Category: Current Issue

Posted on

an offensive position

80b0d25eThis election cycle is challenging for many of us; many of us are increasingly concerned about the selection of candidates and all that’s evolving. So let me start with the stated desire to ratchet it down a notch. One of the most challenging aspects of all discussion — thanks much to the influence of media and especially social media — is that the dialogue begins from a point of being all ratcheted up. I get it; treat my boys or beloved Boilermakers seemingly disrespectfully, and my ratcheting-up-potential rises exponentially, too.

But my point is that we too often start the conversation from an offensive position; we are already prone to pounce before any perspective is shared. It is thus very difficult to engage in dialogue when any of us — self included — are ready to pounce. In fact, I can state with almost all certainty that when we begin conversing from an offensive position, we will not listen well, not find solution, not discern common ground, and the probability is especially high that the only opinion we will affect or change is to assist another in becoming more quickly entrenched in their ongoing oppositional stance. Offensive positions — regardless of intellect — obstruct respectful dialogue and solution.

It is an offensive position to start with malevolent comparisons. For example — as shared in a recent post — many compare current presidential candidate Donald Trump and his rhetoric to Adolf Hitler; he is not. Eight years ago, many compared then presidential candidate Barack Obama and his rhetoric to the anti-Christ; he is not. Yet even as I write this, I’m sensitive to the notion that many will still fully justify one of the above, boldly averring why their comparison is the correct one.

Please know that my desire this day is not to compare Obama and Trump; my thoughts instead center around the comparable reactions of the people to these one-time candidates and the seemingly resulting mob mentality — both for and against them. Eight years ago, there were plenty of people admittedly scared about a possible President Obama; today there are plenty of people admittedly scared about a possible President Trump. I sense a lot of “scared-ness.” There are valid reasons for the concern. There are also groups on all sides that are inflaming the fear. They want us to be scared.

One wise-dialoguing friend shared her perception this week, that “the right is scared of liberals, and the left is scared of conservatives. You aren’t allowed to be independent.” The perception is that if you identify primarily with one party, you cannot have any opinion that strays from the group’s — aka “mob’s” — stated perspective; the group herds us in, almost unknowingly, even with highly intelligent people. That kind of mentality, I fear, existed long before this current election cycle began.

It makes me wonder if in today’s polarized climate, have we lost our independence? Have we numbed our critical thinking skills? Have we been so seduced by passionate partisanship and emotion that we can no longer see any wisdom in another side? Do we not carefully or prayerfully consider that wisdom will never be equated with one person or party’s political platform?

As acknowledged, while I am not scared — primarily because my trust is in someone greater than any candidate — there are multiple aspects regarding each of the persons still running for President this year that concern me; some concern me deeply. What concerns me arguably more than any candidate, however, is the reaction of the people to each candidate… seen, for example…

… in the violence at the Trump rallies last weekend…
… in the intentional inciting of violence by a left wing advocacy group…
… and in the resulting mob mentality.

A “mob mentality” means individuals adopt certain behaviors and beliefs because they are influenced by the groups with which they identify; they may consciously or subconsciously adopt the behavior. Typically in such “mobs,” emotions become heightened, wisdom becomes based on group desire more than actual prudence, and previously unacceptable behaviors become justified…

… such as calling any candidate Hitler… or starting from an offensive position.

Oh, to think this election cycle includes six more months… Time to be on my knees more, wrestle with my concerns, and surrender any “scared-ness”… because no candidate/President thus far is the anti-Christ… and none will ever be mistaken for my Messiah.

Respectfully…
AR

 

Posted on

cheering for the one who deserves it

7f047a9c

In this world in which frontrunners tend to dominate the news flow, one non-frontrunner stands out to me. It’s not one that I can vote for; if I could, I would. But there’s something about not being the frontrunner — and arguably, possibly never expecting to be there — that’s attractive. It’s humbling and sweet, precious and dear. Watching them, you just know they aren’t taking anything for granted. They’re not sitting there thinking any of the below:

“I was born for this.”
“It’s about time!”
“I deserve this.”
“It’s mine.”
“I’m so brilliant — such a gift to the world!”


There is an arrogance that permeates all of the above, it seems… a very unattractive arrogance, I would suggest.

But yes… this one… this is one I can get totally, wholeheartedly behind.

