It strikes me that the work to be done here is at the individual level. All media is nauseating me at this point. There's no solution to be found online, on Substack, in clips, with takes, with disembodied opinion. We need bodies in close proximity.
We — talking to our friends, neighbors, perceived local enemies, etc, one to one or in small living room meetings — need to do this ourselves. Face-to-face relationship building needs to happen all over. This view is informed by just having listened to Lulu Garcia Navarro's interview with Bob Putnam of Bowling Alone. He bemoaned the fact that his lectures and books and information has not moved the social needle in the past twenty-five years, which struck me as bizarrely naive. Facts delivered by a Harvard professor don't change hearts and minds! This is a news flash for the professor.
To change hearts and minds and behavior you need people in a room together delivering news of their personal experiences to one another. We do know this. We have forgotten how it's done.
To break myself out of my despair I'm thinking that the best way I could spend the next four months is by convening real world, in-person conversations with, on the Right Side, the guy down the road who flies not 10, not 12, but 16 Trump flags outside his house, and on the Left, with my estranged SJW friend who believes you can't be in relationship with people you disagree with, and with all those others in between.
I really believe this is key. If we want to counter the isolation, disconnection, and the lack of empathy it nurtures, we have to start connecting with each other again. The people in our neighborhoods and towns are a great place to start. We can actually impact change at a local level this way. Besides, it would be really nice to feel some level of basic friendliness with the people living around us.
In support of what you write, among the most powerful experiences I have had as an individual was election canvassing door-to-door in a reddish-purple district where I lived for 15 years. Yes, I was supporting a particular candidate, but I made it a point to listen first and always and to find points of common ground. Some people truly aren’t reachable—and we each have to decide where our psychic energy is best spent—but many more are and have good observations and questions. There is plenty of room away from the extremes to find common ground and work from there.
A fine sentiment but it won't happen. Eight years of screaming, hate-filled rhetoric (from both sides) will not abate any time soon. An entire industry has been founded on outrage. Kneejerk outrage pays people's mortgages, puts kids through school, and gives its proponents fame and power. I'm 72, and I remember the way the country was divided over the Vietnam War. This is worse, because technology has given every idiot the means to amplify their views to a million other idiots, and indignant anger is FUN!. I don't know when the tide will turn back to favor grown-up discussion and considered debate, but I see no sign of it happening in the foreseeable future. Maybe it never will. I fear for my grandchildren, and for this country.
I'm a conservative, btw, and I think you and I would probably disagree on about 80% of the current social and political issues of our time, but I still read your columns faithfully (and subscribe) because you are thoughtful and intelligent, and even when we disagree, I enjoy hearing your thoughts.
I very, very much appreciate that. I understand a lot of conservative viewpoints, even if I disagree with them. I know and like a lot of conservatives. I don't think I'll ever be one, but who knows? I want a place where we can live together in peace.
We have a dearth of meaning in our modern lives. Most of us no longer have to struggle to put bread on the table and keep a roof over our children's heads. Religion, which used to give a focus in many people's lives, has been waning in power and influence. We still have an instinctive urge to join, to be part of, to subsume ourselves in something greater than the self, and many people have found a replacement. I was going to say "in politics," but what's happening goes deeper than than that. Many people have replaced religion with an ethical and moral world-view that has become a new religion. And its adherents are every bit as vehement in their beliefs as any sixteenth century witch-burner. And those who do not accept and loudly proclaim their allegiance to these views are regarded as heretics. It's not a good world to live in if you want to be a rational adult.
I sort of agree with you, though we shouldn't forget who burned the witches... The influence of past history (political, social, religious, etc.) is always with us and we ignore that fact at our peril. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up hope! Without hope and love, there's only a tragic road ahead for the human race as well as the planet.
The witches were burned by people who were absolutely certain they were morally correct in their rigid beliefs. Our problem today is that we have too many people just like them.
I agree, the witch burners were rigid, as well as cruel and power hungry, and similar to many people today. Isn't that the essential flaw of allowing an ideology to rule one's conscience (for those who have consciences, of course)? By coincidence, one of my favorite essays is entitled The Way of All Ideology, by Susan Griffin.
