intramuralist ™

So I’ve been trying to wrap my head around why people would willingly support a terrorist organization and the annihilation of the Jewish race. We’re speaking once more of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization.

To be clear, a terrorist organization is one that is “directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act.” Terrorism, according to Britannica, is “the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.”

It doesn’t take anywhere near a rocket scientist to see the hatred, maliciousness and evil in such an aim. And yet, on the college campus, supposedly an established place of higher learning, with all due respect, the number of persons who can’t see that is astounding. 

NBC referenced a poll taken last week, finding then that 86% of college students are aware of the Oct. 7th attack on Israel. Of that number, only 67% see the behavior as an act of terrorism by Hamas. That means that 33% describe it as something else — many who go so far as to actually call the horrific attack justified. 

Note far more than the numbers; look at the actual protests. Colleges are clashing over the current conflict…

… students… and professors…

As Politico and The Washington Post report… a Cornell University professor called the Hamas attacks “exhilarating” and “energizing.” A Yale professor dubbed Israel a “murderous, genocidal settler state.” A Stanford University instructor reportedly asked Jewish and Israeli students to stand in the corner of a classroom.

This, my friends, is from higher ed.

Such thus begs the seriously sincere question: what are we teaching our future leaders?

There are far more than the above stunning stories coming from numerous campuses since this conflict began — and as evidenced, many come from those that consider themselves “Ivy League.” It makes a person wonder what “Ivy” in the “League” actually equates to.

So in seeking to understand and not in any way chastise, let us pose a more pointed question for this day, trying to wrap our brains upon how the seemingly highly educated could be so accepting of obvious hatred…

In the last few years, college campuses have been uniquely marked by a so-called “wokeism.” It’s a hot-button, sometimes controversial concept — and let’s be honest; it’s been a challenge for most of America to figure out — what it is and what it is not. Politics too often gets in the way.

The definition of wokeism changes slightly pending who you ask and what their primary political bent is. A respectful, working interpretation, no less, would explain wokeism as an emphasized attention on identity-based social issues where there exists perceived ongoing injustice, inequality and/or oppression. We then ask today: is there a correlation between wokeism and support for the hatred of Hamas?

Wokeism assesses the power struggle between an identified oppressor and a victim. With its identity-based focus, gender, ethnicity, religion, wealth, etc. serve as perceived identity hierarchal markers, markers which are believed to have previously paved or currently provide the way for said power of the oppressor.

So knowing wokeism has recently swelled, is the stunning acceptance of hatred based on an assessment of the perceived victim and oppressor?

… is it their view that Hamas is a victim?

… and Israel is an oppressor?

And if in reality this is a situation where Hamas really is a victim, then is the logic that it doesn’t matter what they do or what tactics they employ? It doesn’t matter what they did on October 7th?

Murders, mutilation… hostages… killing babies, children, the elderly…

It makes me wonder, therefore, if wokeism is a deceiving, dangerous way in which to view the world…

It makes me wonder if it’s yet one more way to make us unknowingly blind to hate.

Respectfully…

AR

On October 8th, the day after Hamas attacked Israel, there was one thought that resonated loudest in my thinking… 

Remember this day. Remember the horror that happened, who did it and why.

Why the resonance?

Because when we get further from the absolute atrocity, we’ll forget what the atrocity actually was… We’ll forget the killing of the innocent. We’ll forget the murders and mutilations. We’ll forget that this was nothing short of a savage act of terrorism. 

Our forgetfulness will then result in ill-founded consequence. Most applicable in this attack is to come to the conclusion that there is any sort of moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Let us be as clear as possible: there is not.

Clarity is a gift, friends. So let’s answer the Q: who is Hamas and what do they want? 

Hamas is an Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorist organization. Their charter, established in 1988, states: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” The river refers to the Jordan River. The sea is the Mediterranean. The stated aim is to annihilate Israel.

While it is true that some Palestinians desire a two-state solution — meaning Israel and a future Palestine coexist — Hamas does not. Contrary to the teaching that this issue is about land, it is wholeheartedly not. Make no mistake about it; this is about wiping Jewish people off the face of the planet. Hence, there is zero moral equivalency.

