Donald Trump – intramuralist ™

10/11/201610/11/2016

let’s be real. can we?

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

09/27/201609/27/2016

debate numero uno

The following are realtime observations from last night’s debate from only a semi-humble, current events observer (sarcasm heartily included). Note that there was zero watching of pundits or reading of polls prior to posting…

Hmmm… I wonder if it will be more style than substance or substance than style tonight. I’d prefer the substance would be elevated; however, style makes for better TV… Speaking of TV… Clinton has more debate experience; Trump has more television experience. My sense is both are of value tonight.

I wonder if there will be any classic, future-frequently repeated lines… Reagan’s “there you go again” to then Pres. Carter… Veep candidate Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” to Dan Quayle… Or what about those seemingly timeless gestures? … Bush 41 checking his wristwatch… Al Gore’s infamous sigh…

Ok, here we go… Wait… there is something else to watch if we get bored, correct? Has Monday Night Football started? Oh, the Saints are playing… I do love Drew Brees, you know…

Introductions, obligatory handshakes, etc. Struck for a moment by the first woman ever to be in this position… and for a total outsider to be in this position. What history. It should not be missed on us. Our bias should not get in the way.

There she is. There he is. Virginia and Colorado are watching. Lots of incredibly close states. Personally, I think they both look great tonight. Lovin’ the red pant suit and the blue tie… (And yes, moderator Lester Holt has a great voice.)

“Why are you a better choice?” asks the moderator… Oh, please… no eye rolling by anyone… at least not this early in the debate. I actually believe in seriously considering you both. That doesn’t help.

‘I want to invest in you.’ Thank you, Hillary. ‘We have to expand new companies.’ Thanks, Donald. Safe early tag lines.

Why are they already interrupting? Don’t they know that not interrupting is Manners 101?

This just in from a friend: “Instead of everybody saying they are going to move to Canada, why don’t those two move to Canada and let’s just start over?”

Back to the questions… (Can we turn on the game yet??)

They smile and smirk when insulted. He looks angry… she looks annoyed. Just what I want in the leader of the free world…

“Bureaucratic red tape”… now that’s an obstacle we can agree on…

Tax returns, health records, and emails. Yes, ALL should be released. Both of you. Quit trying to make your opponent look worse when you’re doing the same thing in a different area.

“There’s something he’s hiding.” …Don’t you both owe us answers? Transparency? From a limited perspective, isn’t there information that you both have no desire for us to see?

How will he be on foreign policy? How will she be on trade? Can we tell with certainty?

It’s about time that this country has someone running who has some “idea about money.” Please tell me that’s all who are currently running for President (… sniff, sniff…).

Race is a significant issue in our country. We agree. As one wise friend texts in: “let’s hear solution! — not just more promises.” My heart hurts for what’s happening in Chicago, what’s happened in Ferguson, Dallas, etc. Both of you also speak of respecting law enforcement. Thank you.

Should “bad people” have guns? Is it ok for “good people” to have them? Great questions.

“We do always have to make sure we keep people safe.” Yes. Another amen.

And yes… we ALL need to be MUCH STRONGER on terrorism than we have been… PLEASE.

“I agree with you.” Could you two say that a little more often? We are Americans, after all.

“I think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it.” Isn’t that why both of you say half of the things you say? Isn’t that why so many of us sitting at home are deeply disappointed in our government? Why we have trouble trusting you?

Work with the faith and business communities… what a wonderful idea. Let’s use the resources provided, rather than continuing to fun government as the source of all charity.

People “are very very upset for what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.” Yep. Oooh… here come the zingers. By both. So presidential. Not.

On the “birther” controversy… they both (and their surrogates) have used this when politically expedient. Not the biggest issue.

Oh, the truth… I crave that. From both. Isn’t that the problem with these debates? The truth often seems secondary to political ploys, good-sounding sound bites, rhetoric, etc.

“We’re making progress” against ISIS. I pray to God this is true. Yes, it needs to be a top priority.

“How would you prevent homegrown (terrorist) attacks?” Thank you, Lester. I want to hear specific, actionable policy on this — not good-sounding rhetoric.

“Knock the hell out of ISIS.” I don’t swear much, but that idea sounds really, really great to me.

The singular greatest threat is nuclear armament. Scary. I think you both might agree. That might be scary, too.

Ooooh… looks like the gloves might have just come off. Again — by both — so not presidential.

Done. Sheewwww. Sigh. This is exhausting. Can someone finally turn on the game?

You mean we weren’t watching one?

Oh, wait… one more thought… Drew Brees. I love him. How’s he doing tonight? Is he free in November?

Respectfully…
AR

04/05/2016

more than half the people

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

01/28/201601/28/2016

fascinated

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

12/10/201512/10/2015

inconsistent hate speech

The story seemingly gaining greatest steam in the wake of ongoing atrocity is the perceived hate-filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I get it. He is a bold, straight-talker who says what he means and means what he says — sadly, unlike so many engaged in political narrative; the challenge is that some of what he says is ugly and disrespectful.

On one hand, so much of what Trump has said is not good nor true nor right; on the other hand (albeit a distinctly smaller hand at that), there is something refreshing about unfiltered straight talk.

Let us first be clear in regard to exactly the message that Trump has articulated that has currently dominated the news flow (yes, even more than Time’s interesting selection of Angela Merkel). After the San Bernardino killers’ identified connection to militant Islamic ideology, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S., a proposal the Wall Street Journal labeled as one “that taps into voter anxiety about the recent spate of terrorist attacks yet likely runs afoul of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

While his goal seems to be to eliminate the terrorist threat, few leaders of any partisan persuasion have embraced or endorsed Trump’s words. A resounding most have denounced his averred approach.

