what is this feeling, so sudden and new?

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #4.]

I’m honored to be asked to write for this blog as I have found it to be an open and curious place to meet others not always like myself. One of the things I appreciate most is the ability to pose questions that do not have a fast or definitive answer and so that is where I’m headed today. In the role I play in my “day job,” I’ve encountered a growing trend of what many call “anxiety.”

In technical terms anxiety is classified as both a trait and a state. A trait, a part of an individual’s personality that provides nuances to how one perceives and responds to events in their lives, i.e. “I am a nervous or anxious person.” A state, a temporary condition that will soon fade and return to equilibrium, i.e. “I am feeling nervous about this.”

Because of these two aspects of anxiety, it seems popular in culture to refer to someone as either being anxious or having anxiety. However, what I find in most people I speak to about this is that it is more likely something very common in all humans — which is a state of anticipation or rather an intolerance for uncertainty.

We now live in a world where most things can be learned or received rather quickly, and so we do not have as much of a need for the time that it takes for a feeling to amp up and then slowly return to baseline. In the brain studies have shown this takes about 20 minutes. I’m finding through scrolling through social media and in public forums most people consider their thoughts surrounding uncertainty or “what if’s” cause for concern that they might “have anxiety” as if it is a condition to be treated and extinguished rather than a trait and state to be considered. Once considered, one can decide which tools to use to help regulate the system back to baseline.

Sometimes the best tool to be used is to see if there are other feelings tied to what is being lumped into the word anxiety. Sometimes it is worry, avoidance, dread, or vulnerability, and even more often it can be excitement or anticipation. Sometimes I will have people move their body (bilateral stimulation, aka something that uses both sides of their body like walking, yoga, bike riding etc.) and they find that the anxiety dissipates. So sometimes anxiety can even be unused energy.

Another aspect that is often looped into anxiety is the concept of fear. Fear seems to be the catalyst towards many of a reactionary social media post or tweet. 

Fear is a negative, short lasting, high alert emotion in response to a perceived threat and like anxiety it can also be measured as a state or trait. (Brene Brown Atlas of the Heart 2022)

Experiencing fear is visceral and immediate in the body. Increased heart rate, dilation of the eyes, rapid breathing, and extremities tingling (from the blood rushing from your limbs to the body’s core). Many who describe fear believe that to be anxiety. Experiencing fear has great qualities for our survival. Many times these responses are what keep us alive and thriving! “Boy that river is running awfully swift, maybe we should cross elsewhere” — or “the milk doesn’t smell — right maybe I should pour it out.” Fear can help us in making us pause and consider rather than rushing in unaware. 

In both anxiety and fear it seems the best action we can take is to lean in with curiosity what it is we are actually feeling, then stay curious about “the why” behind “the what.” For instance, check my surroundings and ask: is anything around me that would cause me harm? Is this a visceral response to my physical environment? Is what I’m experiencing just mere uncertainty? Is it because this person, event, or choice is unfamiliar to me? Does this thing make me question something I had previously felt certain about? Is there something I can learn from this? How can this make me grow to be a better version of myself?

Just as with everything in the universe there is a sun and a shadow side. We have to remember how these gifts from our human body are meant to help and not hinder our growth and wellbeing. As long as we remember when their use is necessary and when their use is not, both fear and anxiety can serve us well and may not need the elimination or immediate extinction that popular culture demands. 

It is my hope in this post that the next time you feel something resembling something akin to anxiety or fear, you’ll stop to consider instead of race to erase.

Respectfully…

NHS

the most uninteresting thing about me

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #3.]

I’d like to think the most uninteresting thing about me is the color of my skin. At first glance, this is somewhat of a jarring statement, but nonetheless the truth. With that being said, I think the heritage I come from, which is reflected by the color of my skin, is one of the most interesting things about me. 

Isn’t that a funny paradox. 

Being an Indian-Dominican girl growing up in a predominantly white, suburban neighborhood is the sort of thing that makes you realize from a young age that you are totally different from everyone around you. Not only do you find yourself facing the age old struggle of accepting your individuality, realizing that not all the other kids think your hobbies and passions are the coolest things in the world (in my case, musical theatre and writing), but you also are faced with the realities that come with the stereotypes people place on you because of the pigment of your skin. Understanding yourself at 10 years old is already not an easy thing, but when everyone is expecting you to grow up to be Dr. Singh and all you want to do is direct Broadway shows, it doesn’t make matters much clearer. And maybe you’re not even expected to accomplish anything that grand at all, because your parents were not raised in this country and didn’t attend school here either, so what is to become of you?

