony in the past decade.
2. The FBI's annual report "Crime in the United States" estimates there were 1,197,704 violent crimes committed in 2015
3. In 2015, CNN cited findings from a Mother Jones article that assembled data on mass shootings the U.S. since 1982. The racial profile of the mass shooters was -

• 64% white men
• 16% black men
• 9% Asian men
• 11% Latino, Native American or unknown

About 300,000 felonies in the last decade compared to over a million violent crimes in one year. Nearly two-thirds of the mass shootings in the U.S. by white men versus an indistinguishable amount attributed to Latinos.

Hannity's priority is hard to justify or defend. I can only guess his personal motives but I won't since I don't know him. His public persona has the style of a bully and the conventional wisdom is that bullys are insecure, frustrated and hurt. Some bully because they are copying behavior of people they admire.

That potential for copycat behavior is frightening. Hannity copies Trump. How many will copy Hannity? Empathy is not part of the solution here. This behavior needs to stop.

Flunking out but not giving up

Article

The Alt-Right is What Happens when Society Marginalizes Men

Summary

Owen Strachan says stereotyping alt-right males as childish, vicious losers avoids facing the plight of contemporary men as an  important social concern. He says young men are "angry, flailing and dangerously volatile." He warns that dismissing their perspective is foolish and dangerous.

Quote

"It leaves you susceptible to groundswells that sweep over a culture seemingly without warning—the Tea Party, Brexit, Trump. Many folks on the progressive side assume that because they have won the college campus and now dominate the urban centers of power that the cultural game is over."

"But what looks like a fortress-grade progressive order is really an unstable element, as we have seen several times over. The ideological insurgency will never have Ivy League degrees to award, coveted Beltway bylines to dole out, or global-power conference invites to issue. But the insurgency is finding its audience, and the audience is destabilizing and even remaking the public-square, and all without central coordination or control of leading cultural institutions."

Understanding

It's finals week at my college, so here is a response to this content as a multiple-choice question -

1. Oh see how alt-right apologists are trying to normalize their behavior and create sympathy for these victims of political correctness
2. Why yes young men are falling behind and we should try to help them rather than  judge them by the most extreme behavior of their tribe
3. The fundamental problem is gender stereotyping that prescribes roles and norms which limit how men and women can freely express ourselves 
4. All of the above

I choose #4 which leads to no immediate solution other than treading warily, yet optimistically, forward looking for opportunities to connect and reconcile.

Looking past the fear

Article

Watch Out Conservatives: Natural Disasters Can Create Opportunities for Dictators

(Thanks to Will Sommer and Right Richter for this reference.)

Summary

Rachel Alexander writing in Townhall warns that the eminent earthquake in the Pacific Northwest could lead to dictatorial rule.

Quote

"If the wrong person becomes president of the U.S., a natural disaster could allow them to seize dictatorial control. Although President Trump is a strong leader who promotes freedom and democracy, the left is doing everything it can to oust him. The left has a recent track record of taking leaders out using sham legal witch hunts. This is the easiest way they may take Trump out."

Understanding

Alexander cites a list of fears in this article -

1. Natural disasters
2. Left-wing conspiracies
3. Thwarting Pres. Trump's power
4. Secular persecution of Christians

Passion,  whether it is righteous or paranoid, can engulf reason and coherence. Wisdom comes with time, patience and a willingness to see past the initial outrage to understand how and why someone cares so deeply about something that seems so strange.

States rights after all?

Article

A Blue State Secession Model I Can Get Behind

Summary

The National Review columnist points out that Kevin Baker's essay in The New Republic supporting blue states like California, Oregon and Washington seceding from the union makes liberals sound like constitutional conservatives.

Quote

"After all, did the Founders envision a federal administrative mega-bureaucracy that stripped virtually every major social policy from the states, often leaving them marginal players (compared with the feds) in their own citizens’ welfare?" 

Understanding

Federalism is the political system where central and regional governments share power equally. Conservatives argue that the United States skews the balance to favor Washington D.C.

The irony of liberals now wanting less federal interference is worth noting. The National Review columnist suggests this ideological agreement could lead to bipartisan collaboration if we could just stop being angry.

I have a hard time swallowing that proposal because I can't get over how the "states rights" argument was used against the civil rights movement. So here I am stuck in the past, fighting and old battle and not forgiving.

It's just that I worry it's not an old battle. The struggle continues and my fears keep me from the common table where I could talk to conservatives about his issue. Huh. That sounds familiar too.

