August 30, 2019--Trump's Second Thoughts

If I believed he had first thoughts I might feel a bit optimistic that Trump is having second thoughts about his ill-begotten China tariff policy which, if implemented, would drag the global economy down to the same level England will shortly experience after they Brexit.

For weeks Trump has been in full Twitter as he excoriated China and its leaders and how they dishonestly manage their economy. All to our disadvantage, Trump has been fulminating.

But then last Friday when the Dow Jones Average shed 700 points Trump hit the panic button. He has been using the Dow as his personal barometer of how well the economy has been doing on his watch. 

Not so good the bears were now saying. Talk of inflation was also in the air. Not the kind of economic news any president wants to run on when seeking reelection.

And so he had second thoughts. 

When asked about the tariffs during the G-7 meeting in France he said that sure he is having second thoughts. He has them all the time about everything. And "that's a good thing." 

It is easier, of course, to have multiple thoughts about everything if you don't believe in anything other than your own wellbeing. 

But as with so much, it depends on the second thoughts. To rethink engaging in a ruinous trade war, having real second thoughts is a good thing. With emphasis on "real." 

What is in fact underway with China is not anything resembling normal negotiations or diplomacy but rather a play on Trump's part to enhance his domestic political standing. Period.

Here's how it is working with the tariffs but it equally applies to how he approaches background checks or immigration. Actually, with Trump how it applies to everything.

He's a master of having it both ways, or even more than both ways. In his case, this is easy to get away with since his supporters (a shrinking pool polls are now showing) are low-information voters (I'm trying to be kind) and as such are not as concerned as evidence-based voters when it comes to flip-flops and contradictions and facts.

For Trump's people he is incapable of flip-flopping or acting inconsistently. Wherever he says, whatever he does is by definition true and consistent. If it comes from him, truth is not the issue. Though in a perverse way it is because, ex cathedra, whatever he says or does is or becomes the truth.

Then there are direct political advantages for him to having multiple thoughts about the same thing--it gives his believers (and  I consider them believers) more to embrace, more to accept, more rituals and incantations by which to be guided.

So, when it comes to tariffs some of his supporters can be for them while others can oppose them, all the while both being for HIM. Which after all is the point.

July 31, 2019--Trump's Base

The consensus is that the reason Trump went after the four congresswomen of color and then Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton is because he is stoking his base of racists and white supremacists. His dead-ender 35 percent who, literally, would be fine with him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

I join that consensus with one caveat--

He must be terrified to be doing this. If he feels so secure about his people's blind loyalty, why does he see the need to pour accelerant on the political flames?

Perhaps he is terrified because he senses they aren't quite as loyal as everyone is assuming. Some may be becoming fed up with his outrages others are maybe beginning to get bored with his stand-up act. Even popular reality TV shows get cancelled.

For me this is good news. 

Certainly there is legitimate concern about what he has thus far unleashed, but I hope to see him press on with his racist and misogynist agenda because even if it excites the core of his base it will incite Democrats and liberals to organize, contribute, and above all vote.

February 18, 2019--Seething Sort of Muted Rage

A great friend, Jill Davenport, sent the following note late last week. 

She attached a posting from the Daily Kos blog which, as you can see, brought her to a calmer place when thinking about the state of our politics and nation.

It did the same for me and I thought it might do so for you. So here it is--

Morning, Steven . . . 

This piece from Kos made me think about you and Rona and your Bristol Diner breakfasts.  I sincerely hope that this is not a piece of fiction designed to give some respite to those of us who are weary from the constant whiplash of hope risen and hope dashed.  And it gives something of a pass to the MAGA-hats who were duped and who now seem redeemable.  No passes given out for the vultures sitting in Congress, though, nor to those who profit from the sweat of others.   

Sorry to press this upon you.  It’s an easy read and well-written despite the author’s insistence that he can’t write "too good."  He writes good.  The piece has put me into a calmer place where I can look upon the impending "National Emergency” as a “go ahead and do it” proposition.  Any touchstone for hope will work for me--

--We the 99% got money issues to worry about.

So yeah I’m not usually a dairist here, and my writing skills leave something to be desired. I’m analog and not very digital and fat fingers can produce interesting grammatical errors that leave the more gifted wincing, not to mention spelling. My mind out races my fingers frequently and I rarely think to edit.  Consider this your warning about wondering narrative ahead. It’s tax time, and Trump time, and valentines night out for a lot of people isn’t happening this year. Trigger warning: I am going to give you some actual conversation as verbatim as I can.

Some might find this offensive.

So I have finally gotten all the snow cleared from where I didn’t want it, cleared a space for the danger doofus doggo to do her business without freezing tender areas and was very hungry and did not want to cook and wanted biscuits and gravy with two over-easy on top. So off to the local greasy spoon I went. The place was packed with guys like me 40+ white working class/farmers, hey it’s rural Wisconsin, and they were all bitching about one thing. Taxes. 

It wasn’t the quietly disgruntled sort of mildly irritated bitching. It was a seething sort of muted rage that comes from people who are seriously pissed and are looking for someone to blame kind of bitching.