As you get older and reach the age of college applications, which you do in fact plan to attend, there is a new problem to be faced: now everyone expects that you’re going to get into any college of your choosing because of the color of your skin. 

Solely because of that. 

You seriously would not believe the amount of times I got told I was only offered an interview from Columbia University because they are looking to “increase their diversity quota.” While in the end I may not have been accepted, I can assure you the reason for me being offered an interview was not because of any amount of melanin my skin may have. In high school, I made sure to be involved in a number of extra curricular activities and worked hard to obtain leadership positions within them. That is what drew an admissions officer to want to speak to me. I committed a lot of service within my community and had impressive letters of recommendations from more than a few of my teachers that I formed genuine connections with. Those are the qualities that got me an acceptance into my university. Now, this is not to brag, while I am extremely proud of all that I have accomplished. This is all to say that I believe the qualities I’ve listed about myself are far more interesting than my ability to “increase a diversity quota.” 

At the time, I used to think the whole “diversity quota” thing was an annoying joke adults would make when the topic of college applications came up at social gatherings. I would just politely laugh and brush it off. Now, I realize that they were actually right, but not in the way they thought they were. My ethnicity is not the sole reason I was accepted into college or have acquired any sort of opportunity for that matter. It is, however, extremely important that I am a woman of color in these settings. It is important because my lived experience as a woman of color and a first generation student contributes a necessary perspective to any institution or job or anything I may find myself part of. 

I am currently completing an internship on an editorial team for a book that is being written by a Broadway director and artistic director at Columbia (how full circle, right?). Another opportunity that provides an opportunity for the adults aforementioned to reduce my qualifications to my skin tone. I have never been more confident in the fact that I received a position solely based on my own merit, especially seeing as I provided no mention or insight as to my race or ethnicity before being chosen as a finalist for the internship. The comments unfortunately get to your head, especially at my young age, and sometimes you truly begin to believe that maybe the only interesting thing about you is that you contribute physical diversity. 

Being selected for this internship was the first time in my life I felt completely confident in my own talent and qualifications. 

I believe that it is so important that women of color understand how vital it is to believe in their own merit. Because it is true what they say, that institutions have diversity quotas to fulfill, but that is not the end all be all of a person’s qualifications. And when given the opportunity, it is important that as a woman of color I infuse my ideas and perspectives into my work, because they are interesting and deserve to be heard, which has nothing to do with my skin tone. It is because as someone who identifies with a foreign culture, I have so much to offer along with those around me. 

Because while my cultural background is quite intriguing, the pigment of my skin is not at all. 

Respectfully…

PS

are we Philadelphia or Paris?

[Note: this is part of our annual Guest Writer Series. Meet guest writer #2.]

There were two 18th century revolutions that despite being close in time, were very different in the spirits they embodied.

In July 1776 in Philadelphia, the Second Continental Congress declared America liberated from the rule of King George III and Great Britain. The delegates adopted the Declaration of Independence which claimed the self-evident right of all people to live their lives and pursue happiness in any way they saw fit. After winning the revolutionary war in 1783, Americans were free to go about their business without being told what to do. This live-and-let-live attitude was built into the DNA of the fledgling country.

In July 1789 in Paris, French citizens stormed the Bastille in opposition to the rule of King Louis XVI due to frustration over economic and social inequality. The monarchy eventually fell and was succeeded by the violent Reign of Terror. The king was executed in 1793 via guillotine along with tens of thousands of others not supportive of the revolution. More bloodshed followed, as warring factions continued to fight for power. Instead of people free from being told what to do, the result was a struggle for who got to do the telling.

So here we are in July 2023. Does America today exude the spirit of the American Revolution or that of the French Revolution? In other words, are we Philadelphia or Paris?

The answer is obvious, is it not? We may not be in a revolution, but we certainly are in the midst of a culture war and neither side is simply seeking to live their own lives as they see fit.  One side of the political spectrum has embraced Marxist critical theory which invalidates opposing viewpoints, and on the other side the leading candidate for the presidential nomination has told his supporters that “I am your retribution.”

It’s fine to hold beliefs on social issues, even passionately so. What runs contrary to America’s founding is the desire to impose your beliefs on others who disagree with you.

It doesn’t seem that long ago when the mantra was it’s nobody’s business what goes on inside the privacy of your own bedroom. What the heck happened? Why is all the sex and gender stuff front and center? The push from many on the left has gone from wanting tolerance to wanting to be validated. The thing is, implying that people who disagree with you are bigots isn’t going to win many converts. And taking it a step further, efforts to shape kids’ sexual attitudes in schools, especially without parents’ knowledge or consent, will only invite a massive and vehement pushback.