Building on a shared moral foundation

Article

Socialism's Rising Popularity Threatens America's Future

Summary

We should feel alarmed that a survey by the American Faith and Culture Institute (AFCI) found that 40% of the adults in its study prefer socialism to capitalism. The article's author blames education where, he says, "The benefits of socialism are taught from the Ivy League to the local community college."

Of particular concern to the survey researcher and the article author is that 70% of the survey respondents who identified as liberal reported they support traditional values. The researcher warns, "liberals may redefine 'traditional moral values' to include beliefs and behaviors that are not at all traditional or moral from a biblical perspective."

Quote

"Conservative and traditionally minded Americans can no longer assume that their neighbor believes what they believe or that he defines the terms of political discourse the same way. The country has changed."

Understanding

The AFCI uses a 15-pont checklist of belief statements to categorize people into those who view the world with a biblical perspective versus those who do not.

My summary of the list is that being on the AFCI team means worshiping the literal text of a document composed within the particular cultural constructs of the eastern Mediterranean between 1,500 BC and 200 AD and curated by religious, male elites in church councils during the fourth and fifth centuries of the current era.

People, liberal or conservative, seek a coherent system to guide how we live in society. Conservatives tend to prefer relying on concrete, time-tested principles.  Liberals tend to prefer applying their values to an interpretation of a particular situation.

While the strategies differ, we can share a moral foundation. The contradictions in our approaches don't have to make us afraid to talk to each other about our differences since, at the root we share so much in common.

Shared wickedness

Article

How To Be A ‘Woke’ White Person: Join The Alt-Right

Summary

The author criticizes white liberals who engage in the racial political debate for the purpose of signaling their own virtue as a weapon to take away moral authority from some people.

Quote

"The result was that rejection of racism, instead of becoming a universal creed above partisan bickering, got reduced to a narrow partisan cudgel, a way of beating up people who disagree with you and making you feel good about yourself by comparison."

"But now it has gotten out of control, and blacks and other minorities have started to realize the extent to which they were being used as a tool of somebody else’s self-validation."

"The Left has embraced a racial politics that doesn’t seek to gather people together in a common cause, but instead seeks to divide them into separate groups in a never-ending ritual of power struggles. They had better be careful what they wish for, because at the rate they’re going, they just might get it—and smash everything to pieces."

Understanding

Blaming the Left for turning racial politics into "a narrow partisan cudgel" doesn't gather us together in common cause. The rhetoric of this argument contributes to our divisions. The final sentence even evokes mob violence as the threatening outcome of the Left's agenda.

Manufacturing and focusing on bogeymen will not resolve our racial divisions. Both the Left and Right ends of the political spectrum are guilty of stereotyping and name-calling. Acknowledging that we share those sins in common might help bring us together.

Meet me at the monastery

Article

Rod Dreher On The Future Of Christianity In A Post-Christian Nation

Summary

Rod Dreher is a senior editor at the American Conservative and author of the new book, “The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation.” Dreher joins Federalist Radio to explain the ancient ways of the Benedict Option, the roots of religious decline in America, and how Christians can save their culture and communities.

Quote

"We are called to live in the world, but if we are to live in the world faithfully, we have to withdraw from the world to some extent for formation so we can be salt and light to the world."

Understanding

Dreher wants Christianity to be at the center of our lives, culture and politics. His sense is that traditional values need to be protected and restored. He points to St. Benedict's withdrawal from the sordid life of the Roman Empire as a model for figuring out a new way to be in community.

I am not afraid of what Dreher fears, nor do I share his goal of restoring Christendom. I would like to talk with him about his practice. I think I could learn something that might draw mine from being less self-serving and more networked into serving society.

A man's inner world

Article

Why They Need the Cucks

Summary

Jessa Crispin explains the alt right's use of the archaic word cuckold is based on men with embattled masculinity needing to assert power by diminishing others.

Quote

"Here, then, is the task of the twenty-first-century American man: making hierarchies that don’t put him at the bottom. The bottom is where the cucks are—because “cuck,” in its current incarnation, is an insult aimed not at men who are betrayed by women...but at men who don’t have anyone to control."

Understanding

Masculinity has traditionally been defined by how men appear and what we achieve.  My manliness score is based on the size of my body, how much money I earn and how many women I screw. As a slight-framed, government salaried, 40-years monogamous male; I'm pretty low in that pecking order. As a loser in that lottery, it's easier for me to see the limitations of traditional masculinity.