And yet, now that we’re over a week out, we forget. Not only do we forget, but some tend to even take their talking points from the terrorists, as opposed to the truth, ignorant of that complete lack of moral equivalency.

Last week, for example, there was a rocket that exploded in a Gaza hospital parking lot. Gaza is home to Hamas. Hamas immediately blamed Israel. Israel said they would need time (hours) to verify. Know who chose not to verify?

• CNN
• MSNBC
• The New York Times
• The Washington Post… and more.

Members of the mainstream press blindly ran with what Hamas said, that Israel just caused the brutal death of hundreds (500, according to the immediacy of the Times). 

But it was a lie. 

The destruction was caused by a failed rocket fired from within Gaza. It was not from Israel.

And yet, there is a current congresswoman from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib, who even after the facts came out, led a rally, emphatically repeating the lie.

Please. Please put Rep. Tlaib on the list of congresspersons — Democrats and Republicans alike — who are not trustworthy enough to make decisions for our country. They are the extreme. They repeat lies. And yes, they are on the left and the right.

Lest I digress, herein remains the problem. The ongoing discussion of what should happen next/what’s a proportional response/should a ceasefire ensue is not accurate if girded by the inaccurate assumption that both Hamas and Israel are guided by the goodness of human character. Hamas is not.

As we watch the support of Hamas chanted far too loudly on some American soil — particularly, eerily on the college campus, topic of a next blog — I find myself sitting here, soberly wondering…

What have they forgotten?

So quick. So fast. And yes, so sad.

Respectfully…

AR

As we and the world hold our collective breath in regard to what happens next in Israel, we scanned the net for questions that are currently being asked. Interestingly, the questions are fairly common from most sources, regardless of bias. The following seem to be what people most want to know:

1. After Attack on Israel, Politicians Are Asked, ‘Which Side Are You On?
2. Are terrorists trying to enter the U.S. through the southern border?
3. As Middle East Wars Escalate, US Presidents Usually Rein In Israel. Can Biden?
4. Can Biden Improve Relations With Saudi Arabia During Middle East Trip?
5. Can Israel Really Wipe Out Hamas?
6. Can the United States Equip Israel while Simultaneously Equipping Ukraine and Taiwan?
7. Could the Attack on Israel Spell the End of Hamas?
8. Did Hamas Attacks Have a Hidden Target?
9. Did Hamas Behead Babies and Toddlers in Attacks on Israel?
10. Did Iran direct the Hamas attacks on Israel?
11. Did Tehran help with its attack on Israel?
12. Did US President Biden give Iran $6 billion? 
13. First Amendment Right or Aiding and Abetting Terrorism?
14. Hamas Attacks Israel: Why Now, and What’s Next?
15. Hamas’ hostages: What could happen next?
16. Hamas hostages: Who are the people taken from Israel?
17. Has Washington’s Middle East Policy Failed?
18. How did Hamas manage to carry out its rampage through southern Israel?
19. How did Israel miss what Hamas was planning?
20. How does Hamas get its weapons?
21. How many pro-Palestinian groups will admit that Hamas is evil?
22. How Media Outlets Describe Hamas: Terrorist Organization or Militant Group?
23. How ready is Israel for a full-scale invasion of Gaza?
24. How was Iran involved in Hamas’s attack on Israel?
25. Is a Saudi-Israel deal now off the table?
26. Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
27. Is Hamas Actually the Government in Palestine?
28. Is Iran behind Hamas terrorist attacks?
29. Is Iran helping Hamas attack Israel?
30. Is pro-Israel left-wing or right-wing?
31. Is the U.S. getting involved as Israel fights Hamas in Gaza?
32. Israel’s Darkest Day. What Now?
33. Should the US Accept Gaza Refugees?
34. The US freed $6 billion in Iranian money. Did it help fund Hamas’ attack on Israel?
35. Today it is Israel – who’s next?
36. What are the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
37. What did Hamas achieve from the attack on Israel?
38. What did Hamas aim to gain by its brazen attack on Israel?
39. What do Palestinians think of Hamas?
40. What Does a ‘Proportionate’ Response Look Like?
41. What Does It Mean to Stand With Israel?
42. What is Hamas, and what’s happening in Israel and Gaza?
43. What is Hamas and why did the group attack Israel in 2023?
44. What is Iran’s role in the Hamas attacks on Israel?
45. What is the IDF?
46. What was Hamas thinking?
47. What’s Next After Hamas’ Attack on Israel?
48. Where Are Israeli Hostages Taken by Hamas Being Held?
49. Where does the $6 billion figure come from?
50. Will US efforts to deescalate the Israel-Hamas conflict be effective?
51. Will the United States Be the Next Israel?
52. Will the war between Israel and Hamas escalate?
53. Who’s Funding Hamas?
54. Who or what are ‘the Palestinians?’
55. Why are Israel and Hamas at war?
56. Why Are Refugees Stranded in Gaza?
57. Why are US-funded journalists defending Russia, Iran over the Hamas massacre?
58. Why did Hamas attack Israel, and why now?
59. Why did Hamas attack now and what is next?
60. Why did Hamas invade Israel?
61. Why did the US give Iran $6 billion?
62. Why has Hamas taken hostages?
63. Why is India supporting Israel in conflict against Hamas? 
64. Why is the left-wing sympathetic to Palestine?
65. Why No Jewish Lives Matter Movement?

