wanna fight?

photo-1470936972859-25f4c18b7479

What should we fight about?

C’mon… what should it be?

Cubs/Indians? Indians/Cubs? (… although for the time being, that’s already been decided… Congratulations, Cubs’ fans…)

How about Clinton/Trump? Or Trump/Clinton?

Or how about how one has so much more integrity than the other?

Friends, stop. Could we agree to quit fighting? Because if we can’t agree — and if we can’t agree to respect the person who thinks differently than we do — what do you think is going to happen next Wednesday — when the vote is done? Do we honestly expect the outcome to silence all dissent? Should it? Should we actually rationalize not listening to another?

By this point, most people seem to have made up their mind (… well, not this semi-humble current events observer — but I do have until Tuesday…). Each person’s vote is valid, no less. Each person’s…

Because each person’s vote is valid, we face disagreement. Unfortunately, many of us then also face fierce attempts to silence us or shut up. Let’s be clear: those attempts don’t further dialogue; they don’t build solution; they are not wise or respectful; and by no means do they equate to loving your neighbor well.

For those who are voting based on party platform, policy, or potential Supreme Court justices, the vote is clear. May they exercise their right to vote and sleep well on Tuesday night. For those whose vote is based on character or the perceived integrity of the candidates, the choice is more ambiguous. Note the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday morning; 60% of voters view Hillary Clinton unfavorably; 58% see the same in Donald Trump. We are bothered; there are good people who are seriously, soberly bothered by the thought of a President Trump — or —  of another President Clinton.

We are bothered by the so-called “October surprises” — these incidents and events that are announced or occur in the month before the election, often making one candidate look especially bad… like George W. Bush’s announced DUI (that happened 24 years earlier)… like Pres. William Howard Taft’s 1912 reelection ticket, when his Vice Presidential candidate died one week prior to the election… or like in 1840, when federal prosecutors charged “big Whigs” opposing Pres. Martin Van Buren with fraud in the preceding weeks.

This year, we’ve been “surprised” by Donald Trump’s 2005 crude comments about women and Hillary Clinton’s ongoing, criminal email investigation. We hear more claims that we can’t tell if they are true or untrue from WikiLeaks. Again, good people are bothered. Different things bother different people, but the bottom line (from my very limited vantage point) is something along the lines of: ugh… the perceived lack of integrity is dripping.

Yet here’s the inherent challenge. One of the above two candidates — barring something unforeseen — will become the nation’s 45th President. While no candidate has an unblemished ethical record, most of us will still choose to vote for one of the above. In other words, most of us will choose to vote for someone — whether we personally hold the same belief or not — whose integrity is in question by unprecedented multitudes.

And so here is my plea…

Remembering that each is perceived as something less than ethical, let us stop fighting and refrain from judgment.

Just like the Indians and Cubs, there is a time to stop fighting, shake hands, and congratulate the other.

Can we do that?

Can we further dialogue, build solution, be respectful, and truly love our neighbor well?

I know it’s hard… even among good people.

Respectfully…
AR

let’s be real. can we?

photo-1473952434042-a59f293c13f5

Let’s cut out the crud. Let’s remove for a moment all expression of passion and perspective that sometimes impedes respectful dialogue and communication. Please hear me… I am not in any way denying the validity of your passion or perspective. I’m not denying mine either. What I am saying, however, is that sometimes the way we express how we feel gets in the way of others hearing us clearly. Believe me, if I feel something deeply, I want others to be able to hear me. I’m not out to merely affirm the likeminded.

So let’s be real. Let’s pause for a moment. Let’s come and reason together. Can we?

This election cycle has been trying. It started a long, long time ago, in sometimes seemingly a galaxy far, far away. We began with two first-name-only candidates on the left, and about 37 would-be candidates on the right. In fact, part of me wonders if our current scenario would be different if the left didn’t feel like a coronation and the right didn’t feel like a dogfight. But alas, I digress. This is the situation we are in, and I intend for us to navigate through it humbly, wisely, and well.

The situation, as I see it — and friends, I could be wrong — but I see the American people having a choice primarily between two unpopular people. We are gauging who is the least unpopular.