No wonder men who buy into that model find themselves lacking and look to exploit weakness in others. What a sorry use of their pain.

Do I want more power, prosperity and prowess? Not for the price I would have to pay. I will not trample others to climb to the top. I will not sacrifice the joys of togetherness for the stuff of selfishness. I will not betray love for gratification.

Rather than admiring alpha males and their wannabes, perhaps it would be better to feel compassion for them. Perhaps we should not define our manliness based on how our score ranks in a hierarchy, We could define our manliness based on the power of our helpfulness, the abundance we share and the joy we create.

Restore what?

Article

Other People's Babies and American Values

Summary

Jonathan Tobin in The National Review urges conservatives to distance themselves from the ideology of Iowa congressman Steve King who tweeted in support of the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders -

Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. 

We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.

Quote

"That is why it is incumbent upon conservatives to reject any connection between their beliefs or their political party with the ideas that animated Steve King’s tweet. A failure to do so will not merely hurt conservatives politically; it will hasten the decline of the values they cherish."

Understanding

Diversity is a defining characteristic of America. Our multicultural nature creates tragedies and tensions as it enriches and energizes us. People of all colors and faiths are held together in an American identity through our tradition as a nation of immigrants and our "pursuit of liberty and justice for all." Those qualities and ideals are what civilize us. Our civilization is restored by our openness not by the fears of privileged, white men.

A greater love

Article

Evangelicals need to stop being wimps

Summary

America would become truly great again if evangelical Christians were to find their voice and courage.

Quote

"Righteous anger has a place within the Christian life.  Tap into it.  In the words of Ephesians 4:26, 'Be angry and do not sin.'”

Understanding

Is accepting people as they are a greater expression of love than desiring something more for them? I believe we are all basically the same and essentially good. That stance may be less compassionate than believing, and acting, on the principle that we can be more than who we are.

The challenge for evangelicals is the narrowness of their judgment and the language of their argument. This author asserts that his interpretation of Christianity is the only true way and he cruelly labels people he finds objectionable.

I want to hold fast to righteous principles, not shy away from speaking my truth  while loving the other without condemnation.

If enough was enough

Article

Putting Work in its Place

Summary

Our conception of the role of work distorts our political and family life.

Quote

"Members of the economy are increasingly unable to understand themselves as providing for a family and as cultivating a particular skill that contributes to the common good. They instead understand themselves as embroiled in a competitive race to an ever-receding pinnacle of success and, at the same time, as stuck in the vicious cycle of consumption and emptiness."

Understanding

How much is enough? Nelson Rockefeller famously answered, "Just a little bit more."

Politicians on both the Left and the Right aspire to eliminate barriers to individual success such as poverty, prejudice foreign workers, bad trade deals or regulation then let the free market make winners out of some of its participants. The elites are anointed and the also-rans become frustrated voters or opt out of the electorate.

What if we valued the quality of how each of us contributes rather than how some of us get ahead?  What if the restless striving that characterizes our American character was oriented toward doing our share rather than hoarding more shares? What if what we have is all that we want?

It seems naive to think our culture could recalibrate its values so radically. If we don't we will stay how we are only more so. We can begin with ourselves and the values we model for our children.

Faith abides

Article

"Americans have lost faith in institutions. That's not because of Trump or 'fake news.'

Summary

Bill Bishop writing in The Washington Post claims everything about modern life works against community and trust. Society has frayed because we have elevated the value of individual autonomy. The causes predate Pres. Trump and there is nothing we can do about it.

Quote

"We have become, in Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s description, “artists of our own lives,” ignoring authorities and booting traditions while turning power over to the self."

Understanding

It is easy to use the past to identify what is lacking in the present and what is threatening to our future. It is harder to identify how the elements of our current predicament might bloom into a better tomorrow.

During my active parenting years I grieved that children didn't enjoy spontaneous, unstructured, communal play. I recalled fondly how on weekends or after school a dozen or so of my childhood buddies would gather for games of tag, baseball or football. My kids were more isolated and into TV, computer games and organized sports.

Now I work with a lot of people aged 19-35. I see how they use hand-held devices to connect and build community through liking, commenting, sharing and participating. I see how they value kindness and inclusion. Their interactions remind me of the Saturday afternoons of my youth except that they enjoy multiple, positive social interactions every day. Their smart phones replaced the bat and ball that were the devices that brought my community together.