Then ol’ Chuck Grassley appears on the TV pontificating about taxes. Ho Boy. Spark meet gasoline. Even the owner and waitresses lost their shit. I think “Bald faced fucking liar” was the mildest term I heard used and that was a waitress.

Could be wrong though. It was loud. 

Everyone and I do mean every single person in that establishment started comparing just what they had to cough up in taxes or just how small their return was going to be if they got one compared to last years. People were going to be short 5k minimum on their refunds. Others were in the hole to the IRS up to 12k. Vacations were being canceled. Repairs and purchases are being postponed. Vehicles are not going to be purchased. 

Then the farmers started bitching about who they were going to sell soybeans to. What should they plant? Corn? Soybeans? It’s time to order seed you know. How can I make a profit if I can’t sell what I grow? Is this China shit going to be sorted out soon? Who gives a fuck about a border wall I need fucking laborers. Does that fat orange bastard really know what the fuck he’s doing? 50% of these people voted for Trump. Now granted there were some MAGA hat wearing folks in there and a couple spouted off about staying the course and talking points. My did that go over well. Not.

Long story short they eventually brought up her e-mails. Whoopsie. An older farmer who could probably buy the place stood up and said his piece.

“You voted for Republicans in 2016 because you were angry about a black man being president for eight years and there was no damned way you were going to have a woman, let alone that woman be president. You got what you wanted. It wasn’t just that shitbag Trump. It was Republicans in the House of Representatives and Republicans in the Senate that drafted these tax laws you’re all cryin’ about. You’re stupid. You never learned nothing. You don’t look at history.

Republicans ALWAYS do what really rich people tell’em to. It ain’t about fags, blacks, Jesus, God, her emails, abortions, guns, or any of that other shit they holler about. Religious freedom don’t need no special laws it’s right there in that Constitution they keep spittin’ on. It’s about the money. It’s about how they can take your money and give it to people who flat don’t fucking need it. All of you need to grow up and take responsibility for your damned government. 2018 was a damned fine year. Democrats in charge of Congress again.”

Then Mr. MAGA Major bigmouth just had to say it, “What about that Pelosi bitch and all them (n----r) women in congress? They’re going to wreck it!”

Farmer: “Son you’d best be grateful that Pelosi bitch is a mean ol’ bitch and those women are serious about government. They’re the ones going to save your stupid ass from yourself. How you going to cover that tax bill you owe Bill? You need a loan? Maybe next year this time we’ll have us a real honest set of tax laws. Then again maybe you like paying this much in taxes every year? No? Thought not.”

Exit the farmer. A badass first class taking no shit from anyone farmer. 

It got real quiet for about 30 seconds as the man paid his tab and left. Then a new kind of hum started building in the place. the kind that made me grin and made the MAGA boys nervous. And to think what that farmer would have said about Mueller? Now there, yes there is something I’d like to have a sit down and listen to. Maybe I can have that after I go see him about what he’ll be asking for half a beef.

Jill too writes good. 

February 14, 2019--Jack: Winning By Losing

"Why don't you pick up the phone and call him."

"Who?"

"You know. Jack."

"I don't want to get in the habit of calling him."

Rona said, "Calling him once every five years doesn't qualify as a habit. I suggested this because he might be a good one to ask about what we've been talking about recently. Why, after all the messes Trump has created, including the fiasco of shutting down the government, that pretty much his entire core of supporters stays loyal to him. There seems to be nothing he can do to alienate them. Even when he does something that's harmful to them. Like the tax cuts people are right now discovering has not been beneficial, as promised, to the middle class."

I said, "It is puzzling why that rock bottom 30, 35 percent stays loyal. Jack might have some insights to share."

So I called. He picked up on the second ring as if waiting for me.

"It's me," I said, "I know I never call but here I am. I have a question for you. It will only take a few minutes. If you're too busy, just hang up."

"No, no. I'm OK," Jack said. "To what do I owe the honor of this call? Every time I phone you you're rushing to get off the line."

I didn't want to get into why that might be, and said, "Rona thinks you can help with something."

"Shoot. Anything for her. You know I love Rona."

"I promise not to tell her that," I laughed, "I don't want to spoil her day. But here's the question--Why do you and your Trumper friends stay so committed to him even though he's constantly screwing things up?"

"Can you give me an example?"

"There are so many. But OK, in the news recently, take the Wall. He's clearly obsessed with it and claims during the past two years it's being built out at a fast pace even though it's well known that nothing, nothing has been constructed. Not one mile since he's been president. He's now saying it's time to 'finish' the wall. Lie built on lie. And yet you and his people don't seem to be upset about that. They and I presume you are upset with Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in general for not voting for the money he says is needed. What happened to all the winning? Isn't his appeal all about winning? On this one he's a loser."

"Once again you don't understand, you don't get it. But you called the right person to get the answer."

"I'm waiting."

"You've got it backwards. It, he's not about winning but, actually, losing." Jack paused to wait for my reaction to this radical thought--that Trump is into losing.