Those on the right have witnessed the shift in the culture and the frequent “cancelling” of those expressing conservative opinions. Somewhere along the way, their tactics shifted from playing defense to going on offense. To take a recent example, some states have tried to make drag shows illegal anywhere children might be present. Such legislation puts the lie to the claim that lawmakers are even being tolerant. You can’t say on one hand Christian bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding and then on the other hand prevent people from engaging in free expression.

We cherish our rights to freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. It’s a given that we are not going to speak, believe, and think the same. Therefore, in order for any of us to have these rights, we all have to have these rights. We must seek to resolve our differences with pluralistic approaches where we can live and let live.

Of course, not all political issues allow for solutions where each of us can do our own thing. In those situations where the choice is between X and Y, we can still engage in debate with civility and respect. As the saying goes, you have two ears and only one mouth for a reason. Try listening to understand where the other person is coming from. Chances are you will learn something and just might change your mind.

Every four years we are told, “This is the most important election of our lifetimes!” To the extent that sentiment is true, it’s only because we perceive that the party in charge will get to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. If we returned to a live-and-let-live attitude about our public affairs, we could focus on electing the most qualified candidates instead of only considering those who share our perspective on cultural issues.

Can we please return to Philadelphia?

Respectfully…

PJM

that’s just adolf

Yes, I know that is quite a title, and no, I did not make it up. I originally heard that analogy from my colleague MJ several years ago when complaining about poor behavior displayed by someone we both interact with at speaking conferences. The actions I unfortunately witnessed were misogynistic, rude, critical, and full of hubris. I had never been impressed by the dude’s character traits, and even less so with those who defend his disappointing behavior with the phrase, “that’s just Charlie.” I had heard it countless times over the years… “That’s just Charlie” and “You know Charlie. That’s just how he is,” as though I should pipe down, ignore it, and turn the proverbial blind eye.

It wasn’t just me. Many people were aware and disgusted by it. Even Charlie himself knew his behavior was questionable, to which he outwardly touted, “I’m on the spectrum,” or “I was just teasing.” But… was he? When overtly flirting with a striking, married woman, the also-married Charlie was anything but Aspergerish. Clearly, he had flirting down pat. Additionally, he was serious about his craft, and on stage, he spoke with ease. It would seem, by all appearances, that Charlie did not have special needs, but rather, acted on the belief that his needs were special. He used those excuses as an out, which was repeatedly bestowed on him by the disclaimer ,“that’s just Charlie,” (often by his mostly-male cohorts).

It was during that frustrated rant to my highly respectable colleague MJ that he expertly introduced the unpalatable phrase, “that’s just Adolf.” It took me aback at first. What a horrible descriptor! Then the meaning hit me. Wow, I thought to myself. Exactly! That’s exactly what this is! How is it that Charlie’s behavior has gone on so long, and has been excused by so many, that he was a one-man wrecking ball without anyone confronting the man in order to stop him? Or perhaps someone had tried to deter him along the way, maybe multiple people had, but the evidence of change was negligible, so the Charlie in the china shop kept breaking everyone around him. All of this led me to wonder how does someone become a Charlie, and what do we do about them?

If you live long enough, you will encounter your own Charlies in the world. Some of us work with them, some were raised by them, some unknowingly befriend or marry them, and some of us are governed by them. We see this every day in our culture. How did we get there, and more importantly, what do we do about it?

Everyone has an opinion these days, so be careful what you ask. (I am often more curious than careful.) I’ve heard some folks say to do nothing at all. You’ve probably heard the saying that having high expectations for others leads to inevitable disappointment. I get that. I have often expected way too much from people, often unfairly so, and the relationship has suffered for it.  There is something to graciously accepting people with all their warts, acknowledging “that’s just how they are,” and moving on. I am also grateful to have been the beneficiary of that grace on numerous occasions.

Yet, when the pattern of behavior is negative in the extreme, isn’t it appropriate to curb the destructive pattern of unsavory character and stop it in its tracks before anyone gets seriously hurt? If we were each an island unto ourselves that wouldn’t be necessary, but when we interact with others there are consequences to these actions, sometimes irreparable ones. When is it time to preemptively mitigate the damages caused by a lack of self-awareness in order to deter sentient tornados who leave human debris in their path? These days it seems that everyone is easily angered, yet paralyzed to act. Rage itself accomplishes nothing. But as the great orator J. Allen Petersen wrote, “Our actions may speak louder than words, but it is our RE-ACTIONS that speak loudest of all.” So what do we do? What should our reaction be?