OK we have lost what was familiar. That always happens. So does the arrival of something better that we can't fully imagine just now.

Governing the ego

Article

Where are the Republican Party's Leaders?

Summary

Ian Tuttle writing in "The National Review" says Pres. Trump's bashing of traditional conservative principles as he ascended to power has left the GOP gun-shy.

Quote

"But, of course, this leadership crisis is at root a crisis of faith. The Republican party doesn’t know what it believes right now."

Understanding

While confidence is a necessary attribute of leadership, hubris is its cancerous over-production. It takes a nimble trick of the ego to realize the attributes that get us into a leadership position are not sufficient for us to lead effectively.

We need the relationships we trampled on our way to the top. We need expert advice. We have to compromise to move forward. We receive the ideas of others and accept their help. Humility comes to us more naturally when we hold dear principles bigger than our selves.

Is Pres. Trump the new Mao?

Article

The one book to understand Steve Bannon

Summary

Bannon tells "Axios'" Jonathan Swan that The Revolt of the Elites by Christopher Lasch is one of his favorites for explaining our times.

Quote

"Reading 'The Revolt of the Elites' gives you a deeper appreciation of the populist nationalist movement that propelled Trump to the presidency. It also gives you deeper insight into how Bannon thinks — his disdain for experts and party establishments, his skepticism on multinationals, his commitment to information warfare and the Breitbart comments section, his antipathy toward "globalists" and his particular distrust of the West Coast elite Lasch writes feel more loyalty to Hong Kong and Singapore than they do to "Middle America." Jonathan Swan

Understanding

Swan's article pulls out eight statements from The Revolt of the Elites to suggest how Bannon thinks. While it is a fallacious to assume Lasch's words equal Bannon's beliefs, there are some provocative ideas listed. Here is one -

• "We have become far too accommodating and tolerant for our own good....Compassion has become the human face of contempt...Today we accept double standards — as always, a recipe for second-class citizenship — in the name of humanitarian concern." Christopher Lasch

While that statement seems harsh, it is out of context and I assume the author has good intent, not cruelty, as his motivation. Perhaps we elites do use charity as a way to reinforce our privileged status and maintain the status quo of a society that works very well for us. Perhaps what Lasch and Bannon are calling for is a radical transformation of our class structure to be more egalitarian.

Huh. I used to aspire to the same goal when I was an undergraduate Maoist and admirer of China's Cultural Revolution.

I wonder how far the wealthy, white men in charge of the federal government right now will push that agenda?

Watch your mouth

Article

A Glossary of Far-Right Terms and Memes

Summary

BuzzFeed has assembled a useful list of the jargon and icons that members of the alt-right use in their communications.

Quote

"The Overton Window
A general concept to describe the limits ("window") of what the public finds acceptable. Some pundits have suggested that Trump has shifted the scope of this window, and that things like the "grab her by the pussy" comment would have previously been career-ending for a politician. The alt-right believes it's helping shift the Overton window for the public by making the movement's extreme speech normalized, and in its wake has opened up the path for Trump." 

Understanding

Sometimes I catch myself judging people into categories of those who "get it" versus those who don't. The people who "get it" share my worldview, and one of the primary ways I believe this to be true is through our shared vocabulary, cultural reference points and inside jokes.

Language connects and separates. I sound ridiculous when I throw down popular Millennial slang after looking it up in Urban Dictionary. I used to think I was signaling myself as an LGBTQ ally when I used phrases like,  "That's so gay..." until I realized how it hurt.

Learning the vocabulary and iconography of the alt-right can provide insight. Appropriating their insults into points of pride, e.g. pussy hats, helps deflect the pain.

Snowflakes, let's not minimize the cruelty beneath the surface as their vocabulary becomes commonplace.

The legitimacy filter

Article

The Crisis and the Truth

Summary

The Weekly Standard's editors believe we have a national crisis in Pres. Trump's accusation that he was illegally surveilled by Pres. Obama's administration.

Quote

"It is an institutional and perhaps constitutional crisis when the president of the United States accuses his predecessor of illegally wiretapping him as a candidate--a wiretapping presumably carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, still headed by the director accused by the president of wiretapping him."

Understanding

Dueling conspiracy theories are racing at the speed of tweeting for legitimacy. The liberal narrative is that Pres. Trump wants to distract us from Russian influence on his administration.  Conservatives claim that the wiretapping accusation itself, even without evidence, is sufficient to warrant investigation.