How to get to a more reasonable place? I'm afraid it's going to take a long time, but at some point people will get exhausted from the constant outrage rhetoric, won't they? At some point people will want to just talk about mortgages and potholes, right?
I think the young people growing up today (those in their late teens and early twenties) might bring about some reasonableness, although that's just based on what I see in my daughter's friend group. She has some friend/s that participated in a pro-Palestinian university encampment, and others that definitely would not do that, but they are all friends and continue to be so post-encampment. All of them are definitely left-of-centre, but are very tired of the constant hectoring by the left (like the flag in your post). Many are spiritual, some are religious, all are respectful of one another's opinions and are not afraid to argue and still be friends. It's kind of amazing, really. I don't know that their group is very representative, but I do see some green shoots of a possible better future.
Well said. I join you enthusiastically in purpledom. I do think it is a huge uphill climb, but it is the only road that exists, really, that could lead to a less polarized America. Many people I knew cut off any friend or relationship if the person voted for Trump. I did not. I kept engaging with those friends in a constructive way. The result is that they are open to share their problems with Trump, as I was open to sharing my problems with Biden. I will still vote for Biden/Democrat. They will still vote for Trump. But I have hope that we will all come back together sometime to support a moderate candidate that reflects our shared values. And, yes, the Trump supporters do share my values - they just see things through a different lens. The far left is not close to this attitude, alas. And the far right - I don't know. I live in an ocean of leftists so it's really hard to know except that one to one - I have found it easier to talk constructively to very right-wing, religious folks than very left-wing folks.
It's a tall order, particularly because we (I write from Canada) have become accustomed to reductionist explanations and simplistic solutions that are, tragically, grounded in symbolic abstract representations of 'identity' and not the actual material circumstances in which people live. It's the symbolic level that is part of the polarisation because it allows for greater ideological purity and allows us to relate to each other as types that fit into boxes, as opposed to complex beings who are full of paradox and inconsistency and yes, beauty. These categories prevent us from focusing on our shared humanity and common universal needs, and I believe, that is one of the most important public discourses that need to emerge if we are going to salvage liberal democracy. We need to start focusing on what we share on a material level and the fact that all suffering is worthy of attention, not only the suffering of certain privileged groups. It doesn't matter what your skin colour is, who you want to sleep with, or who you pray to. What matters is that like me, and everyone else, you suffer, and we can all relate to that suffering and in so doing we can transcend the binaries that keep us fighting each other.
If you look at trumps policies they are actually rather moderate. They would not be at odds with those espoused by say JFK. Trump is to the left of most republicans - he is more a libertarian I think - but hard to characterise. I totally agree re your opening comment re the media being so partisan and that shouldn’t be it’s job. And it makes it so very hard to be informed and make one’s own assessments.
From this side of the pond the media almost exclusively reported TDS rhetoric for years. It has only been this year there seems to be a slight shift with some actually reporting on his policies or reporting with a tone that allows the reader to consider that maybe his policies aren’t evil
What about the Supreme Court rulings by those he appointed, that disrespect years of precedent and instead support of the values held by groups like the heritage foundation? Or project 2025 (unsure why we would believe that he won't support this since he has historically supported these folks and also has a well documented history of lying)? I don't consider these moderate positions at all (they aren't actually even in line with what might historically be considered conservative... more like far right?) I also don't think a moderate would be so polarizing, but what do I know?
Interesting point re the Supreme Court decisions. If one reads them, they are not activist in nature - they are conservative in the true sense that they preserve the meaning as written by the authors of the constitution and it’s amendments rather than seeking to make new law. So it is correct to question whether they are moderate. Is that the right term? They’re certainly not progressive decisions! But it can be argued that the opposite to progressive is moderate. Scholars from all sides have opined that Roe v Wade was a flawed cases on the law - years of precedent can’t undo a lack of basis at law for that precedent. Ultimately the rule of law benefits everyone and careful honouring of the law as written is in everyone’s interest. If we don’t like the law the way to change it is legislation - not the courts.