"I'm listening."

"I'll include myself."

"I assumed you would."

"We are angry about what's been going on in America from endless nation-building wars around the world, to all the illegal immigrants, to political correctness. We're furious about affirmative action and identity politics and the unfairness of the mainstream media. Also, we're made crazy by the drug smuggling and the murderous Mexican gangs. I could go on but this should give you a glimpse of what's on the minds of Trump's people."

I interrupted, "You're making my point for me. I mean, yes, this is the familiar list of grievances, but he's delivered nothing in more than two years to help alleviate what you and his other supporters are frustrated about. He's accomplished very little except passing tax cuts for the rich and withdrawing troop from Syria, which every serious foreign policy expert considers foolhardy."

"Again, you're showing your ignorance. For us it's not about accomplishing things of a traditional sort. Passing legislation to do this or that. We don't believe in that sort of approach because as we view things it's these kinds of government programs that have caused the problems we have."

I said, "This is familiar territory. Nothing new in what you're saying."

"So let me repeat this in words even you can understand. We're about wanting to continue to be frustrated and angry. That's the lens through which we view the world. We are pessimistic that government can make things better. In fact, it's the opposite. And so we don't want to be cooled out by getting a bone or two thrown at us. We want to remain in a rage. It's what we're about, what motivates us."

"So what about the winning/losing business?"

"If we win, so to speak, which at best will be minimal, what do we do with our anger? Being angry makes us feel alive and powerful; and now, with Trump, paid attention to. It gives us a purpose in life. So he too has to lose to remain angry. What we like about him is not getting a few more dollars for the wall or some new program, what we like, what we crave, is his expressing anger and fighting for us. Not mincing words (how he fights is therefore very important), telling it like is, showing contempt for traditions and moderate ways of talking about and doing things. For this reason we even like his public cursing."

Jack was on a roll, "His appeal to us is the result of the ways he represents our anger, our sense of being looked down to, our being thought of by your type as being deplorable. We haven't forgotten that one. To use one of your fancy words, to being marginalized. In other words, we're all about expressing grievances and frustrations. To do this you have to keep losing. We wouldn't know what to do with winning. We have so little experience with it. So Trump, who is the first president to represent us also has to lose."

I was stunned and couldn't quickly come up with what to say. He had never been so honest.

So Jack said, "Had enough for today? Remember you called me." He roared with laughter and hung up without a goodbye.

August 23, 2018--Trump Jurer

One thing many thought about as the Manafort jury's deliberations dragged into a fourth day was concern that one or more jurors were such fervent Trump supporters that no matter how overwhelming the evidence of Manafort's guilt there would be no verdict, no guilty verdict. The jury would be hung on all 18 counts. 

It turns out that this concern was well founded. It almost happened. But nonetheless, Trump's former campaign manager was found guilt on eight counts.

Unless you take an occasional surreptitious peek at Fox News to see what they are up to (I do), how they are spinning things, you would have missed what a Manafort juror of the concerning type had to say about their deliberations. Particularly how, in spite of driving to the courthouse in Alexandria every morning, wearing her Make America Great hat, conflicted as to whether or not she should hold out to the very bitter end in spite of the accumulating evidence that point to Manafort's guilt, in spite of this, she voted guilty on those eight counts. And likely would have found him guilty on the ten others but didn't "need" to as there was another Trump juror who did hold out for a not guilty verdict and thus there was a hung jury on the other counts.

The juror, Paula Duncan, interviewed on Fox said--

"Finding Mr. Manafort guilty was hard for me. I wanted him to be innocent, I really wanted him to be innocent, but he wasn't. That's the part of a juror. You have to have due diligence and deliberate and look at the evidence and come up with an informed and intelligent decision, which I did."

As scary as the prospect is of a stealth Trumpian on this and upcoming juries (there are a lot of them across America--perhaps a third of the adult population), imperfect as it is, in spite of the relentless incitement emanating from Fox and other media sources, the system such as it is can work. There is something almost sacred to many when one enters the jury room to deliberate. Paula Duncan is a living example.

Paula Duncan

July 20, 2018--Jack: When No Is Yes

I have been so agitated about Trump's pathetic behavior at the Helsinki summit and then with his attempts to walk back a number of the more outrageous things he said, that I found myself calling Jack to get a few things off my chest.

"I want you to just listen," I said, not even beginning with "Hello."

"You have 15 minutes before my next appointment. So shoot. There I go again with the shooting business." He chuckled at that. I ignored him as I didn't want to get sidetracked into an argument about the Second Amendment.

"Just listen," I said, racing on, "There have been numerous examples of politicians, including presidents, who said stupid things that they or their people subsequently attempted to clean up, to explain away.

"Let me begin with John Kerry when he was running for president in 2004. He was accused, not entirely unfairly by George W. Bush, of being a flip-flopper. The most enduring example was when he tried to have it both ways when it came time to vote for or against a supplemental defense bill that authorized $87 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Typical John Kerry and so he lost the election.

