“Because to take away a man’s freedom of choice,
even his freedom to make the wrong choice,
is to manipulate him as though he were a puppet
and not a person.”

Madeline L’Engle

Society itself often acts in much the same way as the people it is composed of. People criticize each other by using adjectives such as “controlling” or “manipulative”, but truth be told it is pretty much basic human nature to try to control the world around us, along with the people in it, and to mold it according to our wishes. Existing at a higher level of our consciousness (or at least some of our consciousnesses) is the ethical consideration involved in coercing another human being to act in a way contrary to their own preferred convictions, and the imposition of our own will to dominate someone else’s. We have all been there, probably on both sides of the equation at one point or another. The parent who forgets that their child is an adult and entitled to make their own decisions, or the child who forgets that their parent was an adult before they were born. The husband who insults his wife to coerce her to lose weight, or the wife who nags her husband incessantly to get him to help her with the housework. The friend or coworker who somehow think they can run your life better than you yourself can. The situation becomes more complicated when the manipulator is right. Maybe that wife should lose a little weight. Certainly that husband should do his share of the housework. Possibly that adult child is making the mistake of a lifetime, or the elder parent is doing the same. Maybe that friend does know what you should do in that life situation. Certainly it is a good thing to talk, cajole, even argue in such situations, but at the point that we suppress free will; at the point we say I don’t care what you think, I will make you…; then we have turned the corner from being passionately helpful to being abusive. Free will is God’s gift to man, admittedly often to the detriment of both; but to take from a man that freedom is to rob the gift of God. Liberty is the extension of this freedom to society itself, and aside from the structure of laws implicit in the social contract, the use of force or manipulative tactics intended to coerce one segment of society to act in a way contrary to their preferences is the societal equivalent of the controlling spouse.

The way we settle differences in a civilized society is in the political arena. When President Obama was elected, and then re-elected, it was a crisis for us conservatives. We knew exactly what he stood for, and he did not fail to fulfill our expectations. It was the more discouraging because it meant that a majority of America wanted his vision for our country. If he had stolen the election, or taken over in a coup, we would have taken up arms to take back our country, but America had chosen him, and to disregard that choice, though we thought it horribly wrong, would have been un-american in itself. What was left to us was to change hearts and minds, and to prepare for the next election, hoping that people would come to their senses, but understanding that in a Democracy, the will of the people sets the course. To force our own will without changing hearts and minds is a kind of tyranny.

I have never been a fan of organized boycotts, sit-ins, blockades, or certainly riots. I suppose there might occasionally be a justification for a peaceful march, or other non-violent protest if the intent is to educate or raise awareness. That used to be the purpose of protests. Increasingly social protest seems to be being used to change behavior instead of hearts and minds. We block highways, boycott stores, hold up votes, not to educate, but to punish or coerce. We have replaced speaking with each other with yelling at each other, cursing at each other, controlling each other. That is not a society, that’s a jungle. With tools of communication beyond any man has known, we yet fail to engage each other in anything but war and insult. We are so intent on shouting down, shutting down, and putting down that we can’t appreciate a diversity of opinion and engage in reasoned debate.

It would be disingenuous to imply that this descent into the arena of coercion is completely one sided, but it would be equally disingenuous to say that it is not mostly one sided. Having lost everything but Obama’s re-election in the last four elections, progressives have apparently given up on playing the role of loyal opposition in favor of becoming the mortal enemy. This includes the liberal media. Everyone has a position, a bias, that they overcome to one extent or another in order to live peacefully with others, or in the case of an honest media, to do their job as impartially as possible. But when your bias tilts to hatred, it becomes the master, and it overcomes you. No longer do you consider how to live peacefully with fellow citizens, but how you can vanquish them. No longer, then, are reporters content to objectively report the news, but instead they crave blood and look to destroy. Hatred is rarely pretty, and it repels both those who are hated and the innocent onlookers. As jarring and over the top as Trump can be, as inaccurate or inept as he sometimes seems, as worthy of criticism as any President is sure to demonstrate, I can’t take my eyes off the haters. They are becoming the face of the left, and it’s a disturbing face to behold. Prudent democrats would be wise to begin looking for separation from them. The world is surprisingly dichotomous. Every story has a hero and a villain. We watch the news and see the anchor, self righteous and self satisfied with the latest bad news for the administration, we see the riots and destruction, the crude demonstrations, the screaming, the swearing, the chanting, the nuisances, the ridiculous costumes… the hate; then we see the Trump rally, opened by Melania with the Lord’s prayer, interrupted by an appearance by an everyman, a guy we probably wouldn’t agree with on everything, but a guy we can understand,  wearing a tee shirt and not a vagina costume. We see crowds cheering America, not criticizing her or anyone else, we see brotherhood, loyalty, support… love. What are we to think? We are Americans; we stand against bullies, we are repelled by the hateful who demand we hate as well, we stand for freedom and if you push us, we push back. We will not be ruled by domination, we won’t be controlled, we are not puppets.  In their vindictive hatred, unhinged coercion, and shot-gun rage, the left has cast themselves in the role of the evil antagonist, and left us with a most unlikely hero, Donald J. Trump.