This one isn’t talking so much about self.
This one isn’t demonizing any opponent.
This one isn’t making promises he/she can’t keep.
This one isn’t advancing ideas that are economically unsound.
This one doesn’t just look good because he/she is being compared to another who looks a little wacko.
And this one doesn’t feel like they’re taking the opportunity for granted… like they should have been in this position long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away (…although some of us may wish they were in a galaxy fairly far away…).

I speak of one…

… one who perhaps never expected to be here. Something about that is refreshing this primary day.

On Saturday, with time running out and no polling data predicting a victory, the playing field looked even at best. Top-seeded New Mexico State was facing the California State Bakersfield Roadrunners in the Western Athletic Conference tournament final. It’s not the most formidable, talked-about conference or primary. 🙂

And Bakersfield… well, in the history of CSU Bakersfield, they have never before even qualified for the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament. The small school has a little over eight thousand enrolled.

The game was tied in the closing seconds, and while it had been a battle, Bakersfield had never led. And then, in an instant, with less than a second remaining, Roadrunners guard Dedrick Basile “got his team dancing — both figuratively and literally,” as said by Bleacher Report — by shockingly draining a three point shot, right before the buzzer… for their first and only lead of the game.

The Roadrunners win!

Said Basile thereafter, “It’s one of the greatest feelings in the world right here. I mean, this is what I’ve always dreamed of.”

How good and pure and right and fun… How seemingly humble.

Way to go, Bakersfield! May you do well in the days ahead… may your attitude remain as contagiously sweet, regardless of outcome. May you always find victory in the journey — as opposed to measuring success only via victory for self.

Note: have I mentioned yet, how much more fun it is to root for “Roadrunners”? — as opposed to frontrunners?

Just sayin’…

Respectfully…
AR

 

Posted on

godwin’s law

photo-1455723576895-6ab1d5abbcb9
In 1990, Mike Godwin, a lawyer and author, observed that in online conversations someone will eventually invoke the war against fascism. While social media has evolved into an arena in which respectful conversation is often, sadly, justifiably eliminated, such a phenomena is not limited to the online conversation.

Godwin framed what became known as “Godwin’s Law.” He surmised that, ”As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1” — that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I’d like to refute Godwin’s so-called law.

However…

In 2013… Geoffrey Grider, the founder of “Now The End Begins,” penned a piece identifying the “13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler” in a so-called “factual comparison.” He compared the sitting American president to Adolf Hitler.

In 2009, author Dick W. Zylstra, published a book about Pres. George W. Bush entitled “Little Hitler,” comparing America’s then previous president to Hitler; he especially pounced on Bush regarding his perceived use of “big lies” to achieve his goals.

And now in 2016, I see current American Republican frontrunner Donald Trump increasingly compared to the German dictator.

I have one thing to say…

Please.

Far too many politicians have lied. Big lies… small lies… manipulative, rhetorical lies. I can’t believe they all lie, but far too many seem to find it the easiest thing to do. Far too many have also seemingly put their personal ambitions above what may be best for our country — and that reference affects both parties — still today. I’ll go out on a semi-stable limb here, and suggest such may include both current party front-runners. I don’t know; my perception is limited. But neither candidate is Adolf Hitler; neither should be compared to a man who may be best described as the ugly manifestation of evil on this planet.

Adolf Hilter murdered millions.

He advocated the killing of the innocent simply because they were Jewish…

… simply because they were disabled…

… simply because they were related to any of the above…

Obama, Bush, Trump, etc. — with all due respect — cannot accurately be compared to Adolf Hitler; they are not he.

My increasing sense is that while many recognize the obvious disrespect evident via actual, disrespectful name-calling, they remain comfortable with disrespectful comparisons; and their comfort in actually employing the Nazi comparison often seems more prompted by their lack of comfort with an Obama, Bush, Trump or Clinton presidency…

There was only one Adolf Hitler.

Thank God.

My only wish is that there was none.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

pride

photo-1441038718687-699f189fa401Every now and then, as each of my great writer friends will attest, there’s a great section of a great chapter in a great book that stands out for all time… a section that stays with you long after the book is set down…

I think of chapter 11 from the iconic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” when Atticus Finch gives Scout a basic, profound lesson in how racism works, at one point saying: “ ‘Scout,’ said Atticus, ‘nigger-lover is just one of those terms that don’t mean anything — like snot-nose. It’s hard to explain — ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody’s favoring Negroes over and above themselves. It’s slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody.’ ”

(…love that Atticus Finch…)

Or at the onset of chapter 1, from “The Kite Runner,” by Khaled Hosseini: “That was a long time ago, but it’s wrong what they say about the past, I’ve learned, about how you can bury it. Because the past claws its way out. Looking back now, I realize I have been peeking into that deserted alley for the last twenty-six years.”