"Next there's what President Bill Clinton, under oath, said to the grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I wrote it down so I can quote him--

"'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. . . Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

"I'm running out to time," Jack said, "But thus far I like what you're saying--taking it to those two phonies--Kerry and Clinton."

Again I didn't take the bait and continued--"Now let's turn to your boy. Trump."

"Shoot." I could hear him laughing.


"Trying to wiggle out of what he said about Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, on his return to Washington from Helsinki, Trump 'clarified' his position on Russian meddling in the election. Again I wrote it down--

Trump now claims he was 'very strong' with Putin on election meddling

Read more

“'I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.'

Among other things do you really believe he knows anything about double negatives?" 

Jack didn't say a word. "So here's another one for you. Also about the aftermath of the summit with Putin. This time about the meaning of 'no' and 'yes.'"

"When asked during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday if he believes Russia is still seeking to meddle in U.S. political affairs, Trump initially answered, 'no,' a remark that led to criticism even from some Republican lawmakers.

After Trump's remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders again tried to, quote, 'clarify' what Trump was saying 'no' to--she said he meant that he wasn't answering any questions at all, that he wasn't responding to the reporter's question itself."

I took a breath--"This is right out of Orwell's 1984. It's doublethink. And before you say that Trump was only doing the same thing as Kerry and Clinton, let me set you straight about that. Kerry was engaging in political spin and no matter how reprehensible it was for Clinton to have sex with Lewinsky and lie about it, what Trump did was of a higher order of magnitude, or a lower order--he violated his oath of office--he wasn't defending and protecting the Constitution conservatives so cherish. That alone justifies considering impeachment."

"Are you done?" Jack asked, "Because if you are I have one thing to say back to you--an Axios poll just came out out about how voters feel about the Helsinki meeting. The poll focused on the joint press conference that you and your people are all bent out of shape about. Well, 79 percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump's performance. What do you say to that?"

"Two things--they're still drinking the Kool-Aid, and 79 percent, as pathetic as that is, is not the usual 90 approval rating Trump gets from people like you. And further, I'll bet that at least half of these people are OK with the Russians meddling in our elections as long as they were helping Trump get elected."

With that, feeling a bit better, I hung up.

May 25, 2017--Beat Up

I'm getting beat up by some progressive friends who feel I am again being too easy on Donald Trump.

He's so execrable, they are saying, how can I express anything but contempt for him? When the other day I noted something to take seriously in his speech in Saudi Arabia, I could feel a number of people I've known for years deciding never to speak to me again.

Though I probably deserve some of the criticism, trying to explain myself, to one I said--

For me it's about finding ways to talk to each other because Trump supporters want to influence me as much as I'm eager to understand and have an impact on them. And I am not certain about that many things that I feel they need to agree to in advance for us to engage in deep and productive conversations and friendships. For me, everything begins with understanding. Not agreeing. 

Trump people are as concerned about the country as we. It's just that we disagree about many of the things that concern us. But it is concern that unites us and so we refuse to cross each other off our lists and instead look for ways to find some common ground. It's too easy to give up because we approach things differently. And ruinous, in my view, because if there can't be some healing we're cooked.  

So I try to work on that. I may be naive about this but for whoever claims to be liberal, to me, the test of their sincerity is how open they are (how I am) to ideas about which we disagree. 

Often, it works quite well here in Maine. There are a lot of good conversations among those who disagree, there's considerable listening, and I sense some coalescence around issues that involve poor people, children, and the elderly. With poor being the common denominator. For example, most of the conservatives I know are in favor of food stamps. Actually, many would like to see the funding increased. They also want to see the abuse pruned out. So do I. We've also had some terrific talks about Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and as a result seen some perspectieve shifting.

In response to this another friend said--"None of this matters. He obstructed justice. Period. A criminal offense." 

Then I received this email from Dr. S, the east coast's best audiologist--

Loved your two latest blogs. Your interactions with Jack got me thinking of more than just hearing well again. The deplorable barbarians just want to “tear it all down, start again.” I guess I would ask, what makes one think that building it all up from ground zero would result in a better outcome?  

I give you credit- -I don’t think I would have the patience, compassion, or whatever else is necessary to maintain an effective connection with any of them. Reason is, their decisions will have and have had a negative impact on our collective health, security, and environment- just to name a few concerns.

I responded--

Thanks for the tip of the hat for recent blogs. I am trying to stay sane even while crazily trying in my small ways to seek some common ground among people who are now more comfortable hurling missiles at each other. 

Dr. S said--

I need some suggestions on how to better relate to those who choose self-interest above all, profit over health, ignorance over education, pollution over clean air and water, denial of clear facts over reality . . .    

You do have your work cut out for yourself. I suspect, and hope I am wrong, that most are unreachable.

To that, I said--

One suggestion about the dichotomies you list--don't assume they aren't more bipartisan than we might think or like. Lots of progressives are greedy (choose profit) educated but still ignorant (biased i.e. "deplorables"), and do not do much more than complain about clean air and water. And around aspects of other social issues like health care, progressives are also prone to assert their own beliefs and ideologies over evidence-based knowledge. 