You make some excellent points about the Supreme Court rulings. And no, progressive isn't moderate either. It's definitely important to remember that previous activist courts may have set precedents that were/seemed just as inappropriate to some as these recent ones have felt to others. Thanks for the reasoned response. I think it's always good to remember that none of this is black and white etc.
You've made a very good point here. We have to separate the man from the policies and analyze both separately. I think Trump has shown himself to be morally bankrupt, power hungry, insensitive, and generally corrupt. That having been said, not all of his policies are evil. Some make perfect sense. Others do not. Broken clocks are right twice a day, but we seem to want to deny that fact. It's like it's 12:30 PM and the clock agrees, but we deny that it's 12:30 PM because the clock broken so it must always be wrong and it cannot be 12:30 PM.
Specifically, what bothers me is that, if a Republican says "chemically blocking a child's puberty is dangerous," or "is it fair to limit how many Asians get into Ivy League schools?" or some other totally reasonable thing, the assumption is that must be a horrible idea because Republicans voted in Trump so they're all bad and can't have any good ideas. Again, we have to separate the ideas from the people espousing them, and also realize that we can disagree on some things and agree on others. As Bill Harrison said, he and Lisa disagree on about 80% of things, but he still reads what she has to say because it's intelligent - and they do agree on 20%! We need to get back to this and stop demonizing people with whom we disagree.
I've enjoyed reading all of the thoughtful comments to your insightful post, Lisa. I would add - due to the crazy turns in life, I happened to have an insider view to the 2016 presidential campaign. This is when I saw up-front how manipulative the media had become, how removed from reality many in the "intellectual elite" were, and how "compassionate" liberal friends were actually incredibly shaming and dismissive of anyone who did not share their perspectives. It was incredibly eye-opening. And I was not at all surprised when Trump won that election. Since then, things have only become more extreme with the pandemic lockdowns and government policies (mandates, school closures, etc) along with a colluding media, that have led to a growing distrust by many in our country (and other countries) of authorities they had always assumed acted in our best interest. When I look at the candidates today, I am reminded of how art reflects life, which is why art history is so interesting - it shows what the culture was like in different eras. And I do think about how we have actually created these two candidates - what do our candidates say about what we as a culture value? Why does it take narcissism and arrogance to be a political candidate today, especially for the highest office? (Yes, Biden too).
In psychology we talk about one's shadow side, and I think that we as a culture tend to celebrate and lift up those who are arrogant enough to believe they know what the world needs - but the shadow side of that arrogance and determination is everything we are seeing today, that is toxic. But maybe it's always been that way, we just didn't know it because without the internet and social media, we were not aware of how narcissistic and toxic most of our previous leaders were. Womanizers, slave-owners, sexist, liars, etc. - these are nothing new among men in power. So I think the question we each need to ask ourselves is, what do I contribute to the toxicity and dysfunction? How can I do better at practicing humility and reminding myself, "seek to understand rather than be understood"? I am often struck, when I take the effort to do this, by how at the bottom of it all, we actually are not that different from our "opponents."
I knew that things were seriously off the rails in journalism when I would beg older relatives to pay less attention to the national news for their mental well being and they responded that it was more exciting than any tv show.
I’ll credit the man with one thing, having a hunch for the old fashioned media spectacle. Barnum and Bailey style vaudeville advertising pizazz.
I would suggest everyone take a bit more care with what they say. Trump did not say he wanted to grab girls by the pussy. He was bragging that he could and in so doing was characterizing their willingness as much as anything. Similar distortions have been made and repeated regarding many other statements he has made. These are distinctions that do make a difference.
Thinking Trump got elected the first time because of racism is only a small slice of the victory pie. Sure, he has racist supporters (so do the Dems, think The Squad primarily), but it's not the only or even primary reason he won in 2016. He was helped a lot by a robotic Hillary Clinton who could never relax or get off a good zinger on him. She wasn't just guarding herself because she had so many misogynist haters (she did and still does), she's *always* been like that...most likely to please her uptight, reserved, conservative father. There are plenty of other reasons people voted for Trump, and writing his supporters off as racist misses much of what motivated them in the first place--primarily economic issues. They really are in a bad place, while the left pointed fingers at them and called them privileged because they were white. They sure as hell didn't feel privileged, and they weren't.