I don’t have all the answers, but I do know this. I believe Edmund Burke who famously said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I’m not accusing Charlie of being inherently evil. Only God can judge that. However, his actions cause pain, as do the phlegmatic “friends” who idly stand by and supply his absolution. The Putins, Madoffs, Epsteins, and yes, even Hitlers of the world are just a few examples of out-of-control egos who thrive on the fuel of indifference by those who see their abhorrent behavior, do nothing about it, and then wonder why the world has gone crazy. Those men did not wake up one morning as monsters, but rather, went to bed night after night undeterred, enabled, and unthinkably, even encouraged to play out their sick games on humanity. So clearly, doing nothing is not a solution. Looking the other direction, or placating evil is only adding fuel to the fire. In the end, our actions and re-actions are a game plan every man, woman and child can get on board with.

I challenge us all to be vigilant in the world so far as we are able. Employ the Golden Rule to treat others as we would wish to be treated. Vote in every election. Be the template for kindness and gratitude. Call others out when appropriate, and put your money where your mouth is. Sometimes that is all we can control.  Dealing with evil begins with our own behavior and self-awareness. Accountability is the key to staying in check, being able to humbly receive feedback with a vulnerable spirit. Erect healthy boundaries with destructive people who have had a lifetime to improve their behavior but have chosen not to. When we do so, we can more easily identify the path to a better human existence for our families, businesses, communities, and the world at large. Don’t lose heart. Stay strong and do not tire of doing good.

The Charlies of the world need us now more than ever.

Respectfully… 

SLB

a variety of voices… this is great…

Well, this is it.

You know our mantra here at the Intramuralist. We are a respectful dialogue of current events. 

That means the following…

  • All topics are welcome.
  • Disagreement is completely acceptable.
  • The only caveat is that all opinion, perspective and conviction must be stated in a way that is respectful toward the one who disagrees with you.

Hence, there is no denigration, insult nor targeted vulgarity. 

In order to aid in said standards, there are also aims and objectives we frequently advocate for and sincerely encourage, believing they are good and wise and true. For example…

  • Learn what it means to honor other people.
  • Figure the faith thing out.
  • Listen — and listen especially to a variety of voices.

One of culture’s current challenges is that many of us only listen to the same sort of voices over and over again — and then walk away thinking we have a solid opinion and perspective because we’ve heard the same thing so many times. If the voices all come from like sources, then we’re unknowingly ignorant of the insulated bubble we’ve conveniently prepackaged ourselves in. That bubble then impedes conversation. Why? Because we’re thoroughly convinced we’re right, unaware of our own ignorance.

Such is why we advocate listening to different voices… people from all walks of life — age, ethnicity, education, profession… people with all sorts of experience — easy, hard, silly or serious… people with different stories to share.

One of the reasons we struggle to solve problems is because we equate singular experience — or similar experience heard repeatedly — as truth. The key — and a key that I wish absolutely every legislator, leader and lawyer knew and acknowledged — is that wise and effective solution comes when we listen to the different, when we work to understand alternative points of view, and pragmatically discern how they all fit together, rather than trumping one angle as truth and getting stuck in our own bubble.

Here at the Intramuralist, we practice what we preach.

As has been our creative, annual custom in our near 15 year existence, it is time for our 2023 Guest Writer Series!!

I am so excited, friends!

Over the course of the next several weeks, you will hear from all sorts of people — that variety of voices. You will hear from a former politician, licensed professional counselor and educator. You will hear from working professionals, a stay-at-home mom and at least one still college student. 

The topics vary, too, as do their passions. From masking to anxiety to 100 questions with a historian, this talented group has much to discuss!

We learn from one another no doubt.

So while personally I engage in a brief season of intentional rest — a practice that the older I get, I question why I didn’t develop the discipline earlier in life — our 2023 excellent guest writers have a few things to share with you.

Know now that I will not agree with everything they say. They do not speak for me. But these are men and women from all walks of life who are committed to respectful dialogue. Thus, they are people from whom we can learn, grow and be encouraged. Such will always, always trump agreement.

Enjoy, my friends. Fire up to start on Wednesday…

Respectfully… and ciao for now…

AR

who do you follow?

Seriously. Who/what do you follow?