If we start by agreeing that both sides of the argument are not perfect, we have a chance to find some common ground. Which we need to find a way to do.

As my Grandma Zwerling used to say--"We'll see."

May 24, 2017--"It Does Boil Down to Impotence"

In response to my "Vile Scumbag" posting, a good friend who is about as smart as anyone I know, sent me this note--

As I read the headline [to your piece], I thought to myself "Ha! I feel the same way," until I noticed that it was actually a quote from me.  

I am exhausted by the current state of things, I am enraged at the carelessness with which the fate of our democracy is being handled. I am at a loss for how to understand these same Tea-publicans being willing to murder over flag burning, but defend 45's collusion with Russia.  

I am maddened by the poorest, least educated, most at risk, segments of our society fighting for less and less for themselves, and more for the people keeping them poor and making them sick. I am so so tired of radical fundamentalists calling themselves "conservative" when nothing about their agenda is about "conserving" anything, not the constitution, not the rule of law, not the environment, not our foreign allies, not our treaties, and certainly not our reputation and standing as a global leader.  

At this point, to my eyes, it appears that the executive branch is just toppling over anything within arms reach, just to show it can. Then, on top of all of it, this is the most bald-faced cash grab probably ever in the history of the presidency. Not releasing taxes, not divesting from the family businesses, putting close family in executive level positions, massive tax breaks, and the legislative is choking on its own bankrolls rendering it incapable of governing ethically.  

Ultimately, it does boil down to impotence. Impotence and ineffectiveness that have me apoplectic. Why are the progressives still chanting "hey hey ho ho" when it never did anything. Why is there no attempt to bring the moderates onto the side of forward thinking. Why aren't there a dozen super-pacs on the progressive side, matching lobbyists from the dark side dollar for dollar.  

To take the Tea-Party analogy too far, the liberals are the red-coats, standing in formation, defeat after defeat, sticking with the tried and true, while the Radical Fundamentalist wing of the GOP has gone undercover and infiltrated everything in an all out guerilla war. They have [gained control of] state and local government, the judiciary, and now the executive.  

The Democrat response--"Hey let's make another formation!"

Then he added--

Sorry if this was too much of a rant. Generally, these days I am trying to stick to snarky one-line zingers.

Myself, I prefer his essay-long writing. Hopefully, including thoughts about why progressives are in about as much of a rage as Trump's people. All the while, criticizing his supporters for being so angry. I guess it all depends what one is angry about. 

January 25, 2017--Why Trump People Hate the Media

Trump people don't hate all the media, Fox News remains a staple, but they do hate the so-called "mainstream media."

And, at time, who can blame them?

Take yesterday's above-the-fold story in the New York Times about Donald Trump's meeting Monday night at the White House with congressional leaders--"Meeting With Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election Lie."

The headline writer and managing editor opted to call Trump's claim or untruth a lie.

It was during the primary campaign that the L-word came into universal usage. Perhaps because even staid outlets such as the Times wanted to get with the tell-it-like-it-is business or felt that to be competitive with the upstart on-line publications and bloggers they needed to ramp up their journalistic rhetoric.

Then there is the article itself. Rather than being about the meeting with members of Congress, the Times devoted all of the text that appeared on the front page to the lie. The real story--about the important meeting--was buried on the jump page.

And in the first paragraph itself, the choice of words was hot for a paper that prides itself on being the "paper of record."

President Trump used his first official meeting with congressional leaders on Monday to falsely claim that millions of unauthorized immigrants had robbed him of a popular vote majority, a return to his obsession with the election's results even as he seeks support for his legislative agenda. [Italics added]

Falsely I can live with, but obsession, a diagnostic term? On the other hand, how about deleting falsely since that speaks for itself and substituting concerns for obsession?

Admittedly that would have rendered the piece boring but my suggested edits would have been rejected since the original draft was designed not for light but for heat and click-throughs.

I get it. But also hate what we have become.

November 21, 2016--Transition Tower

Late last week we visited the literal and metaphoric Trump Tower.

It felt touristy and voyeuristic and thus we tried to do it as inconspicuously as possible.

We voted for Hillary, have been disdainful at times of Donald Trump, and are blasé about celebrity sightings--after all, though we do spend more time in a year in rural Maine, we grew up in New York City, first in Brooklyn and now for about 30 years have lived in lower Manhattan where being blasé is as obligatory as black outfits.

You know the joke about New Yorkers--"I'm wearing black because I couldn't find anything darker."

So pretending to ignore Trump's royal presence, sprawled out in his nouveau-riche gilded Las-Vegas-like Trump Tower triplex (one whole floor of which is turned over to his 10-year-old son Barron [Barron!]), though traffic for blocks was snarled, and every 24/7 news report began with reporters camped on Fifth Avenue across from the main entrance to TT, adjacent to Tiffany's (Trump's Marla Maples daughter is named after the store!), try as we might pretend, there is no way to ignore his yuge presence, and, in spite of all of this, we pressed forward to get as palpably close as possible to the Trump Phenomenon.