PLEASE; SUBSCRIBE, SHARE, COMMENT!

 

“To the last, I grapple with thee;
From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee;
For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

Herman Melville, Moby Dick

 

 

It’s one thing to plaster your FaceBook wall with lofty inspirational quotes, and quite another to actually live your life by them. How often have we seen the admonition of Martin Luther King Jr. that “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”? Yet despite the imploring of Dr. King, the “resistance” to the Trump administration resembles less the teachings of Ghandi as it does the wrath of Khan.

When the concept for this post first came to me I envisioned the self destructive animus of the left with an image of the insanity of Captain Ahab; and so the great whale, naturally, had to be Trump. Upon further consideration though, I saw that the whale was something bigger than the President. The hatred and anger I see is not for Trump alone, neither did it begin with Trump. Consider the treatment in Congress and on the internet for such people as Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions. Trump’s personality makes him easy to hate, but do we really believe that a President Cruz, Huckabee or Fiorina would have been treated more gently? Possibly a more moderate candidate (as long as his name wasn’t Bush) would have been given a slight reprieve, had they been spineless enough to appease the Progressive gods, but any candidate that took a stand to reverse the disasters of the last eight years would have fit the bill as Ahab’s nemesis. The enemy of the left is the right. The great white whale is not Trump himself, but the people and the ideas he represents. Trump only personifies it. The hatred is broad in scope, and cancerous, not restricted to Trump but extended to his cabinet, his wife, his children, his children’s clothing, the stores that sell his children’s clothing, the people who shop at the stores that sell his children’s clothing, the people who don’t reject the people that shop at the stores that sell his children’s clothing…

Haters are always part of the equation when it comes to society, particularly in politics, and I have previously warned against too quickly judging whole groups by the worst segments of that group; but it is troubling when reasoned and measured voices from the left are the exception, the embattled remnant; and when those most disturbing in their level of rage and hatred include friends and family. Aggression is a motivator, and is self-reinforcing. It activates chemicals in our brain in much the same way as sex or drugs. Lab animals exposed to aggression with other subjects, become “addicted” to it, and will actually unnecessarily invite more conflict. Likewise, it is not unusual to find people who thrive on conflict. Men who enjoy a brawl as much as a woman, trolls on social media who enjoy crude insults more than sharing opinions and ideas, demonstrators who derive more pleasure from violently silencing their opponents than reasonably refuting their ideas. It stems from a biological imperative to survive, and to insure survival through aggression. We’re kind of hard-wired that way. Morality, humanity, and civil society are higher constructs that we employ to channel our aggression into less destructive directions; hence we try to follow the law of the land instead of the law of the jungle. When we permit those motivated by their baser instincts to set the course for our interactions with each other, and these are not always stupid people, then, as with any addiction, it will consume us until all that is left is our hatred and rage.