Lisa’s beautifully thoughtful piece reminds me of what I thought to be a very wise article about the Middle East by Fania Oz-Salzberger. Here is a key point from it that I think speaks not only for the situation in the Middle East, but also for so many situations in which we find ourselves today:
“. . . the real chasm threatening the Middle East and the rest of the world is not between right and left, west and non-west, global north and global south, or even Jews and Arabs. It is between moderates and extremists. Consider the recent EU elections results in this light: left and right extremism have fed each other, building up a feverish pitch, while most middle-of-the-road voters stayed at home, sleepily enjoying their private lives as if these were the 1920s. The political laziness of sensible people is the greatest prize for fanatics.”
For me, a bright spot on the landscape is the results of the elections in the UK. Even as I recognize there is much more to do to address those issues that draw us to Lisa’s site, what I see in Starmer is someone who is not ideological so much as wanting to dig in and fix what is wrong. Janice Turner, in quintessentially British style, put it this way in a London Times piece: “[Sunak’s] wealth drew him inevitably into the Cavalier flamboyance of fancy trainers and private lakes. Starmer wrote a 1,500-page law tome. Always awkward in the look-at-me brashness of campaigning, he is happily cracking his knuckles for a 90-hour week, a Roundhead to his bones.” (As an aside, hooray for Wes Streeting’s stance on puberty blockers, and I hope he stays the course: https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1812435914473295927)
We are all having to do a lot of hard thinking—and in this, Lisa is one who is leading the way. In my case, I want more Roundheads: decent, humane, competent elected representatives who have as their primary mission listening to and working on behalf of their constituents, whoever they might be. Then, when working within government, rolling up their sleeves and finding people who will work together to solve real problems.
What we know is that some policies coming out of any administration will be good, others bad, and still others simply meh😎. We can and should evaluate each individual policy on its merits, and our representatives should work together to solve the problems we face wherever they can. I was very pleased, in that regard, that Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff broke rank to oppose the confirmation of a judge who defended her decision to house a violent male in a women’s prison, with predictable results. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/first-us-senate-panel-rejects-biden-judicial-nominee-new-york-2024-07-11/ Ossoff was the only Democrat to join with the Republicans to do that, and his vote is what made the difference.
When it comes to Trump, however, my evaluation moves beyond assessment of individual policies to assessment of his ability to lead our country overall. There is plenty to go on here—we are, after all, not dealing with a blank slate. My conclusion from everything I have read and observed—which I recognize will not be shared by all here—is that Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy, and the consequences of electing him again will ricochet around and further destabilize the world.
So, to ascertain what we need to do now, I turn back to where I began, to the words of Fania Oz-Salzberger: “left and right extremism have fed each other, building up a feverish pitch, while most middle-of-the-road voters stayed at home, sleepily enjoying their private lives as if these were the 1920s. The political laziness of sensible people is the greatest prize for fanatics.”
How about convicted felon, rapist, known to not pay workers, a long history of housing discrimination...I see ample evidence of an actual bad person. I don't even need the media to help me with that. I need to understand the policies in China.
I hate the republican party's hateful rhetoric toward women and their right to be autonomous fully realized human beings. They don't really think of us as people, just brood mares and servants. JDV's position that childless women should have their wages garnished means I will never respect anything he has to say. However, I can handle that better than I can handle being told any man on earth can just declare himself a woman and from that point on have full access to anything previously set aside for women. And the authoritarian left demanding I accept that. I had to unfollow one of my favorite Instagram feminists because of this. I wish we had a sane choice but we don't.
I've thought so much recently about what I'll do differently this time if Trump wins the election. Go slower, more carefully. Listen more and across the political spectrum. Ask for evidence. Try to build bridges. Support free speech even when it's hard. Focus and ask, when possible, that we define, dream and start from the future we want to build
It strikes me that the work to be done here is at the individual level. All media is nauseating me at this point. There's no solution to be found online, on Substack, in clips, with takes, with disembodied opinion. We need bodies in close proximity.