As we watch events unfold all around us — from the people that seem to dominate the news flow — from retiring athletes to politicians that probably should be retiring — I’m reminded of a chapter perhaps all of us should read, regardless of faith, regardless of where on life’s journey we may be. From intellectual giant and legendary author, C.S. Lewis, an excerpt from chapter 8 of his third section in “Mere Christianity”…

“Today I come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which everyone loathes when he sees it in someone else…

There is no fault that makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.
The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit…

According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.
Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, ‘How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?’ The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with everyone else’s pride…

It is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But Pride always means enmity – it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.
In God you come up against something that is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that – and, therefore, know your-self as nothing in comparison – you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you…”

Lewis is speaking not of the pleasure in being praised, affirmation, or admiration; it is a beautiful thing to admire another, to be “so proud of your son,” so-to-speak. Lewis instead is identifying the definition of pride synonymous with “arrogance,” “self-importance,” hubris,” or informally, “big-headedness.”

That’s what’s so unattractive about so many who dominate the news flow; it’s also unattractive in us.

The opposite of pride?

Humility… which is always more attractive.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

election update

photo-1453282716202-de94e528067cLet’s be honest: it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.

Wait. I take that back.

It’s actually not hard to talk about it; there are many who are talking. They just aren’t all talking very respectfully.

The reality is that we don’t always talk respectfully either.

My sense is each of us is prone to falling prey to engaging in the ignorance or disrespect, trumping (tee, hee) one aspect over another… ignoring some of the realities of this race, due to preconceived ideas or desired results…

For example — and please don’t get mad — my desire here is to wrestle honestly and respectfully with the truth…  each of these statements is — [sigh] — true…

… one party frontrunner has been regularly offensive to multiple people groups… another party frontrunner is under investigation by the FBI… multiple contending candidates have been caught in lies or mistruths… one candidate is touting socialism as a healthy form of economics… another candidate has articulated seemingly zero willingness to compromise… some have very little knowledge of foreign policy… and…

… I think arguably all candidates have forgotten that whoever is elected will represent all of us — not just a few, loyal, select some.

Part of the challenge is that we compare and contrast — suggesting that one person’s lack of integrity in one area — be it personal or intellectual — is not as bad as someone else’s. The challenge is that as soon as we make that conclusion, we often justify ignoring our preferred candidate’s obvious (to everyone else) flaws, and sometimes, often perhaps, then also justify in joining in the chorus of disrespect.

Let it be said that there is nothing wrong with healthy, constructive criticism. But from my limited vantage point, there is nothing healthy about any adult calling another a “lightweight,” “dope,” or “enemy” or referring to the size of another candidate’s ears. That, my friends, is not constructive criticism. Dare I suggest it’s not intelligent either.

And so this day I come with two questions:

First, what am I overlooking in my preferred candidate that’s significant?

And second, what have I ignored in my preferred candidate because the flaws of another make my candidate seem so smart, wholesome, and good?

As I wrestle with those questions, my primary concerns in this election currently are as follows:

(1) That we are overlooking what may be significant.
(2) That we are focusing too much on too few.
(3) That we don’t have the best candidates in the race. (… Joe, Condoleezza… where are you?)
(4) That we are not utilizing our critical thinking skills. And…
(5) That we are justifying disrespect.

As said, it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.

Change that: it’s hard to talk about it thoroughly, wisely, and respectfully.

Respectfully… yes…
AR

Posted on

forget you (ooh, ooh, ooh)

photo-1432836721189-7525e6869861

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As our ongoing dialogue continues, I remain fascinated by the diversity of our audience — by the many of you hailing from varied walks of life and who thoughtfully, consistently chime in with me, either publicly or privately. I deeply value your opinion and the ensuing, mutual sharpening. I have much to learn.

While there exist differences in the degree to which we individually sense challenges across the globe, one of the areas in which I see significant commonality among the diverse is the recognition of a seemingly ceaseless, moral digression in society.

One of the areas, however, in which I see significant uncertainty among the diverse is the reason for such perceived, moral digression.

Each May, in fact, beginning in 2002, Gallup polls Americans on their outlook on the state of values in the United States; it’s termed their “Values and Beliefs” poll. When asked last year whether the “state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting better or worse,” 72% said that they believe that the paradigm is worsening; in contrast, just 22% said that it is improving.