Allow us to summarize… Outside the more extreme, polarized voices, there actually currently seems significant unity; much is centered around the “what’s” and “why’s”… (1) What is Hamas? (2) What were they thinking? (3) Why did they do it? (4) Did Iran help? And (5) what’s next? The also is tremendous concern regarding the hostages the terrorists hold. 

Sounds like there will be more questions. Let’s stay aligned. Let’s also learn to pray, knowing the scale, complexity and impact of what is unfolding in Israel and Gaza is beyond our control.

Soberly…

AR

(Intramuralist Note: the questions above were asked by ABC, Al Jazeera, AllSides, Associated Press, BBC, Britannica, CBS, CNBC, CNN, The Economic Times, Forbes, Fortune, The Guardian, The Hill, The Messenger, National Review, NBC, New York Times, The New Yorker, Newsweek, NPR, Politico, Politifact, Slate, The Spectator, The Times of India, Townhall, Washington Examiner, Washington Monthly, Washington Post, USA Today, Vox and more).

[NOTE: The Intramuralist experienced some unforeseen technical difficulties over the weekend. Routine postings will resume as scheduled on Wed., Oct. 18th. Our apologies for any inconvenience.]

I’ll be honest. I don’t feel quite qualified to speak on this subject. I suppose many days such could be the truth. We speak purposefully and passionately about things upon which we have a limited perspective. And may not even know it.

This feels a little different to me. It’s simply that the horror is huge and pain is so poignant. It’s hard to wrap our heads and hearts around what happened in Israel last week. Let me be unmistakably clear: what happened was nothing short of evil.

Let us add two more sentences for clarity sakes. When we say “evil,” we mean a complete, utter absence of God. And if an act or event is notably absent of God, that means it is not good, not loving, not just in any kind of way. 

On Saturday, Oct. 7th Hamas attacked Israel. Israel was wrapping up their Sukkot celebration, also known as the “Feast of Booths,” a 7 day holiday of great spiritual importance to the Jewish nation. In the early hours of the morning, thousands of missiles were shot into Israeli territory. In addition to the air assault, militants made their way through Gaza-Israel barriers and proceeded to attack, kidnap and kill. Let us be blunt in order to ensure awareness of what exactly happened…

Hamas took videos documenting their actions. They took videos of beaten, naked women. Kidnapped children. Beheaded soldiers. There are numerous reports of rape — young women raped right next to the dead bodies of their friends. There were rampant murders and mutilations. And sometimes accompanying the harrowing videos, there are lengthy laughs from Hamas members, abundantly gleeful of their own activity.

