Month: September 2024



I have not written for a few days because we are on an adventure. Right at the moment, we are a day and a half into the north Sea, where the conditions are more than rough, and the ship is more than able to handle them. We had hoped to stop at the Shetland Island, but that was canceled due to poor weather. We are now on the way to the Faroe Islands, where we hope to spend a little bit of time exploring the place and it’s people. it seems odd to be disconnected from the usual routine of news and local events. It also seems odd to reflect on news from America from the point of view of Europeans. A very refreshing point of view, I might add.

today is Sunday and scripture lessons to be read in liturgical churches today are about the importance of listening. We are too quick to talk and too slow to listen. We hear things without listening to what is being said. We interpret what we hear without giving thought to why we interpret it the way we do. And we are quick to teach others what we think is right and good without adequately analyzing whether we are indeed right or good. it is worth reflecting on each of these themes today because they influence how our political attitudes and expectations are expressed as well. We are in the final stages of the most important presidential campaign in my lifetime, and perhaps yours. listening with understanding cannot be more important than it is now. Hey Siri, and expressing our opinions must be. the product of reflection and verification.

blind guy typing is dictating this post and has no idea if Siri spelled all the words correctly.

I listened to a member of Congress declare that we must know who our enemies are and boldly confront them. He was speaking about countries like China, Russia, and North Korea. He wasn’t saying anything new.  I’ve heard the same from many politicians and pundits.  We have to be concerned about national security in such a dangerous world, which we cannot do, if we do not understand that our national security depends on the national security of other nations. The idea that the U.S. can stand alone as a fortress unto itself unconcerned about the security of other nations is a chimera, however promising the idea sounds to people suspicious of foreign entanglements. 

What should concern us are the words and deeds of national leaders that pose a potential threat to our security. It is the words and deeds that must be confronted and condemned. Keeping the word enemy out of the rhetoric provides an opportunity for conversation. It reduces the likelihood of verbal escalation of tensions. It does not give the public cause to dehumanize an entire nation of people. It also enables us to do what is necessary to strengthen our own preparations for national defense without appearing to threaten war.

Declaring another nation an enemy has some uses. It delegitimizes any criticism of our own words and deeds that may appear threatening and it fortifies a patriotic  sense of national self-righteousness. It was a necessary way to strengthen national resolve during WWII.  It worked less well during the Korean conflict and not much at all during Vietnam. Labelling a nation, an entire people, as an enemy has the side effect of generating emotionally driven bigotry toward anyone who might be linked to the enemy nation in any way: names, looks, dress, accent, and rumor for instance.    Labeling a nation as an enemy may be standard political rhetoric, but I don’t believe it is wise. Enemy is a tough word. It offers few opportunities for cooperation or rapprochement. It puts an entire nation and all of its people in a box that demeans their humanity.  The natural reaction is for the ‘enemy’ to return the favor, creating two sides separated by fear and hatred.

The U.S. has enemies, about that there is no question.  For the most part they seem to be leaders and members of radical movements that blame the U.S. for every ill they have ever suffered or who believe our ways of life, including our democracy, are evil in themselves.  There are others, national leaders and those who prop them up, who do everything they can to make themselves an enemy.  Why?  Is it fear, over compensation for insecurity, envy, a megalomaniacal lust for power? Who knows what they think and who knows what they might do?  Was Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a trial run at reestablishing the Russian Empire? Or perhaps, it was a test of western resolve. Little Putins dot the global landscape. Maybe they get swagger rights out of being labeled an enemy.  Swagger is sometimes all that is needed to prop up a regime that has no foundation and no future.  In any case, there is no point in labeling an entire nation and all of its people as an enemy.

It is better to name and condemn the language and deeds of national leaders that create conditions, threatening to national security, our own and others. Keeping our focus on them and not stooping to their tit for tat game, strengthens our position and undermines theirs. It is a difficult path to follow. Labeling a nations as an enemy is easier and the complexities of the issues do not have to be explained to a public that may not be following the news. Americans tend to like showdowns where the good guy wins and problems are solved quickly. We celebrate the Jack Reacher types who cannot be pushed around, who substitute revenge for justice and never back down. He and every character like him are fictional. Putin’s macho swagger has done his people no good.  Neither does the  the macho swagger of American political leaders do any good for the American people.

The hard work of resolving issues without violent conflict is less romantic, but it works.  It requires building and maintaining mutually satisfactory relationships with other nations and reminding those whose national interests are in competition with ours that enmity is not a solution.

Every Yin requires a Yang.  Coins have heads and tails.  If one thing is black, another must be white. There are two sides to every argument. There is right and wrong, good and bad.  the only thing I remember about algebra is that both sides of the equation have to balance.  Balance sheets must show equality between assets and liabilities. As more than a few have complained, I am fond of saying “on the one hand this, but on the other hand that.” We think in binary terms far more often than we would like to admit.  

When we talk about our divided nation, or the divisiveness in politics, or the rude and hateful language of political extremism, it is natural to assume there must be some form of equivalency on each side.  Life, it turns out, is not binary. False equivalency is a trap too easily fallen into. To be clear about it, during the Trump and MAGA era there is only one place from which hateful extremist language has come. There is only one source of language that challenges the legitimacy of American democracy or the fairness of its elections. There is only one source of the constant barrage of personal attacks, threats of retaliation, and a flood of fact checked lies. There is nothing that requires a critical evaluation of one campaign be balanced by an equally critical evaluation of the other. Each has to stand on its own merits.

A friend wrote recently that he was disgusted by the extreme language from both the left and the right. The problem is it is very hard to find extreme campaign language from other candidates. They are certainly there but in such small numbers that their singular voices carry little weight and nobody pays them much attention. That does not excuse them, but there is no equivalency. Holy Scripture condemns language from any person that defiles them, you, me and anyone else. Jesus said,“Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7)

The boundaries of public debate in the American democratic process extend from conservative to liberal each seeking in good faith the right to public policies enhancing the common good.  But the boundaries do not stray too far from the middle  with the expectation there is a way to reach an acceptable agreement.  This breaks down when demands for one way only defeat the ability to reach a workable agreement.  It is particularly troublesome when that breakdown can be engineered by a small minority of legislators, which is what happened in the last decade or so. 

I am not making the Trump MAGA crowd out to be the bad guys, and Democrats the good guys. That would be the kind of binary false equivalency that I object. I want to be equally clear that the Trump MAGA supporters are the extremists at this time. Their language is offensive to American values and virtues. Their policies, at least as expressed in project 2025, are a real threat to American democracy and our unique form of private enterprise. Trump’s own policy pronouncements are vague, grandiose, and flop all over the place. To say so is not divisive extremism. It is simply a statement of verifiable truth. 

The Biden years must be evaluated on their own merits. The Harris Walz, Side must be held accountable for their own language and policy proposals. Of course it is perfectly fair to ask which policy proposals are likely to be better for the American people. The answer is clear to me, even if I don’t agree with everything that the Harris Walz people are proposing. Others may be less sure of that and will have to come to their own decision.