Those on Instagram, for instance, who have the most followers, are:

  1. Cristiano Ronaldo — The Portuguese professional soccer player has more followers than many have in their own country with 593 million followers. 
  2. Lionel Messi — The Argentine soccer player gets close to Ronaldo, but only with 475 million followers.
  3. Selena Gomez — One of the fastest recent risers, this non-athlete talks about far more than being the Biebs’ ex-girlfriend. Her food and mental health conversations have found her with over 423 million followers.
  4. Kylie Jenner — Here comes the first of this familial clan, as this media personality and young business woman now has 395 million followers.
  5. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson — This retired professional wrestler, now actor and tequila connoisseur finds himself 5th on the list with 385 million followers.
  6. Ariana Grande — The pop icon with an impressive four-octave range tunes in with 375 million followers.
  7. Kim Kardashian — A half-sister of the aforementioned Jenner, this media personality slightly trails the above with 360 million followers.
  8. Beyoncé Knowles — Unquestionably, “Queen Bey” is one of the greatest entertainers of her generation, evident by her 312 million followers. 
  9. Khloe Kardashian — Next in the famous family tree is the “reality” TV sister with 309 million followers.
  10. Nike — At 10th comes our first non-individual, with the popular shoe brand currently netting some 299 million followers.
  11. Justin Bieber — One of my personal faves, the Canadian-born pop star has 292 million followers.
  12. Kendall Jenner — Another Kardashian/Jenner celebrity — daughter of Kris and then Bruce — now Caitlyn — has a respectable 291 million followers.
  13. National Geographic — The only other non-individual focuses on authentic beauty without any make-up, as noted by its 279 million followers.
  14. Taylor Swift — Swifties shake off any idea that their icon isn’t in the top ten, regardless of also only 264 million followers.
  15. Virat Kohli — And lastly, in spot 15, we’re bookended by one more sports star, this one a cricketeer with 252 million followers.

My personal feed includes a few (far) lesser known personalities, such as Omgitswicks, the “part tour guide/part wise uncle” who provides hilarious sketch comedy focused on Florida nuances, and TJ Therrien, the middle child who showcases family therapy by amusingly exaggerating the differences in the oldest, middle and youngest child approaches. 

But all that to make a singular point this day…

All of the above are known as who/what we enjoy… we like… at the very least we’re curious and want to pay attention them. Hence, we follow them. 

But my strong sense, with absolute all due respect to each of the above, is that current culture has diluted what it means to follow.

Whether it be a new diet, the Golden Rule or Jesus Christ, for example, to actually follow doesn’t mean simply to enjoy, like or pay attention to. It doesn’t mean being curious or behaving however we want to. To “follow” and “follow halfheartedly” are contradictory. To follow, friends, is to be wholly in. What we like or agree with are secondary to why we chose to follow the who/what to begin with.

Seriously.

Respectfully…

AR

a fascinating political update

Ok, I admit, I’m a little bit fascinated. I’m fascinated by the number of persons (and total respect if such includes you — it’s only a fascination), but at the number of persons who suggest that the corruption we’re seeing and sensing is happening in a singular political party. Maybe it’s a deduction of the lesser of two evils, so-to-speak, omitting, however, that “lesser” infers that both are still evil.

Let me not suggest that either the Democrats or Republicans are wholly evil (although I know many are lured to think otherwise). But it seems painstakingly obvious that Washington is broken and the system is corrupt. There is clear crookedness in both parties. For example, witch-hunt or not, it doesn’t take any rocket science nor thirty more indictments to discern that there is something unscrupulous in former Pres. Trump’s behavior. It also doesn’t take any indictment to know there is some sort of duplicity in the Biden family business, especially with Hunter at the head. (I’ll spare any reference to House Republican George Santos or Senate Democrat John Fetterman.) The bottom line is that corruption exists within both parties, and turning a blind eye toward one is what prompts the aforementioned fascination.

That said, as has been documented here — and I might add, is gaining national attention and momentum — No Labels, a political organization that has been promoting nonpartisan governance since 2010 — has been working diligently to provide American voters with an “insurance policy” for 2024. Poll after poll show approximately 70% of us don’t want either Joe Biden or Donald Trump to be President. Our nation is deeply dissatisfied with both gentlemen for various reasons. To be blunt, they are each divisive (albeit in their own, unique way), and to be even more frank, they are arguably too old. Hence, if that is again America’s choice, No Labels will provide a “unity ticket,” with both a Democrat and Republican on the ticket. They are only preparing for the possibility; they have not yet committed to do so. It depends on who the establishment nominates, as the commonsense majority knows we can do better than Biden and Trump.

As part of the preparation, therefore, No Labels is currently focused on nationwide ballot access. That takes time. Look, though, at the response of the establishment…

Time out — my apologize. Let’s first briefly review what the parties officially state in regard to election integrity and our voices being heard. It’s eye-openingly relevant…

From the Democrats: “Democrats will strengthen our democracy by guaranteeing that every American’s vote is protected. We will make it a priority to pass legislation that restores and strengthens the Voting Rights Act, and ensure the Department of Justice challenges state laws that make it harder for Americans to vote. We will make voting easier and more accessible for all Americans…”

From the Republicans: “Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America’s greatness for our children and grandchildren.”