Hence, let us again be clear. Hamas is a terrorist organization. It was declared a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Dept. on Oct. 8, 1997. It had published its charter 9 years earlier, in which it called for the complete destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic society in Palestine. Note: while all of Hamas is Palestinian, not all Palestinians are aligned with Hamas. Palestine is not a terrorist group. Hamas is.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is complicated. It’s indeed one of the world’s longest-running disputes. The origin of the conflict (which if interested, deserves detailed reading in regard to a long list of acts of war and attempts at peace since Israel’s establishment of statehood in 1948), focuses primarily on the pitting of Israel’s demands for national security vs. the Palestinians’ aspirations for their own state. As reported by Reuters, a typically trusted, less-biased news source, the main Israeli-Palestinian issues are a two-state solution, Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and how to handle millions of Palestinian refugees, who are said to wish to return to the area.

All that to say is that it’s complicated. It’s a tough issue. And for 7 decades, it’s been challenging to navigate, much less solve.

No matter the complexity, let’s continue to be clear.

What happened Saturday is no justification for “both-sides-ism.” This is not about being fair and balanced. This is not about examining what each did leading up to that fateful day; we recognize that both nations have contributed to conflict. However, there is simply zero justification for terrorism. Absolutely never. 

(If you can stomach it, feel free to watch the videos. I repeat: “absolutely never.”)

I have appreciated Pres. Joe Biden’s strong statements since the attack. He acknowledged the attack as a day when “pure, unadulterated evil is unleashed on this world.” I have appreciated his affirmation of Israeli support and condemnation of the Hamas attack.

I have appreciated the solid, diverse, mostly united U.S. leadership, as represented by the 392 House of Representatives members who on Tuesday introduced a bipartisan resolution “standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists.”

I have appreciated the universal condemnation of antisemitism. 

With all due respect, I do not appreciate the manipulation of news, as grossly evident, for example, by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (and others) who’ve instructed their journalists to refrain from using the word “terrorist” in their reporting.

I do not appreciate the calls for an immediate ceasefire, demanding Israel not respond to the countless innocent who lost their lives.

And I do not appreciate those who boldly proclaim they “stand with Palestine.” Standing with Palestine is one thing. If averred in response to Saturday, that equates to standing for terrorism.

As we move forward, there are deep concerns… What happens next? Who joins in? How is Iran involved? What/if any did they finance or plan?… The $6 billion in Iranian funds that the U.S. unfroze in a September U.S.-Iran prisoner swap feels far more than fishy now.

So many questions. So many concerns going forward. It is sobering indeed.

But there are zero questions as to whether it was evil. 

God be with us. Let us be clear.

Respectfully…

AR

[Note: we will soon have something to say about the horror that’s happening in Israel. In the meantime, this is the best editorial that got our attention, about what’s going on and why it’s so atrociously significant. It’s from independent journalist Noah Pollak in the highly respected “The Free Press.” See https://www.thefp.com, “Today Is Israel’s 9/11.”]

Oh, aren’t we dysfunctional? To be clear, allow us to define the oft used term:

dysfunctional — adj.  [ dis-fuhngk-shuh-nl ] — not performing normally, as an organ or structure of the body; malfunctioning.

Allow us to rinse and repeat. To be dysfunctional means not performing normally — malfunctioning. In other words, not working. Friends, our government is not working.

In my recent jaunt out of the country, one of the many things I found fascinating was those who pay attention to our country and culture — including the current state of political affairs — and those whose attention is accompanied by the question of preposterousness — something along the lines of “why do you elect those that you do?” 

It wasn’t relegated to Democrats or Republicans; it was more a question directed to us voters. There were mentions of Biden, Trump and Harris to name the foremost few in their minds. And there was a clear contention that surely there are persons of indisputable competency and integrity who could better lead and serve us. Let me emphasize that they were not angry nor disrespectful in their questioning. They simply felt we as voters have made some poor choices in who we believe represent us wisely and well.

One of the ways such seems manifest is in our unfortunately robust inability to acknowledge who has a good idea…

Few will forget the chants in recent years to “build that wall!” Such was a signature policy of former Pres. Donald Trump, an approach believed necessary by his administration to help curb the challenges with illegal immigration.

It was controversial to some. In fact, when Pres. Joe Biden was inaugurated in 2021, one of his initial actions was to issue a proclamation pledging that “no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.”

But unlawful migration remains a problem. An increasing one, in fact. 