And so, at about noon on a sun-drenched Thursday, we took the R train up to his lair. Not literally up there, but as near as the police and secret service would allow. Pretty close as it turned out.

Traffic on Fifth Avenue was at a standstill as the NYPD narrowed the southbound lanes from four to two to enlarge the security zone and things were made even worse by the cars and buses that finally made it to 57th Street slowing further so the drivers and passengers could sneak a faux-disinterested closer look. And crowds funneling along the barricaded sidewalks numbered in the thousands, clearly, like us, there not for pre-Thanksgiving shopping at Gucci or a glance at the Tree, not yet adorned and lit.

They and we were there for one clear purpose--to gawk at the spectacle and if possible catch a manic glimpse of Rudy or Ivanka or Jared or . . . him.

Risking claustrophobia, we came to a stop right behind the bank of two dozen TV cameras, reporters, and a cordon of police. A good place to become gridlocked as it turned out, right across from the golden entrance that because of the visual media has achieved icon status.

Most curious was the hush that descended on the streets and gathered crowd. The muted sound of the city reminded me of those rare occasions when New York comes to a halt as the result of a blizzard or  power blackout.

Those few who did speak did so in quiet tones, whispering, as if not wanting to interfere with what was transpiring 60 stories above.

"I wonder what he's up to," someone pressed against me said to her friend.

"Nothing good," he said softly so as not to be overheard.

"Do you think the Japanese prime minister is meeting with him?"

"Could be, though don't you think it's inappropriate to have this kind of meeting before he's inaugurated?"

"Everything he does is different. That's what people voted for. Not to do business the old way."

"Well, good luck to him with that."

Most said nothing, preferring to stare silently into the hazy noontime sun that illuminated the top floors where Trump lives and works.

Though squeezed to my other side, a visitor to the city, said to no one in particular, "I drove all night from Ohio to be here." I looked toward him so he knew I was listening. "Something amazing is going on up there. If you're from the City I assume you will disagree. Probably voted for Clinton." I did not nod though 90 percent in Manhattan did. "Could be like the Wizard of Oz. An amplified voice from behind a screen or facade. But I am thinking . . ." He trailed off.

"But to drive all this way," I said to him, "you must think . . ."

"I do think," he pressed even closer to me and lowered his voice further, "I do think something historic is happening. I believed in 2008 when Obama first ran and then voted for him twice. And I think he did a pretty good job, but this is, may be different. With his election we're hearing from different political voices. I will admit that there is danger in that. But maybe there's more magic than danger. Hope may still be alive. Look around at who's here. Look at the faces. Doesn't it feel reverential?"

I did and said, "It does and that disturbs me. I'm being frank with you. Reverential is not my favorite mode. I prefer skepticism." I felt sorry, after his effort to get there, that I was implying criticism of what he was feeling.

"I'm that way too," he said, returning his full attention to the Tower.

November 10, 2016--How He Won

First, how did he win?

I've been hearing all day from friends--all very progressive--that as the result of the election they have lost faith in our country, our democracy. One said, "We set the clocks back an hour last weekend and yesterday we set the country back 100 years."

I said, that the true test of a democracy is how we handle differences--not feeling it is working only when we get the results we prefer. Victory is easy. The real test is how we handle defeat.

Another said, he can't believe we will now being governed by "white, male high school graduates who are racists and misogynists."

I said back to him that Trump's range of supporters was much wider than that and that if we ignore this fact, there will be further dues to pay.

We have to begin by not creating bogeymen or ignoring reality, no matter how upsetting or maddening.

The first spin from the liberal media is that Donald TRUMP was elected because, in the words of the New York Times, the "Working Class Speaks: Blue-Collar Whites Give Stinging Rebuke to Democratic Party."

This is stereotypical and at best partly true.

In the very same edition of the Times, the actual breadth of TRUMP's coalition is apparent--

• Trump received 45 percent of college graduates' votes and 37 percent of those with graduate degrees. This is surprisingly counterintuitive.

• He received about 50 percent of voters earning between $50,000 and $250,000. And, again surprisingly, 48 percent of those earning $250,000 or more. So much for blue-collar workers rebuking TRUMP.

• Then, perhaps most interesting, he did much better among women and Latinos than anyone would have a right to expect. 

• It was anticipated that he would do very poorly with both groups considering his anti-Hispanic and misogynist behavior. He got 29 percent of the Latino vote and 42 percent of the female vote. 

• So, it is an exaggeration to say that he was elected primarily by angry white males since he received "only" 53 percent of the male vote and much of it from well educated and affluent men.

In reality, then, he was elected by a wide spectrum of voters, very much including Hispanics and women.

Thus, to understand where we find ourselves as a people it is imperative to look at the facts and from that seek ways to move forward either together or in effective opposition.

Here then is one final anecdote from one of my liberal friends who voted for Hillary--

He said that the transgender toilet flap last fall might be considered a vivid example of the problems pervading our political culture.