Now, though, look at their actual efforts at election integrity, as shared via an update from No Labels this week:

“Ten months ago, No Labels submitted more than enough petitions to get on North Carolina’s 2024 presidential ballot, with plenty of time for officials to review them. Getting on states’ presidential ballots is part of our Insurance Policy 2024 to potentially offer our ballot line to a bipartisan Unity ticket if the two parties insist on saddling the country with presidential choices they don’t want.  

In North Carolina, after almost a year of mysterious delays, the Democratic-controlled state elections board last week affirmed our signatures … but then they said they would indefinitely wait on certifying our ballot access while the Board Chair conducts an additional review process with no precedent and no objective standard.  

We know a pattern when we see one. When the left-progressive North Carolina Green Party sought a spot on the state’s 2022 U.S. Senate ballot, state Democrats went to court, arguing that the Greens would ‘harm Democrats’ electoral prospects because [our] candidates will have to compete …’  

The Greens had met all the requirements, but the board said it needed to investigate claims of signature fraud. And then it unanimously reversed itself.  

In federal court, the Greens said 20 of its signatories reported being contacted by people claiming to be from the Green Party and pressuring them to tell election officials they never signed the petitions. Otherwise, the Green Party would split the Democratic vote, they were told.  

In all, a sickening partisan spectacle. But please don’t single out North Carolina election officials. In Arizona, the state Democratic Party has sued to knock No Labels off the ballot there. One of its arguments is that No Labels would “harm Democrats’ electoral prospects because [our] candidates will have to compete …”   

And in Maine, amid our registration effort, the Democratic secretary of state took the unprecedented step of sending a targeted mailing directed at all 6,456 citizens of Maine who had recently registered as No Labels Party members, questioning if they meant to join No Labels and casting aspersions on our organization.  

These aren’t coincidental cases of overdoing the red tape. This is rank partisan obstructionism aimed at protecting entrenched power.”

Friends, the parties are fighting to keep No Labels off the ballot. That is not democracy. That is not election integrity. That is about power. It’s also sadly about corruption.

Respectfully…

AR

happy 5th!

I am always grateful for July 4th. While hitting the sand and the sunshine for an extended stay, there’s time to read and listen to the perspectives of others — such as from someone who didn’t actually grow up in this country, like Martin Gurri, an author, former CIA analyst, and currently a Visiting Fellow at George Mason University. Important note: we learn from those experiences which are different than our own. One more note: the experiences of others help us see that our experience isn’t the only way. Hence, as shared by Bari Weiss’s, excellent, thought-provoking The Free Press — it’s a little long but by far the best thing I read yesterday…

I arrived in the United States as a child from Cuba, and immediately realized things were different here. Nobody talked politics—it was a boring subject. Everyone went calmly about their business and trusted everyone else to do the right thing. Pedestrians walked in front of moving cars because of some abstract notion called the “right of way”! (I still can’t bring myself to do that.) The rules of social life were understood and internalized. Beyond that, it was up to you. The American people seemed to have freedom in their bones, in their DNA: so deep that they didn’t even notice.

Is there such a thing as American exceptionalism? When asked that question, Barack Obama once replied, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” As often happened with Obama, he was both glib and wrong.

Actually, each country is not exceptional in its own way and doesn’t deserve a little trophy just for being there. The U.S. stands apart. And it isn’t so much who we are that separates us from other nations as the path that brought us here. Each American alive today benefits from an extraordinary history. Call it luck, call it destiny, but those who came before us rose to every challenge in a manner that defied probability and bestowed on us, their heirs, the easygoing freedom of pedestrians who casually face down moving cars.

Let’s start at the beginning. In the hands of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, the Revolution could have gone wrong in many ways. Instead, we got the generation of the Founders and Framers: a world-historical flowering of political genius. These were tough-minded, pragmatic men, who fought and won a war against the greatest power on earth and built a framework of government that has lasted 235 years. But they were also brilliant political thinkers. Their most enduring legacy was an ideology of individual freedom to which even our decadent latter-day politics must refer and yield.

When I asked my five-year-old grandson what he knew about George Washington, all he could say was, “He owned slaves.” That’s how Washington is remembered today: slaves, bad teeth, and a face on the dollar bill. But he won the Revolutionary War by sheer force of character; the precedents he set as our first chief executive embodied the ideology of freedom and remain in effect today. Other great men of similar talents behaved quite differently. Napoleon began as first consul, then promoted himself to emperor. Simón Bolívar went from liberator to dictator. By contrast, Washington voluntarily and with much relief relinquished power and ended his days as a farmer at Mount Vernon. That was unusual, unlikely—and exceptional.