Let’s be sure to admit this is a sensitive and complex problem. As SMU Professor of Political Science James F. Hollifield, said: “For the last several years, the United States has been gripped in a sharp debate over the flow of immigrants into the United States. The fierce exchanges include squabbles over issues like what to do with a large population of unauthorized immigrants and how to manage refugee flows. And the debate comes complete with political landmines that make it difficult to modernize immigration systems to meet the needs of the times.”

Trump’s blunt approach was to build the wall. Biden’s blunt approach has been not to. The reality is the problem hasn’t been solved; it’s only gotten worse; and certain cities are becoming saturated. As The Washington Post and others reported this week, there is a record influx of families, and “the border plan President Biden put in place months ago is at risk of collapse amid a new wave of illegal crossings,” intensifying strains on the U.S. economy.

As governors around the country — Democrats and Republicans alike — attempt to deal with the escalating issue in their state, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker pleaded with the President to help in a public letter last week. Noting that nearly 1200 new migrants come to Chicago daily, Pritzker wrote that “the humanitarian crisis is overwhelming our ability to provide aid to the refugee population.” He’s not alone. New York City Mayor Eric Adams said last week that “the migrant crisis will destroy my city.” He added, “Let me tell you something, New Yorkers. Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City.” The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are calling on the federal government to do more in regard to border security. And so more they decided to do…

This past week the Biden administration made a seemingly stunning change. At least their initial response looked, smelled and quacked that way (sorry; the duck metaphor is just too good). They decided to construct a new, 20-mile border wall in Starr County, Texas, a high-trafficked area; they waived 26 federal laws regulating new construction in order to do so expeditiously. Said Dept. of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, “There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas.” 

Yet when Pres. Biden was later asked about his approach change — and specifically as to whether he now believes walls work, he offered a very direct “no.” He insisted that the only reason they are building the wall is because he had no choice. Congress appropriated the funds years ago, so he had to follow through. He had to waive the law.  

Some days I wish politicians of all parties would just be honest. (Actually, make that many days.) Tell us what’s a factor. Tell us what’s not. Tell us, too, when you change your mind. That’s ok! But quit trying to manipulate the narrative so it looks like people, polling or politics were never in play. Quit acting as if you can’t acknowledge that a person from another party has a good idea. If we want to quit malfunctioning, we can start by acknowledging the good ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. 

Increasingly more, I understand my foreign friends’ question of preposterousness.

Respectfully…

AR

“You want me to eat that?!”

Sorry, it was green and sloppy. Kind of totally mushy and a wee bit dripping. 

Callaloo. That’s what they called it. It’s a vibrant, green leafy plant with supposedly so many good things in it for you. You stew it or steam it or even whip up some kind of creative salad. It’s a staple in Caribbean countries. In Grenada, where I spent last weekend, it’s a common popular side. Think kale or collard greens with a southern flare.

There’s only one problem — good for me, as it must be — I don’t eat much that’s green and mushy. And if I’m honest, it really has nothing to do with the flavor; it’s not that bad; it’s kind of tasty. But it’s a texture issue for me. Years ago, I made kind of an internal personal mantra that I would never eat something green, unless I was able to clearly stab it with a fork.

And let’s not even address that which is mushy or moist.

But alas, we digress. Let me slightly share about Grenada. If you fly down the Caribbean curve, it’s pretty much the last large island before you hit Venezuela. Perhaps the more technically correct way to say it, is that it’s the southernmost island in the Antilles archipelago, bordering the eastern Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. From my house, it’s approximately 1,702 miles away (not that I Googled it or anything).

It’s known as the “Spice Island,” known for its nutmeg, cinnamon, turmeric and more. Cocoa, fish and fruit are additional exports (check out the golden apple and soursop).

It’s also known for its waterfalls and even an active volcano (Kick ’em Jenny!). How wild it was to walk alongside, still (thankfully) at the moment.

But for me it’s not known for any cinnamon nor spice. While beautiful— coastlines, beaches and more — for me the greatest beauty is found in something more.

Oh, how I love the people!

It’s amazing how dear our friendship has become…

We’re from different places.

We’ve been raised maybe a little differently.

Our cultures are different.

It would make sense that from different places, raised a little differently, from different cultures, we would look at some things differently. We would believe some things differently… we’d have some different convictions.