Consistent with the identified diversity of the Intramuralist’s audience, clear majorities of conservatives, social moderates and liberals agree that America’s moral standing is on the decline. Again according to Gallup’s results: 81% of conservatives say that moral values are worsening; 76% of social moderates concur, as do 58% of self-identified liberals.

Let me ensure I am totally transparent: I cannot offer the exact right answer as to why such a perceived decline exists. I don’t know. I doubt any could concisely identify the exact right reason (even if they rhetorically attempt to attach a political promise to such a perception). But as all good bloggers bravely do at times, I’m willing to take a semi-humble stab… as every now and then in my regular research and reading, a potential answer appears that hits me over the head — about as subtly as a divine two by four.

In the ancient scriptures, written thousands of years ago, I stumbled upon the following, profound question this week:

“What other great nation has a god so near to them like the Lord our God whenever we call on him?”

What a cool concept to think of a higher power being known so intimately and being so in tune to the needs of the people and what’s happening on the planet… One so known by the people that he is recognized to be there whatever the circumstance… one fully engaged… fully aware… omniscient and omnipotent… and… available… “whenever we call on him.”

The question, no less, is followed by:

“Again, however, pay very careful attention, lest you forget the things you have seen and disregard them for the rest of your life.”

Pay careful attention.

The above thus begs the question: is there a relationship between the current moral digression and not paying careful enough attention to what may be good, right, and true?

Have we forgotten something?

Do we teach what we’ve learned?

Is there truth we have callously disregarded?

Just asking questions, friends… wrestling with none other than those divine two by fours…

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

shepherded

photo-1453974336165-b5c58464f1edLet’s stay on the leadership theme for another day here; it’s an area so relevant to us all, and there’s an additional insight I believe wise to discuss.

I keep toying with what makes a good leader… yes, from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state; this affects each of us.

And I keep coming back to one, profound line:

“So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands.”

(Hence, fully in touch with my inner nerd — as I love word studies!) Allow me to first define a few key words…

shepherd (v.) – to feed a flock, to tend to

integrity (n.) – moral uprightness, wholeness, without any evil purpose

heart (n.) – the inner most part, mind, will, soul, understanding

guide (v.) – to lead forth, to show or indicate the way

skillful (adj.) – intelligent, understanding, insightful

When I read that brief but excellent description, I sense that’s what’s scarce in current culture. Instead of men and women focused on carving out the character it takes to emulate each of the above, we instead have persons in authority or seeking authority who value the cameras, microphones, and social media more; they seem so enamored with all sorts of selfies and hearing themselves speak. In other words, too many leaders are “me-oriented” — forgetting that it’s not about who is right, but what is right.

What strikes me, no less, about the above, bold description, is who the “he” is — who the comment was actually said about. It comes from the historical scriptures, in reference to David.

According to all accounts, David was a clear leader. When he led; people followed. When he spoke, people listened. He was powerful and effective.

But what strikes me as profound — and what’s relevant here regardless of being a regular reader of scripture — is that David was quite the flawed individual. He screwed up… he had an affair… he arranged a murder… he covered it up. He was a bit of a mess at times in my book.

Yet — and this is a big “yet” — his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. Let me say that again: his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. In fact, they may have actually made him more effective.

There is no perfect person; there is no person who has never screwed up.

And so all this image casting that we see on a daily basis — be it in press conferences, primaries, or any sort of Snapchat — reflecting an image of always, unprecedented wisdom and ability — is inauthentic. Why? Because it omits our flaws.

The difference with David is that his flaws were not omitted. And by admitting his own foolish mistakes — seeking then both the necessary forgiveness and repentance — David again led well… not attempting to be something he was not… not solely casting himself in the best light… but relating to others via his humility and weakness. That is a humble, effective leader. There was no trace of a boast.

The problem with so many seeking leadership today is that they fail to recognize that the admission of weakness and inability shows us that you actually are “one of us.” We don’t want our candidates/coaches/QB’s/etc. to be perfect; we want them to be real. I will follow the one that’s real.

I will follow the one who gently and insightfully tends to his or her people without any unethical purpose…

I will follow the one who leads according to the integrity of his heart.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

rare leadership

3wBPUcDrR9KaduD3PvkY_DSC_0915

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More and more I think we struggle from a lack of great leadership in our country. While I would hope to never fall prone to the historical temptation of clamoring for a king, I do crave wise leadership… from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state. We thrive from great leadership; we suffer from that which is something lesser.