We — talking to our friends, neighbors, perceived local enemies, etc, one to one or in small living room meetings — need to do this ourselves. Face-to-face relationship building needs to happen all over. This view is informed by just having listened to Lulu Garcia Navarro's interview with Bob Putnam of Bowling Alone. He bemoaned the fact that his lectures and books and information has not moved the social needle in the past twenty-five years, which struck me as bizarrely naive. Facts delivered by a Harvard professor don't change hearts and minds! This is a news flash for the professor.
To change hearts and minds and behavior you need people in a room together delivering news of their personal experiences to one another. We do know this. We have forgotten how it's done.
To break myself out of my despair I'm thinking that the best way I could spend the next four months is by convening real world, in-person conversations with, on the Right Side, the guy down the road who flies not 10, not 12, but 16 Trump flags outside his house, and on the Left, with my estranged SJW friend who believes you can't be in relationship with people you disagree with, and with all those others in between.
I really believe this is key. If we want to counter the isolation, disconnection, and the lack of empathy it nurtures, we have to start connecting with each other again. The people in our neighborhoods and towns are a great place to start. We can actually impact change at a local level this way. Besides, it would be really nice to feel some level of basic friendliness with the people living around us.
In support of what you write, among the most powerful experiences I have had as an individual was election canvassing door-to-door in a reddish-purple district where I lived for 15 years. Yes, I was supporting a particular candidate, but I made it a point to listen first and always and to find points of common ground. Some people truly aren’t reachable—and we each have to decide where our psychic energy is best spent—but many more are and have good observations and questions. There is plenty of room away from the extremes to find common ground and work from there.
That's a fantastic idea... and for anyone who is feeling out of practice socially, it's great practice just being with people and listening!
A fine sentiment but it won't happen. Eight years of screaming, hate-filled rhetoric (from both sides) will not abate any time soon. An entire industry has been founded on outrage. Kneejerk outrage pays people's mortgages, puts kids through school, and gives its proponents fame and power. I'm 72, and I remember the way the country was divided over the Vietnam War. This is worse, because technology has given every idiot the means to amplify their views to a million other idiots, and indignant anger is FUN!. I don't know when the tide will turn back to favor grown-up discussion and considered debate, but I see no sign of it happening in the foreseeable future. Maybe it never will. I fear for my grandchildren, and for this country.
Yeah, I overlooked the fun part, the catharsis of unbridled outrage. I don't think it's fun anymore, but I forget that other people do.
I'm a conservative, btw, and I think you and I would probably disagree on about 80% of the current social and political issues of our time, but I still read your columns faithfully (and subscribe) because you are thoughtful and intelligent, and even when we disagree, I enjoy hearing your thoughts.
I very, very much appreciate that. I understand a lot of conservative viewpoints, even if I disagree with them. I know and like a lot of conservatives. I don't think I'll ever be one, but who knows? I want a place where we can live together in peace.
We have a dearth of meaning in our modern lives. Most of us no longer have to struggle to put bread on the table and keep a roof over our children's heads. Religion, which used to give a focus in many people's lives, has been waning in power and influence. We still have an instinctive urge to join, to be part of, to subsume ourselves in something greater than the self, and many people have found a replacement. I was going to say "in politics," but what's happening goes deeper than than that. Many people have replaced religion with an ethical and moral world-view that has become a new religion. And its adherents are every bit as vehement in their beliefs as any sixteenth century witch-burner. And those who do not accept and loudly proclaim their allegiance to these views are regarded as heretics. It's not a good world to live in if you want to be a rational adult.
I sort of agree with you, though we shouldn't forget who burned the witches... The influence of past history (political, social, religious, etc.) is always with us and we ignore that fact at our peril. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up hope! Without hope and love, there's only a tragic road ahead for the human race as well as the planet.
The witches were burned by people who were absolutely certain they were morally correct in their rigid beliefs. Our problem today is that we have too many people just like them.
I agree, the witch burners were rigid, as well as cruel and power hungry, and similar to many people today. Isn't that the essential flaw of allowing an ideology to rule one's conscience (for those who have consciences, of course)? By coincidence, one of my favorite essays is entitled The Way of All Ideology, by Susan Griffin.
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts, Lisa.