So why does it work? How can it really be so dear?

Because we focus on two things…

One, we know we were each created by the great big God of the universe.

And two, we know one of the key ways we love Him back is by loving one another well.

We pay too much attention to differences, friends.

We justify allowing lesser things to get in the way.

Ok, I’ll try it… no matter the mushy…

Please pass the fork.

Respectfully…

AR

Friends, I’m sorry. I think we’ve made a mistake. As we watched a few more news sources fall prey to the skewed idea last week that presenting more than one angle of an issue is no longer necessary nor good (while simultaneously suggesting all reporting on any incumbent being too old to run again immediately cease), I think the mistake made is that we sometimes suggest we should be tuning into non-biased sources. That’s not necessarily true.

That point was brought home for me not via CNN nor FOX nor even MSNBC. That point rang clunkily true during ESPN’s College GameDay, one of my family’s favorite fall pastimes. 

On Saturdays we tend to sit a little longer, take in a game, and pay attention to what’s happening on the college gridiron. Last weekend at day’s end, I noticed top billing/more attention paid to a few select games. What did they have in common?

In each scenario, at least one team was a member of the SEC, the NCAA’s Southeastern Conference, a notable powerhouse of collegiate athletics. While prominent, what’s also true is that there exist multiple other powerhouses deserving of our attention, such as the Big Ten and ACC (and well, the Big 12 and very-deleted PAC 3 or 4). ESPN just seemed to pay the most attention and be the most excited about the SEC.

There’s nothing wrong with that.

But why would we mention GameDay when speaking of bias?

Great question. Guess who owns the SEC Network.

Yes, ESPN. It benefits ESPN’s bottom line if they report on the SEC in a favorable, more exciting way, so that more viewers tune into their other-owned network. 

Friends, let me be clear. It’s ok and even a wise practice to tune into biased sources. Says one of our fave sources in AllSides: “Center doesn’t mean better! A Center media bias rating does not mean the source is neutral, unbiased, or reasonable, just as Left and Right do not necessarily mean the source is extreme, wrong, or unreasonable. A Center bias rating simply means the source or writer rated does not predictably publish content that tilts toward either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. A media outlet with a Center rating may omit important perspectives, or run individual articles that display bias, while not displaying a predictable bias. Center outlets can be difficult to determine, and there is rarely a perfect Center outlet: some of our outlets rated Center can be better thought of as Center-Left or Center-Right, something we clarify on individual source pages.

While it may be easy to think that we should only consume media from Center outlets, AllSides believes reading in the Center is not the answer. By reading only Center outlets, we may still encounter bias and omission of important issues and perspectives. For this reason, it is important to consume a balanced news diet across the political spectrum, and to read horizontally across the bias chart.”

Balance is more important than bias… a balanced news diet, a balanced sports diet. It’s thus ok to tune into ESPN; it’s simply wise to know the bias.

Hence, let’s provide an updated chart from AllSides. Are you aware of what you’re watching?

We’re in this together, friends.

Let’s be discerning conveyors of news…

Well… and sports, too.

Respectfully…

AR

Pew Research Center released the following findings this past week. I wish we could say we were surprised…

Americans have long been critical of politicians and skeptical of the federal government. But today, Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon.

Majorities say the political process is dominated by special interests, flooded with campaign cash and mired in partisan warfare. Elected officials are widely viewed as self-serving and ineffective.

A comprehensive new Pew Research Center study of the state of the nation’s politics finds no single focal point for the public’s dissatisfaction. There is widespread criticism of the three branches of government, both political parties, as well as political leaders and candidates for office.  

Notably, Americans’ unhappiness with politics comes at a time of historically high levels of voter turnout in national elections. The elections of 2018, 2020 and 2022 were three of the highest-turnout U.S. elections of their respective types in decades.

But voting in elections is very different from being satisfied with the state of politics – and the public is deeply dissatisfied.

For example… 

Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% say it is working somewhat well. About six-in-ten (63%) express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system…

A growing share of the public dislikes both political parties. Nearly three-in-ten (28%) express unfavorable views of both parties, the highest share in three decades of polling. And a comparable share of adults (25%) do not feel well-represented by either party.