Much has been made lately of the attempt of the left’s resistance movement to mimic the success of the Tea Party, by becoming what has been termed “The Reverse Tea Party”. Unfortunately, the Reverse Tea Party resembles the Tea Party about as much as the Antichrist resembles Christ. Whereas the Tea Party intentionally avoided social issues in order to be more inclusive and focused on Constitutional issues, the resistance of the left is animated and driven almost exclusively by social issues. The strategy of descending on town hall meetings for Tea Party faithful was to engage representatives and call them to account; the “new” strategy of the left seems more in keeping with their tired tactic of shutting people down. The 9/12 project, the Tea Party group that marched on Washington at the height of the movement had in its mission statement a focus on “building and uniting our communities”, not being “obsessed with political parties, the color of your skin, or what religion you practice”. Despite the propaganda you may have heard, the group stressed inclusion, unity, forgiveness and liberty devoid of hatred for leaders or fellow citizens, and the demonstrators were almost universally of the same mind. There was protest, but no violence. There was anger, but not rage. I know; I was there. The Reverse Tea Party group, “Indivisible”, begins its introduction by calling Donald Trump a loser, racist, an authoritarian and a tyrant. The first requirement for inclusion with this group is that chapters resist Trump’s agenda and embrace progressive values, all others are presumably excluded. There is a false assumption that the tactics of peace can be used for war, or that the success of virtue is in strategy, instead of virtue itself.

It seems an odd strategy, and I use the term loosely, to attempt to punish a man with that which he seems to enjoy most. To use conflict as a weapon against a man who has mastered the art, who actually seems to like it and be undeterred when he loses, is reminiscent of Brer Rabbit’s plea not to be thrown into the briar patch. Just by virtue of the unending, unreasoning, often petty, hatred unrelentingly being leveled at Trump, this singularly unliked President is garnering sympathy from independent voters. Regardless, a man who seems to enjoy being hated almost as much as he enjoys being loved, for whom a failure to be reelected would mean having to go back to his billionaire lifestyle and empire, Trump himself is untouched by most of the vitriol aimed at him. His agenda can possibly be slowed, but this shotgun approach of hating all things Trump is already becoming tedious, and likely to result in even more mid term losses for Democrats who are already vulnerable. Rage is intoxicating for its possessor, but repugnant to observers. The protestors see themselves as heroes in their resistance, but come off as the obscure superhero, Mr. Furious, from the movie Mystery Men, whose dubious superpower was excessive anger. (see here if you’re unfamiliar) Rage is actually not a superpower, and rageaholics are not heroes.  Anger can be a motivator for the base, but we will have several months to witness the lawlessness and outrageously unfocused behavior of the protestors. Anger can be contagious, and while the left take to the streets to express theirs, the right takes to the polls. It will likely require the next next election for either side to alter course. My money is on the whale.

 

 

PLEASE; SUBSCRIBE, SHARE, COMMENT!

 

“Give me your lazy, your thieves,
Your huddled criminal gangs yearning to sell drugs,
The wretched terrorists and teeming hordes,
Send these, the murderers,
The lust driven to me.
I lift my skirt beside the broken door.”

With Apologies to Emma Lazarus

 

 
For those of my readers who consider themselves liberal (which is becoming a misnomer), you can probably stop reading now. You, no doubt, have already decided what I think, and have determined your reaction to it. Make your disparaging comments on what I didn’t say, on what I didn’t mean, or on what I never was. Perhaps some exaggerated insults involving fascism, nazis, some mangling of my name, or some unrelated allusion to my hair or the size of my hands. Maybe you just want to punch me in the face. Possibly you have decided that my racist, xenophobic, hateful views are so disgusting that they must be silenced through riots and violence. I live in a rural area, so there aren’t any bicycle racks to throw, or Starbucks to vandalize. We are kind of 2nd amendment folks out here, so you might need more than flags and pepper spray… just sayin’.

There are fringes in every group, and if we judge the whole by the fringe we will be deceived and unjust; our views will be shrill, irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. The antifas anarchists that rioted Berkeley clearly don’t represent the majority of the liberal left, any more than my mangling of Emma Lazarus’s iconic verse is reflective of their suggested immigration policy. What is discouraging is the lack of condemnation for the tactics of such groups because of sympathy with their cause, and the common enemy. Indeed, as I have looked for reasoned objections from the left for these anarchists and their strong arm tactics, I have instead found more insults for the right, pseudo-apologetics instead of genuine apologies, escalations instead of calls for calm. We see your fringe, and when you don’t distance yourself from their tactics, if not their outrage, then your silence becomes disturbing. Never let the fringe define you. The same is true on the right; we can’t condone the actions of mobs of rioting right wing demonstrators should they ever arise, or the actions of the few unhinged individuals who violently break the law or express true racism.