I hear you. There are good people arriving from all angles who love “their person”… Hillary Clinton… Donald Trump… even, for some, Gary Johnson, and for fewer still, Jill Stein. That is ok. I have complete respect for any who are passionate about the above. Unlike many, I don’t believe that all or most of any of the above’s supporters are ignorant, illiterate, racist, sexist, unpatriotic, or deplorable. I realize that’s not a popular thought. I also believe that to ascertain such about entire people groups is unfortunately a form of judgment.

But just to make sure I’m being real with you, I don’t have “a person,” so-to-speak; I don’t have a candidate that I am completely comfortable with as President, considering past behavior, current assertions, and all the consistent inconsistencies. Sadly but sincerely, my current, desired choice is thus “none of the above.” My challenge is that “none of the above” isn’t actually running. But I believe in voting — and so I will — but I’m not looking forward to it.

And so I come to the conclusion that prompts my plea to be real. Join me. Agree for a moment to put away the rhetoric and rants. Here’s the fact: assuming no unforeseen circumstance, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will soon become the President of the United States of America. One of them will be inaugurated at noon on January 20, 2017.

For the record, regardless of victor, I will not be moving to Canada along with the every-four-year entourage that threatens such a ploy. No matter my comfort level or desire, either Clinton or Trump will be my President. And here’s the unconventional kicker: I have great peace with that. As a person who cares for neither, I have peace with either.

My peace does not come because deep down I believe that either Clinton or Trump is “not all that bad.” No, with hesitation that this, too, may seem judgmental, I do believe that both candidates are significantly, ethically compromised. I know people would like to have me rail on Trump’s nothing less than misogynist comments, Bill’s rampant infidelity and treatment of women, and Hillary’s handfuls of lies and chastising those women — and truthfully, it’s all relevant — that’s what compromises each of them. My peace, though, truly, comes from elsewhere.

I believe in a sovereign God. I believe in an omnipotent, divine Being that is totally aware of all that’s going on. I don’t like all that’s going on and I certainly don’t understand it all, but my lack of comprehension does not change who God is. For whatever reason, God has allowed this current scenario to exist. He is not surprised by the evolution and awfulness of this election cycle. He is not surprised by how we’ve gone after one another on Facebook and social media. He is not surprised.

And so I must ask what he wants us to learn…

Is he giving us opportunity to learn to scream and shout and shove our opinions down one another’s throat? Is he teaching us how to point out the glaring lack of integrity in someone else without first wrestling with it in ourselves? Is he hoping to divide us more and even justify the rants, raves, and disrespectful name-calling?

Doubtful. My sense is he always desires from us something better and more. I’m just afraid we’re missing it.

Maybe he wants us to look at things in a new way. Maybe he wants to confront us with our own arrogance and judgment. Maybe he wants us to think outside the box. Maybe he desires we come back to our first loves. Maybe even, as a nation, he wants us to finally focus on what’s most important and get off our political high horses. All those “maybe’s,” all that wrestling… well, it can be unsettling indeed.

So why then do I have peace?

Because regardless of what we do or how we act — regardless of all the “maybe’s” — God remains unsurprised. My trust is in him. Not in anyone running for President.

Respectfully…
AR

angry birds

photo-1446968947689-1929d80e2348

First it was the pigs’ fortresses. Birds of a feather were slung into the dwellings of pigs, smashing and breaking them down. Through rocks, wood, mountains and ice, the fowl flew through previously thought-to-be, nothing short of impenetrable obstacles.

Why? Because the birds were “angry.”

First released in late 2009, “Angry Birds” became a bit of an Apple app phenomenon. There have since been 13 editions of the game and 3 more spin-offs. “Angry Birds” exists in various “Seasons,” “Space,” and even in “Transformers” and “Star Wars.”

These angry animals are so contagiously popular, it was reported last summer that the games had now been downloaded more than three billion times, making it the most downloaded “freemium” game series of all time. (Note: “freemium” equates to a pricing strategy by which a product or service is provided free of charge, but money — aka a “premium” — is charged for proprietary features.) “Angry Birds” is undoubtedly one of the most popular, mainstream video applications… ever.

Again… it’s all because the birds are “angry.” So does anger break through obstacles? Does anger fix things or make them somehow better?