"Here we were learning that frustrations with governments and institutions were building among disaffiliated-feeling people who were struggling with systemic issues in their lives while we as a people became obsessed about pressure to set aside designated bathrooms, especially in schools, for transgender children. What an issue, that affected so few, to devote oneself to--tearing people apart--at a time when so many were hurting and fuming about more fundamental concerns."

He continued, sounding rueful, "Progressives especially, if we want to understand and attract the support of those who are felling left behind, need to take a close look at our propensity to engage in identity politics at the expense of not finding ways to reach out to everyone."

October 18, 2016--Hating the Haters

There's something that's been troubling me about the "haters" who are among Donald Trump's most vociferous supporters.

Not about their hating. That is clear and evident. He does attract and for many offers endorsement and legitimization. They specialize in invective and at times violence. It is obvious who they hate from their hand-scrawled signs and ugly epithets. Just looking at their images it's easy to see the depth of their rage.

To get closer to what's been troubling me I conduced a small, totally unscientific poll of all my local progressive friends and acquaintances that I randomly ran into during all of Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Sixteen altogether.

It was a very simple poll. Just one question--

"When thinking about the upcoming election and I mention 'hater,' what comes to mind?" That's it. No follow ups.

Pretty much everyone came up with the same answer--

"They are the most vocal and outrageous of Donald Trump's supporters."

Most responses also included one or more descriptors such as "bigots," "racists," "misogynists," "homophobes," "perverts," "morons," "Islamophobe," and "Nazis."

Very few surprises here.

Getting closer to understanding what has been troubling me, Monday evening I called a few friends who I had surveyed and after sharing with them the results I had gathered asked a few followup questions--

"Does it seem strange that not one person among the 16 said something like, 'Haters are passionate supporters of both candidates who are so angry that what they feel and express comes across as hate.'"

"No it doesn't surprise," they said, "because it's Trump who attracts the haters. Not Hillary."

"And how would you characterize her most ardent followers?"

"They agree with her on the issues, she is totally committed to protecting the reproductive rights of women, respects women and people of color, would work hard to reduce economic equality, would expand healthcare, she would work day and night to improve public schools, she believe in science and climate change, she would . . ."

"That's basically her platform," I interrupted. "which I agree with. What I really want to pick your brain about has to do with our thinking that the only haters are Trump people but when we progressives characterize them as racists and Nazis and all the rest aren't we doing a version of the same thing his voters hatefully say about us?"

With that my friends were even more confused. So I said, "To accuse someone of all those things includes an element of hate, doesn't it? Especially if we define the majority of his supporters this way. When we attribute these views to more than a segment of his supporters. Even though it's a distressing and not insignificant segment?"

"It could be," one I spoke with said, "that what Hillary said about the deplorables--that they were bigots and homophobic, for example, and irredeemable--could be considered to be hateful."

"I think that's what I've been struggling with. I agree that Trump has many supporters who are filled with hatred, but it's also been my experience that more than a few Hillary people are also full of hate. They hate Trump as much as the Trump haters hate them. And on both sides they deny being haters since they contend that what they assert about their opponent is the truth."

I continued, "The Democratic Trump haters consider themselves to be issues-oriented and rational, but in some of their passionate support for Hillary, to me, they too cross the line of acceptable political behavior. Both sides need to do some act cleaning up. Otherwise, when the election is over and Hillary moves into the Oval Office, we may be in even more trouble than currently.  Democrats, progressives, Clinton herself can't expect to do much business with people they've deplored and looked down their noses at."

One or two of my liberal friends agreed. The rest, not so sure.

And then yesterday morning there was the news about the bombing in Hillsborough, NC, of the GOP office. What should one make of the fact that it went virtually unreported by the New York Times?

Hillsborough, NC

October 14, 2016--And Now For Something Completely Different

Note:

I was hoping my friend would write something for me to post referring to our on-going discussion about the presidential election. Guest-blogger Sharon has done so and done so persuasively. 

I added a word at the end indicating where I feel we still may have some differences. 

*  *  *

As a devoted reader of "Behind," I believe it's important to acknowledge the VICTIMS of Donald Trump and many of his supporters.

His and their targets now comprise such a long list that I can sum it up by saying it's anyone who isn't an old school white guy and the women who love them. Oh yes--and anyone who challenges Trump.

I think too much space has been devoted here trying to legitimize support for Trump including those that the economy actually has left behind. The more I see of this group, most should be left behind. But you might say, but some of these folks are such nice people!

My question- if most of these people are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families, why wouldn't it have been enough for Trump to run merely as an outsider with business experience and omit the bigotry, xenophobia, authoritarianism, threats of violence, misogyny and racism?

And are my neighbors in an adjoining county of Virginia, one of the richest in the United States where Trump has drawn big crowds, among the suffering?

Trump's views are so different than Clinton's that if this was truly about change and a new path versus the status quo he could have made his case on policy differences alone.

But the real story is that he's been a magnet for the haters--both overt and covert. His daily rhetoric, often incoherent, has been a victory for the crazy right and is turning decent people into supporters of behavior they would normally reject in their children.