Trump proclaimed, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

I do appreciate recognition of the threat that adherence to militant Islamic ideology poses. The Intramuralist, for one, has been concerned about the unwillingness of some to specifically acknowledge the origin of the current terror, as it’s hard to root out the problem if one is unwilling to acknowledge what the problem actually is. Some (uh, not Trump) water the root down; some compare it to irrelevant organized religions; some make it about “extremism.” If we are going to solve the problem, then we must wrestle with the motive for this particular manifestation of extremism. Hence, while I will not affirm the use or encouragement of any hate speech, I will also not affirm the watering down of terror.

So about this hate speech — or shall we say — hateful, divisive speech…

Some words seem definitely hateful; some are more subjective; all is divisive. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seemingly addressed it well…

“Throughout our history you have had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues. This country faces some enormous problems… And somebody like a Trump is trying to divide us up… That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”

Ah, “divide us up.” Amen, Bernie… if only that kind of “crap” didn’t work; unfortunately, it’s already in play. Yes, too many, from too many supposed sides, already attempt to divide us up…

Trump advocated banning Muslims from America (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Hillary Clinton named Republicans as her number one “enemy” (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Then there are the examples of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut”… Obama senior advisor, John Podesta, calling the GOP “a cult worthy of Jonestown”… and Organizing for America, which actually compared Republicans to “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”…
Such an incomplete account still omits the plethora of bipartisan comparisons to Adolf Hitler… [Sigh…]

My point is that too many are too ok with division when it serves their purpose. Trump went too far; he forgets our commitment to being the land of the free and home of the brave. He, also, sadly joins the ranks of those who justify ostracizing an entire people group — when the entirety is undeserving but the rhetoric is self-serving. Such is intentional, divisive speech.

Divisive speech is common, deliberate, and disappointing. We are thus often inconsistent in our offense… and in our cheers.

Respectfully… always…
AR

08/30/201508/30/2015

the rise of trump

During our excellent, annual Guest Writer Series (a topic upon which I will soon more reflect), I made multiple observations. In all honesty, such is one of my favorite things to do — sit back, be silent, just watch and learn. Too many seem to fill their surrounding air time most with the sound of their own voice. It’s often far more fun (and uh, wise) to be intentional in our observations.

Hence, one of my observations comes in the political arena… yes, I speak of the controversial, mind-boggling, oft-fascinating, to-some-infuriating, at-times-funny, rise of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President of the United States in 2016.

Ok, first things first. Take a deep breath. Take off your partisan hats. This is not an endorsement nor any show of opposition or support. We are making observations. We are simply attempting to watch what’s happening and examine potentially why. There is very little emotion embedded in the process of making observations.

Over the past month, we have observed the following:

Donald Trump’s support increasing.
Hillary Clinton’s support decreasing.
Growing interest in candidates Carson, Fiorina, Kasich, and Sanders.

In a head-to-head match-up (which — by the way — is way too early), in June, Clinton held a 24% lead over Trump; now, it’s less than 6% (per CNN).

So back to our observations. Why the attraction to Trump? I understand that many of us are not attracted to him, but the reality is that many people are; that’s what I’m attempting to observe. Here is a man, with all due respect, who has made some preposterous statements. He has been rude. He has flip-flopped. He has evolved. Sometimes I question his comprehension of the Constitution. He comes off as incredibly arrogant, and without a doubt, he really seems to like the sound of his own voice. And yet, for some reason, he has been surging. The media has been eating it up. What is it about Donald Trump?

There is one trait Trump exhibits as a potential President, that this country has not seen consistently manifest for over two decades. Note the following:

While in the White House, Bill Clinton’s grand jury comments about his behavior with women damaged his credibility with many.
While in the White House, George W. Bush’s stated motives for pursuing Saddam Hussein damaged his credibility with many.
Still in the White House, Barack Obama’s multiple misstatements about ObamaCare damaged his credibility with many.

My point is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the motives of the man in the office, we have had valid reason to believe whether or not the sitting President of the United States was telling the truth. Are they being honest with us? Or are they assuming we are stupid and/or undiscerning of what they really think and mean?

Enter Hillary Clinton — a candidate with a reasonable resume to run for the highest office in the land; she has extensive political, legal, and foreign policy experience (although personally, I’m thinking we need fewer lawyers in the White House). But Hillary seems to struggle before cameras, press conferences, and large groups — especially when her notes are removed. She seems stiff — a little robotic; her answers seem proven and poll-tested. And on that whole, yukky, ongoing, emaily thing, she keeps hedging and contradicting herself. In other words, there’s a growing sense we are not getting the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth from her. I thus find myself always wondering if what candidate Clinton is saying has been filtered and edited, and if everyone on her campaign team has sat around and said, “Ok, good one; let’s go with that!” It just doesn’t feel authentic.

Why? Because authenticity means saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

We crave authenticity.

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump says some of the darnedest things. I don’t get how he does it. But he doesn’t need notes; he doesn’t need a TelePrompter; and his campaign staff hasn’t filtered everything he says. He at least appears to be authentic — even in his often rude, preposterous statements; we know what he means. From my initial observations, that authenticity seems a similar reason driving the growing interest in candidates Carson, Fiorina, Kasich, and Sanders. They may not be totally authentic, but there’s something in their individual speaking styles and interactions that’s attractive and refreshing to many.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Let the rest of us decide from there.

Respectfully…
AR