The Weekly Standard's call for transparency is noble and appropriate, but I wonder what evidence any of us will accept that might alter our preconceptions?

We often prefer our opinions to the truth. Once we set our minds on a belief we filter out facts that challenge our mindset and collect data that reinforces our preferred concept.

We are like competing tribes who share the same land but a different language, and each of us is building a wall, tweet by tweet, claim by claim, stone by stone, to protect our enclave.

Winning at all costs is a losing argument

Article

Blue State Blues: The Deliberate Politicization of Intimacy

Summary

Joel B. Pollak claims that Democrats' exploitation of personal relationships threatens our society.

Quote

"Obama told his supporters explicitly to approach their neighbors and “argue with them, and get in their face.” His surrogates took that approach even further. Hollywood celebrity Sarah Silverman encouraged Obama’s Jewish supporters to travel to Florida and tell their ostensibly racist grandparents to vote for him. Later, once Obama was in office, the supposedly non-partisan Rock the Vote organization told young people to withhold sex from partners who refused to support Obamacare."

Understanding

Pollak makes some insightful comments about how social media divides us into camps rather than brings us together. Then he advocates that liberals are to blame and conservatives aren't as guilty.

It looks like he'd rather win his argument than be right. He seized an opportunity to score points for his side rather than bring us to common ground.

I recall the times at work or with loved ones that I've tried, with vehement disregard for decency and righteousness, to win at all costs .  Victory was short-lived when I succeeded. Shame and remorse remained.

Understanding is literally an act of humility and we will have a difficult time standing together if we remain determined to top one another.

The ruling class

Article

James Burnham's Managerial Elite

Summary

The author makes the case for the relevance of an economic analysis from the 50's called managerialism. Managerialism holds that the ascendence of elites into control of the corporate and public sector based on their superior knowledge and network, is the reason for our current political disarray and economic disfunction.

Quote

Conservative polemicists have long presented a caricature of a decadent liberal elite, and liberals have offered a competing caricature of a conservative plutocracy. But few have attempted to understand how these ostensible opponents function as elements of the same elite, or how they have participated in maintaining the broader intellectual, political, and economic status quo.

Understanding

My advanced degree, college administrator role and six-figure income place me in the managerial class. Because our status is derived from our competence, and not our ability to create value, the managerial elite controls the largest share of the pie without necessarily needing to create more berries, flour and sugar for the workers. The baking class will produce the pie for us and all we have to do is pay what we can easily afford.

No wonder their resentment is seething. No wonder they voted against the status quo of both political parties. The pie consuming class looks the same whether we are registered Republican or Democrat. We take whatever we want and leave the baking class to sweep the crumbs away.

Seeing ourselves in the other

Article

Jiminy Cricket! Disney Goes Gay

Summary

Todd Starnes objects to same-sex romance in Disney cartoons and films.

Quote

"But these days everything is about the LGBTQIA agenda. And when it comes to the entertainment industry, nothing is sacred in its quest to indoctrinate American children. Not even Disney."

Understanding

Popular entertainment is like a well-lighted mirror. It dramatizes and exaggerates our reflection. We won't always like what we see.

Starnes' response proclaiming: "everything is about..." and "nothing is sacred" is common human behavior when we feel threatened. For example, the ascendancy of President Trump has caused me to exaggerate fears and worry about dark plots among those who don't share my values.

Starnes is afraid of same-sex love becoming mainstream. He chooses not to imagine how LGBTQIA people feel in the world he holds as normal. Or how I would feel in his home.

We all want to feel like we belong. We all share so much more in common than what distinguishes us.

Responding to Pres. Trump's speech to Congress

Article

"Speaker Paul Ryan: Trump's Speech a Home Run"

Summary

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan says President Trump delivered a bold and optimistic speech.

Quote

“We now have a government unified around a simple, but important principle: Empowering the people—not Washington—is the way to build a better future for our country.”

Understanding

The rhetoric of the left and the right have much in common. Everyone wants the people empowered. Everyone wants a better future for our country. Can we stop there, stay there and begin the conversation from where we agree?

I worry when opponents make the other side the enemy, in Ryan's case "Washington." That's when I distrust their motive for as Gore Vidal said, "It's not enough to win. Others must lose."

Who will lose? I wonder how President Trump's call last night for us to be bold and fearless sounded to the good people who don't feel safe here?