It's also no surprise that although not without his women loyalists, if only women voted this year, according to Nate Silver's polls this week Hillary would win the electoral college 458 to 80. Trump's core followers are mostly white men who want to turn the clock back to the 50s. They are losing power and this is their last gasp. Trump would like to turn the clock back to 1930s.

Then there is this: "Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been verbal targets on the campaign." (Southern Poverty Law Center)

I personally experienced the impact of Trump's rhetoric this spring when a young Muslim woman, a working wife and mother, said to me, "I guess I could wear an identifying badge if I had to." I was embarrassed and appalled and started to cry. And remembered this had been done before. I reassured her that the majority of Americans are good people--someone like that could never win the nomination in 2016.

I tried to assure her this couldn't happen here. But it has. And the lies and conspiracy theories are only getting worse as a madman thinks he has nothing to lose. So in the face of the endless big lies, quibbling over whether the Times caught all of Hillary's misstatements misses the point.

This week I heard an account of increased hate crimes against Eastern Europeans and especially Polish workers in the UK because "the outcome of the BREXIT vote gave people the confidence to do so." One 40-year-old Polish factory worker was beaten to death in August.

Let's not give the haters here a chance to make things worse. Let's save the country and the world first and worry about holding Clinton accountable later.

Comment:

Though I agree with virtually all of this, we do have some disagreements--especially the claim that I have been attempting to "legitimatize support for Trump." In truth, I have been attempting to understand with empathy (even for the "haters") what is motivating them to endorse someone such as Trump who is so reprehensible. 

I worry about the ugly and increasingly violent bifurcation in America and continue to feel it is essential to get behind the hot rhetoric and reduce the stereotyping in order to find ways to heal some of our breaches. If we cannot find a way to do that, the long term consequences are nightmarish. Thus I will continue to write in the same vein and hope my friend will also continue to do so as her comments are always challenging and welcome.

October 3, 2106--Armageddon

It surprised me the other morning when Jack said that we are approaching Armageddon.

He's as solid a citizen as there is, totally rational, totally secular, totally progressive. He of all people was talking this way?

It might have been a response to what Joe said. Joe, a Trump supporter from even before Donald formally announced he was running for president.

"I'm for him," he responded when I challenged him at that time, "because he knows how to get things done." This before the full extent of how he actually "gets things done" was well known.

On Thursday Joe said, "If Trump loses the election, or even if he wins, I predict there will be a civil war within 20 years."

"Are you being serious?" I asked, "Or just wanting to be provocative now that your boy is on the path to defeat?"

"I'm being serious. There's so much dissension, so many angry people on all sides, race relations are heading for an explosion. And then there are all those rich people while everyone else is struggling and falling behind."

That's when Jack said that about Armageddon.

"You agree with Joe?" I was incredulous. This is the first time Jack agreed with him about anything, You think we're headed for a civil war?"

Jack who was sending money to Bernie before Hillary won the nomination and since then has been a fervent supporter of hers was being serious, which caused me to be concerned. Not about him but about the possibility of what they both were predicted.

"You talking Armageddon because of what Joe said about race and economic inequality?"

"Basically yes. And of course they're related. On a collision course."

"This feels very pessimistic. You tend, as most liberals, to be optimistic because as a liberal you think things can be improved by human intervention. Including by governments."

"In general that's true. But even progressives are fed up with governments. Yes, there are some things that are working well. For me, at my age, that includes Medicare. Though I know it among other things is bankrupting the country. When the due-bills arrive, that's when Joe's prediction will come true. When the money runs out and people don't get their medical care or Social Security. Then, watch out."

"He's right," Joe jumped back in, surprised to find Jack agreeing to anything he had to say. "It may be a trivial example, but have you driven on the roads lately?"

"Obviously. Even to get here to the diner."

"Didn't you tell me that because of the condition of the roads you had to get your tires aligned three times in eight months? And that you had to replace all four tires after a year and a half? Michelins? How much did all that set you back?"

"For all of it," Rona said, "more than a thousand."

"Who is responsible for the roads?" Joe asked.

"I guess the county."

"And what is the county?" Not waiting for me to answer he said, "Government that's what it is. Government."

"Your point?"

"Among other reasons, that's contributing to making people crazy. Fortunately for you you can come up with the thousand, but for a lot of folks, including right here, that's a month's take-home pay. And then, like it or not, agreeing with me or not, when they see people with food stamps and subsidized heat, and all that, the resentment builds and will, as I said, boil over when things get scarcer and more unequal. Civil war, pure and simple."

"Armageddon pure and simple," Jack chimed in not smiling so I knew he was being serious.

When later in the day I told another, even more progressive friend about this, he pulled me close to him and whispered, almost  as a non sequitur, "We never should have sent troops to Iraq or anywhere else in that region. What we should have done, what we should do, is announce that anyone that attacks Israel will get nuked."

Incredulous, I said, "Nuked? That would lead to Armageddon, wouldn't it?"

He thought for a moment, shrugged, and said,"That's where we're we headed anyway so . . ."