The Civil War could have resulted in nothing more than a brutal power play—the North and the West devouring the South much like Bismarck’s Prussia swallowed the German principalities. That didn’t happen because Abraham Lincoln gave the war a profound moral dimension. The “last best hope” for human freedom, he insisted, was at stake. It was Lincoln who defined our exceptionalism. He believed we were the first nation to rise above the accidents of history and be “dedicated to a proposition.” Yet an ideology of freedom couldn’t coexist with chattel slavery. The slaughter of war was the punishment for that monstrous contradiction. Lincoln’s second inaugural address, a towering moral document, reads like a combination of a Greek tragedy and a lost book from the Bible. He was, to put it mildly, an uncommon politician.

In times of need, other Americans have stepped into the breach with remarkable regularity. When the Great Depression shook our way of life to its foundation, Franklin Roosevelt rejected “fear itself” and restored faith in representative democracy. When the Cold War against the forces of unfreedom appeared eternally deadlocked, Ronald Reagan could conceive only of a single outcome: “We win, they lose”—and so it was.

When the disgrace of Jim Crow segregation needed to be atoned for and eradicated, we should have expected, and certainly deserved, rage and hatred for the oppressors from the black leadership. Instead, we got a magnificently eloquent preacher who practiced nonviolence and taught Christian forgiveness. As anyone can tell who has read “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. was nobody’s pushover. “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor,” he wrote; “it must be demanded by the oppressed.” But he quoted the words of the Founders in front of the temple to Lincoln in Washington, D.C.—appealing to the American ideology of freedom and demanding a share of it for all Americans. And so began the long process of healing the nation.

New citizens in Los Angeles pledge allegiance to the U.S.A. (Joe Sohm via Getty Images)

Even our industrialists and innovators have been exceptional. Anywhere else, if you wanted to make money you had to sell to the government or to the rich—after all, they possessed most of it. But from Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, American manufacturers aimed their goods at the ordinary citizen, the consumer. (Ford actually kept the prices of his cars low to ensure that “the great multitude” could afford them.) This started a virtuous cycle, since the more money ordinary people made, the more goods they could purchase: higher salaries for employees actually benefited millionaire CEOs. Here was the ideology of freedom, conquering the economic domain.

And for those of you who love to sneer at “consumerism,” let me repeat a story I have told before. A Cuban woman, a recent refugee, entered a supermarket in Miami and proceeded to burst into tears. Surrounded by such a dazzling display of goods, her heart broke, she said, when she thought of the people she had left behind in Cuba, who had so little.

The opposite of consumerism isn’t authenticity—it’s penury. It’s scarcity and hunger. We are fortunate and exceptional that most of our problems stem from abundance.

This amazing history is the property of every American—and it was the legacy that confronted me when I first arrived in this country. But here’s the strange thing: fairly quickly, without my knowing how, I started to think of it as my legacy. I internalized the evolution of freedom the U.S. represents. It belonged to me no less than to any Mayflower descendant—maybe more, since I knew too well the alternative to freedom.

My process of Americanization bears thinking on. Having recently tested my ancestry, I know my genetic roots go back almost entirely to Spain and France. So is Thomas Jefferson my “forefather”? Don’t bother to answer—I know he is. He stands in a line with Washington, Lincoln, and MLK—and, yes, Edison and Jobs—who, as older family members do, provided for me the maxims and models of how the life of a free citizen should be lived. I have had angry conversations with Jefferson, as I did with my own father; he was an encyclopedic genius but a frustratingly slippery character. Europeans have sometimes asked me why Americans are so obsessed with the opinions of long-dead politicians. My reply is that we have been exceptionally fortunate in our history.

I became American without thinking about it, by osmosis. My personal differences with my native-born friends seemed more like advantages than barriers. Being young in the United States felt like an immense adventure—a constant exploration and discovery of new perspectives in a land of infinite possibilities. Americans, I learned, are restless and lonely, because we always live on the edge of a frontier, and are always tempted by the siren song of the future to leave everything behind. We are, in a word, unsettled. That’s a rare but honorable condition.

At some point, somehow, my life became that of an ordinary American. I went to school, married and begot children, became a bureaucrat at—of all places—the Central Intelligence Agency, and moved on to the serial pontification I am engaging in at this moment. My version of the American dream was never extravagant but I have seen most of it come true. Long ago, I found a woman who has put up with me all these years. I have bounced grandkids on my knee and watched the Washington Nationals win the World Series. I never forget that I’m Cuban, but weeks go by that I fail to remember I’m an immigrant—if that sounds like a contradiction, you don’t understand the meaning of “Cuban” or the life of an immigrant in the United States.