I’m mindful of a piece published in Forbes two/three years ago. In it, contributor Mike Myatt wrote a great piece. Allow me to include a short excerpt here:

“If you ever wonder why we’re in a crisis of leadership all you have to do is to watch and listen to those in positions of leadership. While there are clearly many aspects of leadership that must work together in harmony in order for leaders to be effective, everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively.

Let’s start with what leadership is not: Leadership is not a monologue, a speech, a lecture or a filibuster. Leadership is not talking at or over people. Leadership is not sequestered, does not live in a bubble or operate in a vacuum. Leadership is not exclusive or arrogant. Leadership is not about the leader.

What we see all too often in today’s leaders are little more than egocentric talking heads. They are so enamored with seeing themselves on camera or listening to themselves talk they have forgotten it’s their job to solve problems, not create or exacerbate them.

History’s best examples of leaders are of those leaders who were/are highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic. They don’t fear being proven wrong, but are deathly afraid about the thought of being wrong and not knowing it.

The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right. They not only embrace dissenting opinions, but they seek them out at every opportunity. Real leaders are just as at ease when unlearning as they are when learning.  And perhaps most importantly, they never pass up an opportunity discuss, converse, dialog, or debate. They know that their leadership is only as good as their ability to engage, listen, discern, and to act.”

Myatt — who describes himself as one who likes to “write about leadership myths, and bust them one-by–one” — hits the nail on the head, in my opinion.

“Everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively…” how many times have leaders been silent — not engaging, not trusting supposed subordinates with information or perceived transparency. Often they ask for a following, albeit absent any authentic engaging.

“Leadership is not a monologue…” Sorry, I don’t care how brilliant a person is or what his/her teachers in school told him/her. I don’t care about their mind-blowing talent or extensive, academic affirmation. I don’t want my leaders shouting at me nor being the only ones talking. Great leaders need to be able to listen better than they speak. Leadership is not about the leader.

“Leaders are so enamored with themselves…” I have seen far too many whose humility seems to be siphoned away with all upward mobility. They forget that humility is perhaps the most attractive trait in any leader. Note: I speak not of passivity. I speak of a bold, embedded empathy — a mindset of which I never question if the person cares most about self and hearing themselves speak. Yes, history’s best examples of leaders were/are marked by being “highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic.”

“The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right…” Again, the best leaders care less about their role, their ideas, and their success… the best leaders don’t excessively use first person pronouns… “I/me/my/myself” will always be secondary to “you,” “us,” and “we.”

Oh, how I crave wise leadership… recognizing what a rarity it can be.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

fascinated

photo-1447727214830-cbcbf097b52c

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let’s lead today with the bottom line: this election cycle is the oddest I have ever seen.

Now I am no ambassadorial expert nor Poli-Sci major nor anything close. I am merely a current events observer and only a semi-humble one at that. Ronald Reagan was the first President I ever voted for, and I’ve visited Jimmy Carter’s hometown twice. I was always struck by how a radio announcer for the Chicago Cubs and a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia could each become President and lead our country. I am again fascinated by who wishes to lead it now… odd as this cycle may sometimes be…

My spouse challenged me on the word “fascinated” last week. “You use that a lot,” he said. I do; it’s a great word. Note that “fascinated” does not infer positivity nor negativity. “Fascinated” means there’s something laced within the current condition that irresistibly keeps my attention.

So let us not dive into a “he-said/she-said/take-that” kind of conversation. The challenge when ignoring the timeless tip to avoid talking politics or religion is that the disrespect comes quickly from stances that are passionately engrained; we have trouble stepping out of what’s engrained. Granted, the Intramuralist has never avoided politics or religion, as we believe all things are discussable if we are mindful of the one who thinks differently.

With that as our backdrop — recognizing we do not all view this the same way — and we are not going to — I see some “fascinating” people involved in the 2016 presidential race — a vote, no less, that is still more than nine months away…

Let’s start with first-namers Donald and Hillary, as several of us are significantly, distinctly more grace-giving to one. And yet…

The Donald… he says some outlandishly harsh things. He seems to thrive on intransigent opinion and provocation of opposition. As HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher recently posed, “Donald Trump is largely a result of a backlash to political correctness.” In other words, there exists a perception among many of increased, imposed political correctness in our society, which has arguably prompted Trump’s clear lack of political correctness; that’s attractive to many people. Trump is thus tapping into frustration with those who believe society is on the wrong track, utilizing his contagious mantra of wanting to “make America great again.”