There’s more…

The survey also provides people several opportunities to describe in their own words their feelings about the political system and elected officials. When asked to sum up their feelings about politics in a word or phrase, very few (2%) use positive terms; 79% use negative or critical words, with “divisive” and “corrupt” coming up most frequently.

The stated strengths are interesting… that is, if they could state them…

We also asked people to identify the strengths of the political system, as well as its weaknesses. Among the positive responses, roughly one-in-ten point to the structures of U.S. government, including its system of checks and balances (12%), freedoms and democratic values (9%) and the opportunity to vote in elections (8%).

Yet it is telling that a majority of Americans are unable or unwilling to identify strong points of the nation’s political system. While about a third gave no answer, another 22% write “nothing” – meaning that in their view, the political system does not have any strengths.

So truth be told, we’re pretty unified…

These views and other negative sentiments are widely shared among older and younger Americans, White, Black, Hispanic and Asian adults, people who are highly engaged in politics and those who are less engaged. And in most cases, the partisan differences in these attitudes are relatively modest.

Let me say that again for emphasis: “the partisan differences in these attitudes are relatively modest.” We continue…

In an era defined by partisan polarization, the parties share little common ground politically. But they do share a deep unhappiness with the current state of politics.

We hear the unhappiness. We hear many, too, suggest that “democracy is on the ballot” or we need to “save democracy,” but yet, that’s typically a single party person suggesting their party is the only one that can do the saving.

My strong sense is that’s a fairly pompous, convenient perch. It also is entirely unaware of how the public increasingly feels about both parties.

Dare we say it… to the elect and more: Learn to work together. Learn to love all people.

Respectfully…

AR

So if automotive manufacturing workers are striking — and I’m not an automotive manufacturing worker — should I care?

Excellent question. Let’s get to that question shortly.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) has decreased in size over the years, now a union with more retirees (580,000) than active members (400,000), residing in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico. They went on strike well over a week ago. They are striking against the “Detroit Three,” which is comprised of GM, Ford and Stellantis (the latter of which is the Fiat-Chrysler merger). 

Taking zero sides, let’s acknowledge the dispute. Note the list of demands the union leader revealed several weeks ago. The following are included (accompanied by some added insight or information): 

◾ Eliminating wage tiers. (The Big Three employ a two-tiered wage structure in which those who joined the company in 2007 or earlier, are grandfathered in, earning a rough average of $33 per hour plus have defined benefit pensions; those hired thereafter are the lower tier, earning significantly less, ineligible for the pension, and less generous healthcare).  

◾ A 46% wage increase over the life of the contract —21% immediately and then a 5% additional raise each year of the four year contract. (Stellantis offered a 21% wage increase with 10% immediately; the union summarily rejected that offer, calling the number a “no-go.”)

◾ Restoring the cost-of-living allowance adjustments to counteract inflation. (These were discontinued in 2007 when GM and Chrysler were rapidly moving toward bankruptcy and a federal bailout; CNN Business said for GM alone, taxpayers were out more than $10 billion.)

◾ Defined benefit pension for all workers. (This, too, was eliminated for new hires when bankruptcy and bailouts were imminent. Now that bankruptcy is not imminent and the companies are making significant profit, the union wants pensions back. A great question to discern is what role — if any — the collective pensions played in the bankruptcy and bailouts.)

◾ The right to strike over plant closures. (According to the UAW website, “The Big Three have closed 65 plants over the last 20 years. That’s devastated our hometowns. We must have the right to defend our communities.” Another excellent economic question would be who gets to choose whether a plant closes.)

◾ A reduced work week and more paid time off. (The union wants a four-day, 32 hour workweek.)

◾ Limiting the use of temporary workers. (The union labels this as unfair treatment or potential abuse. Also a factor is that in said situation there would be no opportunity for increased union membership.)

◾ Increased benefits to current retirees. (The UAW wants back the guaranteed lifetime pension payments and retiree medical care they gave up during the 2008 automotive industry crisis, in addition to a significant increase to current retiree pensions. Note the current makeup of the union, with 59.2% of current members being retirees.)