Some of you, I realize, will object to such talk of freedom and unqualified praise for our country. Half of the American economy was built on slavery, you will say. Well, yes, but as Lincoln observed, we paid for that sin with rivers of blood. Still—you will press on—we remained a legally racist country for a century after the Civil War. Well, yes, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 broke the shackles of discrimination and today the highest-earning Americans are of Indian and East Asian descent. But this remains systemically and fundamentally a white supremacist nation, and there’s no help for that, forever and ever, you will charge, unreconciled.

Well, no—that’s just fumes inside your head. But if you believe it, then rise to the level of the history that made you. Quit whining. Stop throwing words around and point to cases. Persuade me by engaging in respectful debate, using the shared language of reason and evidence. As so many Americans have done before, become an avatar of freedom in a time of crisis, so that your descendants long hence will look back with pride and say, “That was an exceptional generation.”

Happy 4th & 5th… Respectfully…

AR

what details are we dismissing?

29 opinions were released by the Supreme Court this past June. Many were 7-2, 8-1 or even unanimous decisions, finding common ground on voting rights, immigration issues, etc. We, though, oft focus on cases that are more divided and passionate — and on the ones via which we see only a singular side. With all due respect, that’s a significant challenge for us. When we focus solely on a singular side — legitimate as our passion and perspective may be — we typically miss the bottom line. We fail to see what the issue is about when we dismiss detail and ignore other perspective.

Take three of the high court’s decisions released in the end of the week news dump. (No doubt all institutions/administrations have learned said art of sharing controversial info on Thursdays, Fridays or right before a holiday, making it hopefully easier to avoid ample media scrutiny.) We speak today of Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, and Biden v. Nebraska. My point today is not to offer advocacy nor opposition; my point is to acknowledge the bottom line of each case — what is being addressed — and thus the core issue we may miss when passionately wrought by singular perspective.

In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admission programs is unconstitutional.

Brief details… Many who disagree are persons who believe they or those they love benefitted from affirmative action decades prior; they understandably want others to have the same opportunity…  Called into question is how other ethnicities have been discriminated against in the process, specifically those of Asian and Latino descent… And interestingly, California, one of the most liberal states of the union, banned affirmative action at their public colleges 27 years ago…

The legal bottom line addresses the Equal Protection Clause embedded in the 14th Amendment. Such forces a state to govern individuals impartially, meaning all U.S. citizens must receive “equal protection of the laws.” If others are discriminated against via the process, impartiality is the question. The additional core debate recognizes that affirmative action originated in 1961, and thus wonders if current circumstances and needs for correction are the same as they were 62 years ago. This issue isn’t about discriminating against any one ethnicity; it’s about the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court ruled that the state cannot force a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees.

Brief details… Many who agree and disagree with this decision perceive the ruling as a blow to the rights of our friends in the LGBTQ+ community, suggesting this legalizes increased discrimination… The plaintiff argued not that she didn’t want to work with LGBTQ+ individuals; she solely does not want to create same-sex wedding or trans wedding websites due to her faith…

The legal bottom line addresses the question of free speech embedded in the 1st Amendment. Can a person be forced by the state to express something that their religious faith prohibits? The additional core debate is whether or not a website falls under such expression; do “creative products” count as speech? This issue isn’t about LGBTQ+ rights; it’s about the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

And lastly, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when they announced they would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans.

Brief details… Many who disagree with this decision are persons who would benefit from not having to pay their own loans back; makes sense. There simultaneously exists significant question as to who this would most help/hurt, as the debt wouldn’t simply go away; other taxpayers would have to absorb the outstanding financial obligation… Candidate Joe Biden made the pledge that he would permanently cancel up to $20,000 in debt during his 2020 presidential campaign… After elected, Biden said, “I don’t think I have the authority to do it”… Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power”…

The legal bottom line addresses America’s separation of powers; it’s one of the key elements which laudably distinguishes the U.S. from other monarchies, dictatorships and more authoritarian forms of government. This means that government’s responsibilities are distinctly divvied up into the three branches of government in order to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The legislative branch is responsible for not only enacting the laws of the state but also appropriating the money necessary to operate. In other words, Congress holds the “power of the purse,” the power to control government spending. The President does not. Such is why Speaker Pelosi said so prior to the court case; she was actually cited in the Supreme Court’s decision.This issue thus isn’t about student loans; it’s about Article I of the U.S. Constitution. 

Friends, I understand the legitimate passion in both agreement and dissent; there exist strong opinions on affirmative action, LGBTQ+ rights and student loan forgiveness; each affects people differently. But let not our passion prompt us to dismiss the details and therefore unintentionally miss the bottom line.

Respectfully… always…

AR