Ironically, angry is an adjective frequently used by the NY Times, LA Times, Dallas Morning News, Yahoo, Mother Jones and more, to describe the current election cycle. As respected, former CNN senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, poignantly said, “Electability, schmelectability: It’s the year of the angry, angry voter.” They say this is the so-called “year of the angry voter.”

I doubt, however, we’re all angry about the same things. Watch a Tea Party rally; watch the Black Lives Matter movement; watch “Occupy” anything. While they don’t all agree, anger seems more prevalent than any empathy or compassion ever expressed — especially for other people.

The “year of the angry voter,” therefore, arguably serves as the reason why Donald Trump is the last (reportedly) Republican candidate standing and Bernie Sanders continues to beat Hillary Clinton in statewide primaries. Trump and Sanders are tapping into it… “Until we fix it [the country],” said Trump, “I’m very, very angry.” According to Sanders, “I am angry. The American people are angry.” Yes, they are tapping into an anger, desiring to break through the obstacles that established politicians have enshrined for decades.

My sense is that the American public is weary of politicians pushing their own agendas… politicians seemingly lecturing the rest of us… politicians who represent a minimum number of constituents… and politicians routinely labeling others, shaming them, and pharisaically sharing how they are so divinely different. Oh, they are a not so humble few. Oh, that makes me angry.

As one who has been intentional in channeling anger into more productive avenues (although admittedly, not always successful), the words of author Matt Towery resonate with me… “This year has been described as the year of ‘the angry voter.’ The term ‘angry voter’ has always been used by the media to subtly suggest an image of crazed extremists.

I would submit that this is not the year of the angry voter.

I would argue that this is the year of the ‘I’m finished’ voter. I think that many voters feel about these elections as I feel about writing this column each week. They have watched so many politicians promise so much and deliver so little that they are finished with them. I know I’ve written about so many issues and political leaders for so long that I am as confused and frustrated as voters are.”

Yes, “finished”… that’s a better word.

In 10 days or so, no less, the American public will be subject to the one and only, “The Angry Birds Movie.” This anger is contagious.

According to initial plot summaries, one of our feathered friends, who used to be known as “a reclusive, cruel violent but grumpy red bird outcast prone to hissy fits,” is supposedly now reformed. We’ll see. The reform remains in question.

So — dare I say — do many of our votes in the fall of the year.

Respectfully…
AR

more than half the people

photo-1458681708599-e0be9ce54707

Ah, again today there’s a vote — a vote before the vote as to whom will lead us next.

Funny… ok, so maybe not… but I keep hearing all these slants and shared perspectives on the current election cycle. Typically, it primarily equates to criticism of one side only, simultaneously ignoring the glaring discrepancies and questions on the side of the sharer. In fact, I keep hearing comments about people being “angry” or “the year of the angry voter.” I’ve noticed that some talk only about anger on one side of the aisle, yet my common sense stab suggests the anger exists across multiple aisles; otherwise there would likely be no rise to either a Sanders or Trump.

I hear significant dissatisfaction — minimal enthusiasm. How many times have we each viewed a meme, articulating something along the lines of “tell me… is there someone else I can vote for? … please??”

Again, the dissatisfaction is across all aisles.

So I sit here pondering the cause and effect. The effect seems the aforementioned anger and dissatisfaction. The cause, it seems, lies in the behavior of those who’ve gone before this current slate of candidates.

I’m wondering if there is a prevalent feeling that a majority of those who’ve served via elected office in recent decades have mixed up public and self service; they’re so entwined that people can’t seem to discern the difference. We’ve seen far too many seem to rhetorically suggest that they are somehow “God’s gift” to us. Sorry, but none who believe they are “God’s gift” would seem to comprehend the humility necessary in the position God has allowed them to hold.

I wonder if we’ve been worn down by the promises of those who’ve gone before. The elect seem to often void their campaign promises as soon as sworn in… Did they not mean what they said? Did they say what they meant? Are they unable to do what they said? Or did they just make certain, pleasing promises in order to increase the likelihood of election?

There also seems this unfortunate impression in too many of the elect that they don’t truly care about their constituents. Wait. I’ll re-phrase: the elect only care for about half of their constituents.