So back to the aforementioned, excellent question — and a brief foray into the question of care…

An auto workers strike means fewer laborers. Fewer laborers means fewer cars. Fewer cars means a decreased national supply. Assuming comparable demand, a decreased supply means an increase in cost once current inventory leaves the lot. Note, too, if there’s any surge in panic purchases — meaning consumers believe there will soon be a shortage, so they rush en masse to the dealer — such would also drive up demand. Driving up demand on a limited supply will also prompt an increase, potentially instantaneously.

We don’t want that to happen.  We want the workers working. Hence, why not just pay the workers more? 

Indeed, another excellent question. Let’s be even more concise in our response… well, with one more question, if you will..

If the workers are paid substantially more — 46% — and work fewer hours — 32 — (and please, allow me to toss a bit of a softball question here) — what would you predict happens to the cost of a new car?

Exactly.

Not an easy solve. 

Respectfully…

AR

“We all have blind spots in our knowledge and opinions. The bad news is that they can leave us blind to our blindness, which gives us false confidence in our judgment and prevents us from rethinking. The good news is that with the right kind of confidence, we can learn to see ourselves more clearly and update our views. In driver’s training we were taught to identify our visual blind spots and eliminate them with the help of mirrors and sensors. In life, since our minds don’t come equipped with those tools, we need to learn to recognize our cognitive blind spots and revise our thinking accordingly.” ― Adam M. Grant in “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know”

One of the challenges of current day culture is the ease we feel in identifying the blindspots of other people while simultaneously being comfortably oblivious of our own. 

A blindspot, put as simply as possible, is an area unable to be seen.

The inconvenient truth is that we all have them. Even though, yes, oft comfortably oblivious. 

I appreciated the written words last week by self-described progressive, Nicholas Kristof. Kristof is an influential columnist for The New York Times, a frequent CNN contributor, and a one-time, would-be, Oregon gubernatorial candidate. He typically articulates his opinions respectfully.

Last week Kristof wrote a column last about poverty and inequality — two issues he is notably passionate about. The column was entitled “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore.” Let us not fall prey to throwing stones in regard to who ignores what; let’s examine Kristof’s main point: “We can’t have a serious conversation about poverty and inequality without contemplating the breakdown of marriage and family.”

The breakdown is the blindspot.

“We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.”

Substantiating his point, Kristof continued: “It’s an issue largely for working-class Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, albeit most prevalent among African Americans. But just as you can’t have a serious conversation about poverty without discussing race, you also can’t engage unless you consider single-parent households… Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families. Children in single-mother homes are less likely to graduate from high school or earn a college degree. They are more likely to become single parents themselves, perpetuating the cycle.”

Citing the research of University of Maryland economist Melissa Kearney, Kristof averred, “Two-parent families are beneficial for children. Places that have more two-parent families have higher rates of upward mobility. Not talking about these facts is counterproductive.”

Friends, let there be no judgment for the ones who circumstances are different than the two-parent traditional household. None whatsoever. Some of my hardest-working, most diligent friends are single moms. Without a doubt, such person’s families can still thrive and survive. The data simply shows the clear benefit of the family staying in tact. My primary point today is that marriage and family matter. Significantly.

My secondary point is the acknowledgement of blindspot — how there are things we simply can’t see. Again, no need to pick on progressives; conservatives too comfortably take their routine turn. The blindspot cited by Kristof is the unwillingness to even acknowledge the impact the breakdown of family has on poverty and inequality. “Even today there is a deep discomfort in liberal circles about acknowledging these realities.” Kristof then references an upcoming report by the Institute for Family Studies noting that “only 30 percent of college-educated liberals agree” that children are better off having married parents.

We all have blindspots, friends… areas that we simply cannot see. Hence, perhaps the bigger question is: why?

What blinds us?

Our passion? Conviction? What is it?

And why do we ignore what’s true? How is it that we don’t even know we’re ignoring it?

Three years ago Kristof penned a different piece, albeit also about watching our blindspots. Near the end of his submission, he wrote this: “As a liberal, I mostly write about conservative blind spots. But on the left as well as the right, we can get so caught up in our narratives that we lose perspective; nobody has a monopoly on truth.”

That’s the challenge; is it not?

Our blindspots diminish the validity of our perspective. We then miss what may be true.

Respectfully…

AR