The Hillary… she says some outlandishly dishonest things. She seems to thrive on her unique female qualifications and being the target of fully political ploys. As long-time NY Times political columnist William Safire wrote 19 years ago, before he passed away, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.” Clinton is staunchly dismissive of the accusations, saying she’s a victim, which also resonates with many people. She thus focuses instead on being a “champion” for others and how we are finally “ready” for “Hillary for America.”

What may be equally fascinating to this observer, are the justifications we offer, that seem to substitute for the above, perceived liabilities. Some will quickly, respectfully suggest, “Well, Trump may be harsh, but at least he’s honest,” while others will equally, respectfully counter, “Well, Hillary may lie, but all politicians lie.” My observation is that each is an acceptance of something lesser; each is an acceptance of something that is not good, not true, and not right. I am not suggesting that the harshness and deceit are automatic disqualifiers for their respective candidacies; more so, I am saying that I am fascinated at how often those traits seem minimized or ignored by their supporters and endorsers.

Yes, we tend to be significantly, distinctly more grace-giving to only one.

We should also acknowledge the additional others vying to be President #45, even though the media seems slightly obsessed with the above two. My sense is that all others running are currently being portrayed minimally and thus somewhat inaccurately — causing us to unknowingly craft incomplete assessments of both their campaigns and character. Granted, candidate Cruz is challenged by his brashness and Senator Sanders by his fondness for socialism. But the reality is that for these two and others, we think we know who they are, what they stand for, and how solid their character is — primarily based on social memes and minimal, often slanted coverage.

To be clear, as my older brother continues to remind me, no votes have actually been cast as of yet. Then again, that changes on Monday, with the start of the 2016 primaries via the  Iowa Caucus.

No doubt, therefore, the next nine months will continue to be fascinating.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the deep divide

photo-1413976750582-caf6fd920cc5

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the last several years, the Intramuralist has published a “State of the Government” analysis in conjunction with the President’s annual State of the Union address. The state of the government is “too partisan, too influenced by money, too big, too financially imbalanced, and too far removed from the Constitution,” we have repeatedly opined. With last Tuesday marking Pres. Barack Obama’s final SOTU, I’d like to focus on an angle embedded in that analysis that has become seemingly more pronounced these past seven years; in fact, it’s the one angle that the President acknowledged Tuesday as a “regret” of his tenure. “The rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better,” he said. Too many have fueled and supported the division.

My sense is that faith in our government has continued to erode largely due to this partisan division. Politicians and pundits seem to speak out of both sides of their mouths, acknowledging the dangers of division on one hand, but then chastising or encouraging it on the other. Responsibility, therefore, is something that most denounce and defer.

Everybody likes to blame everyone else. Everyone likes to point the finger elsewhere. And most everyone who pronounces their dismay regarding the division — conveniently absolving self of any responsibility — is in this observer’s semi-humble opinion, either embracing denial or deceit.

For example…

Republicans — who intentionally chose to block every legislative effort of this President so he would have zero policy victories — have fueled the division.

Democrats — who utilized obscure budget reconciliation rules to overhaul healthcare at the onset of Obama’s tenure, without a single Republican vote — have fueled the division.

Voters — who have opposed Obama solely because of the color of his skin — have fueled the division.

Voters — who have supported Obama solely because of the color of his skin — have fueled the division.

Pres. Obama — who like several of his predecessors, has utilized Executive Orders in order to bypass differing opinion — has fueled the division.

The candidates (save Dr. Ben Carson, arguably the most civil person running for President) — who repeat inflammatory rhetoric or call the other party their “enemy” — have fueled the division.

And we — when we’ve fallen prey to the silent hubris that the division will only diminish when everyone can be cloned (or verbally pounded) into finally thinking like “us,” the only people who truly get it — then we have fueled and supported the division, too.

Know what’s missing in each of the above?

Humility.

I wish, no less, the Intramuralist had some unifying magic wand to wave and end this disturbing digression. I suggest we instead start with self — no longer being seduced by the divisive rhetoric that each of the above far too easily employ.

Faith in our government has eroded. The state of the government is too divided. The reality is that many have contributed to the obtrusive, deep divide.

What should we require of ourselves? What should we require of those who represent us?

Humility? … or hubris?

Which will we choose?

Respectfully…
AR