Since when has it been considered wise policy making to enact sweeping decisions that only half of the people support? Are all the other people simply wrong? Shouldn’t the fact that so many issues are so divided prompt us to find a solution that accounts for both opinions — instead of pushing solely one opinion through no matter the size of the opposition? I must admit, I have gotten a little tired of the rhetorical justification that it’s “the right thing to do” when a significant half exists that disagrees with such specific, sweeping policy. People can disagree; and their opinion matters.

What that says to this semi-humble observer, is that such an elected office holder is only good at listening to half the people. Listening to half does not equate to listening well.

When the elect do not listen well, many — on all sides of the aisles — become angry or dissatisfied. Such gives credence to the obvious lack of enthusiasm for the current, so-called “establishment” candidates… and such gives rise to the atypical candidates, such as either Sanders or Trump.

Funny, but some seem to only understand the popularity of Sanders but not Trump; others seem to only understand the popularity of Trump but not Sanders. I suggest their waves of popularity — however long they last — are born from the same circumstance. Too many who’ve gone before have failed to lead us well.

What does it mean to lead well? To be humble… to be solid morally and ethically… to be honest… and to consistently listen to far more than half the people.

Respectfully…
AR

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

 

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

we the people

irish-handsAs we watch the current debating and berating — with many of us bugged or baffled by this odd election cycle — a wise friend pointed to me to this… a thought-provoking blog from Matt Walsh, a man who identifies himself as “a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.” In his latest stab at truth saying, he suggests that “America Is Falling Apart And It’s Your [our] Fault.” Ponder the following, little-longer-than-usual, brash but insightful excerpt:

“When deciding who to blame for the current state of affairs in our country, we always run through a familiar list of shadowy villains: the ‘system,’ the ‘establishment,’ politicians, lobbyists, the schools, the media, etc. These are fine suspects in their own right, but I find it ridiculous that, somehow, we skip right over the first and most dastardly culprit: ourselves.

We never blame us, do we? We always get off the hook. All of the misery and misfortune in our culture have been hoist upon us from Washington, D.C. and Hollywood and Ivory Towers, and none of it from us, we claim. We’re victims. We had no say in any of this at all, according to us. Well, at the risk of alienating literally every single person reading this, I’d like to suggest that you are an adult and a voter, and this is your fault. And mine. And your mother’s. And your neighbor Jim’s. And all of our accomplices who generally make up the club known as ‘We The People.’

Here’s what I know: If you and me and your mother and your neighbor Jim and the rest of them were prudent, rational, resolute, wise, well-read, morally courageous and intellectually engaged, we wouldn’t be in this fix. What’s more, we wouldn’t have the same sort of politicians because we wouldn’t vote for those sorts of politicians, and we wouldn’t have the same sort of media because we wouldn’t watch that sort of media. Right on down the line like dominoes, everything would change if we changed. Everything.

But there is no accountability. We all say we want accountability, but what we really mean is we want everyone else to be accountable. Very few people will actually hold themselves accountable for anything. Our Republic crumbles while we all sit around pretending we’re victims of a culture we’re actively creating and politicians we actively vote into office. We put torches to our own home and wonder why it’s on fire.

And then, surveying the destruction we wrought upon ourselves, we weep like damsels in distress, crying out for a white knight to save us. Inevitably, a charlatan in a suit of armor comes along and promises to do just that. We faint and fall into his arms, and he proceeds to immediately betray us. Then we weep again for another white knight to save us from the last one, and another comes along, and he betrays us, and we weep again, and another one comes, and so on and so on and so on and so on unto infinity.

In the midst of all of this, nobody ever says: ‘Hey American people, STOP IT YOU FOOLS.’ Instead, even the people who know better continue making patronizing excuses for us. They pontificate about how the ‘blue collar workers’ and the ‘middle class’ are feeling quite sad and angry at the moment, and we can’t very well be expected to take charge of our lives and make better decisions when we’re feeling this way. Nonsense. It’s all nonsense.