Immigration policy has always been a contentious issue. There are those who would prefer that Mr. Trump’s wall had no gates at all, just as there are those who would prefer that there not only be no wall, but no fence, no border security, no borders at all. Do these groups define us? They don’t define me, or the vast majority of people I hear. Most Americans treasure immigration as the bedrock of our nation. Most Americans want that immigration to be legally sanctioned, with some mechanism for vetting to lessen the possibility of inviting criminals, terrorists and other negative influences from entering our home. The differences arise from the emphasis we place on compassion versus security. Compelling arguments can be made from both sides, but once the debate descends into exaggeration to the point of dishonesty, and insult to the point of unbridled hatred, then we have become children shouting at each other with our hands over our ears.

I have always had a big heart, often to the exclusion of my brain, and were the decision mine to make I would probably welcome more refugees than would be wise to take. I’m a risk taker, and honestly, I would be more than willing to allow for a little bit of risk for the sake of compassion for those from war torn nations. All that being said, I recognize I do not live in this nation alone. There are reasons for fear and there are other citizens whose concerns and thoughts are as valid as my own. The decision is not mine to make alone. I liken it to a man wishing to adopt a family of kids who were victims of abuse. His wife is less sure, and says no, or at least that she would like more time to think about it. The husband can make his case, cajole, encourage her sympathy, make a deal with his wife, but how effective do you think it will be for him to start insulting her, “You heartless bitch! You call yourself a Christian!”   Maybe he throws a rock through the window, threatens to punch her in the face. If he becomes unhinged enough, maybe she will even succumb to his coercion. Has he done well? He has not. It is perhaps sad that the wife allowed fear to overcome her compassion, but it is tragic that the husband decided that his will, even if righteous, entitled him to forcefully impose that will. Likewise, the wife needs to understand that her reticence can quickly turn to belligerence, and in her adamant refusal she is imposing her own will on the household. Do we hear anybody, anybody at all, talking compromise, or talking to each other at all? More each day we embrace coercion over consensus.

There’s a danger that Lady Liberty will lose her head. Mindless devotion to your nation’s leader is indeed the path to totalitarianism. The existence of a “loyal opposition”, a reasoned resistance is just one more check and balance crucial to our liberty. Bear in mind though, the counterbalance for mindless devotion is not mindless opposition. During the tenure of Barack Obama, there were some who resorted to crude insult, conspiracy theory, and outrageous hyperbole… these were the mindless opposition, and their existence only bolstered the mindlessly devoted. Those who rather spoke with reason and balance were the real resistance that slowed the onslaught of executive tyranny, as they should be now. Instead, most of the left have left their minds aside, and are being played by President Trump, the Lord of Chaos. He has taken the idea of distraction by shiny object to a whole new level, with pyrotechnics, explosions, and Twitter. His mind works in a distinctly non-linear fashion, and while you are guarding the barn, he’ll be robbing the hen house. If you jump to the hen house, it’s his chance to break into your house. You need to march on Washington, he needs only tweet. If you use only your heart, he will wear you down, thin you out, and turn you into the fringe (See this upcoming Superbowl commercial!). It isn’t easy to be the reasoned resistance, easier to start a mindless revolution and burn down the house, but that’s a revolution you can’t win. Possibly now the left understands what we on the right meant about the danger of centralized government, the advantages of Federalism, and the removing of the strings of Federal funding as the ties that bind, the defunding of Leviathan. What seems perfectly fine while your guys are in charge, is suddenly a disaster when your guys aren’t. As long as power is so concentrated and precious we will be facing perpetual civil war, and the Hell that war brings. Without rational discussion, peaceful protest, and honest regard for our leaders and fellow citizens, we resort to the kind of mob rule that we saw in Berkeley. Make no mistake, most of us have no desire to respond in kind to hatred, violence or unlawfulness; but neither will we be ruled by mobs. Eventually other mobs will rise, flags and bricks will be replaced with guns and knives, and then eventually troops; and you will have created the tyranny you feared. Anger and hatred are poor substitutes for high mindedness and good will; yielding to darkness leaves you blind and vulnerable. We need people of truth and light from all political persuasions. I know I’ve used this quote before, but it seems apropos to end:

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Friedrich Nietzche