Any notion that we’re victims of some mysterious outside force rather than of ourselves should be laid to rest because of this election season. After everything we’ve been through as a nation, suffering the incompetence, corruptions, and failures of one ruling regime after another, look at what we’re doing when given the opportunity to go in a different direction: flocking to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
Some of us support other candidates, but, if polls are any indication, something close to a majority are threatening to vote for one of these three. We could well be looking at a Trump-Clinton or even Trump-Sanders showdown for president. And whose fault will that be?
Ours. Such an election would be a searing indictment not of Washington, D.C. or ‘the establishment’ or any other vague entity, but of us. We the people.

We vote for petty bullies, crooks, and charlatans. We vote for them. We select them. Our politics are a reflection of us. Just like the deterioration of the family, the divorce rate, fatherless homes, the moral bankruptcy of our culture, the decline of faith, collective apathy,  ignorance and intellectual laziness are manifestation of our choices, so is the political system. None of this was hoisted upon us by dark overlords or mystical sorcerers. We have made choices, we have done things, we have decided to be a certain way, and that way has proven poisonous to the future of our country…

Besides, what’s shallowly buried in this ‘don’t blame the voters who support bad candidates, blame the system’ stuff is the implication that, essentially, people are incontinent morons who cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Weak-kneed apologists who agree that Trump/Sanders/Clinton/whoever is atrocious but insist that their supporters can’t be criticized, are claiming to be smarter than those supporters. When they say, ‘Yes, I see that this candidate is an insidious despot but you can’t blame the people who don’t see it,’ what they’re really saying is, ‘Yes, I see that this candidate is an insidious despot but you can’t blame the people who don’t see it because they’re stupid.’

So while I’m accusing the American public of wreaking havoc upon their own country, I’m not actually the one insulting the public. I do not believe that people are, by and large, stupid. And if people are stupid, I don’t believe I’m among the small minority of smart people. My access to information and my capacity to understand that information is about on par with everyone else. Yet, while I must claim responsibility for my share of this country’s decline, I’m at least not intent on voting for a socialist, a reality TV game show host, or a criminal. Why is that? Do I have mental capabilities that exceed those who support these reprobates? No, I don’t think so.

If a lack of intelligence were at the core of our nation’s problems, it might be true that our dear leaders in government, media, and education are solely to blame because they’re the smart ones taking advantage of a bunch of drooling imbeciles. But I don’t believe that to be the case. I believe at the core of our nation’s problems — especially our electoral problems, but also everything beyond that — are a collection of common vices, not mental deficiencies: laziness, apathy, greed, pride, envy, hatred, etc.

Our sin is our undoing. I’m as irritated with ‘the establishment’ as you are — or at least I would be if I knew what that phrase meant — but ‘the establishment,’ whatever it is, isn’t responsible for your sloth and your selfishness. Although nobody will acknowledge it, there is indeed a profound selfishness in the person who interjects himself into the democratic process yet refuses to think deeply, evaluate all the evidence, listen to opposing arguments, and scrutinize the principles, character, and integrity of the candidate he supports. To plug your ears and put on your blinders and plunge determinedly into the voting booth, having spent months aggressively refusing to apply any serious and considered thought to your decision, is an act of supreme self-centeredness. Even more so in the case of the people who vote for the politicians who promise to give them money appropriated from their fellow citizens. That’s greed and self-indulgence, not mere gullibility. In fact, these people are anything but gullible. They know exactly what they’re doing.

Ignorance, especially, can no longer be the stock explanation. We all carry around little devices that grant us access to all of the information in the world. The sum total of human knowledge is contained tidily in our pockets. We may choose to use this godlike tool to watch porn and take pictures of our own faces, but the fact remains that none of us have an excuse to be ill-informed. We continue to make reckless and shortsighted decisions as voters not because we lack information, but because we’ve seen the information and don’t care, or perhaps because we don’t care about seeing the information. In both cases, again, the fault is ours and ours alone…

Our bad choices and our flaws and our sins have brought us here politically, culturally, and in every other sense. That’s the truth. So if you want things in this country to improve, stop whining about the system and look in the mirror. We aren’t the victims, we’re the cause. If America is ever going to be ‘Great Again,’ it has to start with a little personal accountability.”

[Truth?]

Respectfully…
AR

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