How to get to a more reasonable place? I'm afraid it's going to take a long time, but at some point people will get exhausted from the constant outrage rhetoric, won't they? At some point people will want to just talk about mortgages and potholes, right?
I think the young people growing up today (those in their late teens and early twenties) might bring about some reasonableness, although that's just based on what I see in my daughter's friend group. She has some friend/s that participated in a pro-Palestinian university encampment, and others that definitely would not do that, but they are all friends and continue to be so post-encampment. All of them are definitely left-of-centre, but are very tired of the constant hectoring by the left (like the flag in your post). Many are spiritual, some are religious, all are respectful of one another's opinions and are not afraid to argue and still be friends. It's kind of amazing, really. I don't know that their group is very representative, but I do see some green shoots of a possible better future.
(Just keep in mind, we're in Canada...)
So hopeful to read this. Thank you!
Well said. I join you enthusiastically in purpledom. I do think it is a huge uphill climb, but it is the only road that exists, really, that could lead to a less polarized America. Many people I knew cut off any friend or relationship if the person voted for Trump. I did not. I kept engaging with those friends in a constructive way. The result is that they are open to share their problems with Trump, as I was open to sharing my problems with Biden. I will still vote for Biden/Democrat. They will still vote for Trump. But I have hope that we will all come back together sometime to support a moderate candidate that reflects our shared values. And, yes, the Trump supporters do share my values - they just see things through a different lens. The far left is not close to this attitude, alas. And the far right - I don't know. I live in an ocean of leftists so it's really hard to know except that one to one - I have found it easier to talk constructively to very right-wing, religious folks than very left-wing folks.
It's a tall order, particularly because we (I write from Canada) have become accustomed to reductionist explanations and simplistic solutions that are, tragically, grounded in symbolic abstract representations of 'identity' and not the actual material circumstances in which people live. It's the symbolic level that is part of the polarisation because it allows for greater ideological purity and allows us to relate to each other as types that fit into boxes, as opposed to complex beings who are full of paradox and inconsistency and yes, beauty. These categories prevent us from focusing on our shared humanity and common universal needs, and I believe, that is one of the most important public discourses that need to emerge if we are going to salvage liberal democracy. We need to start focusing on what we share on a material level and the fact that all suffering is worthy of attention, not only the suffering of certain privileged groups. It doesn't matter what your skin colour is, who you want to sleep with, or who you pray to. What matters is that like me, and everyone else, you suffer, and we can all relate to that suffering and in so doing we can transcend the binaries that keep us fighting each other.
Beautifully stated, and I agree.
If you look at trumps policies they are actually rather moderate. They would not be at odds with those espoused by say JFK. Trump is to the left of most republicans - he is more a libertarian I think - but hard to characterise. I totally agree re your opening comment re the media being so partisan and that shouldn’t be it’s job. And it makes it so very hard to be informed and make one’s own assessments.
From this side of the pond the media almost exclusively reported TDS rhetoric for years. It has only been this year there seems to be a slight shift with some actually reporting on his policies or reporting with a tone that allows the reader to consider that maybe his policies aren’t evil
What about the Supreme Court rulings by those he appointed, that disrespect years of precedent and instead support of the values held by groups like the heritage foundation? Or project 2025 (unsure why we would believe that he won't support this since he has historically supported these folks and also has a well documented history of lying)? I don't consider these moderate positions at all (they aren't actually even in line with what might historically be considered conservative... more like far right?) I also don't think a moderate would be so polarizing, but what do I know?
Interesting point re the Supreme Court decisions. If one reads them, they are not activist in nature - they are conservative in the true sense that they preserve the meaning as written by the authors of the constitution and it’s amendments rather than seeking to make new law. So it is correct to question whether they are moderate. Is that the right term? They’re certainly not progressive decisions! But it can be argued that the opposite to progressive is moderate. Scholars from all sides have opined that Roe v Wade was a flawed cases on the law - years of precedent can’t undo a lack of basis at law for that precedent. Ultimately the rule of law benefits everyone and careful honouring of the law as written is in everyone’s interest. If we don’t like the law the way to change it is legislation - not the courts.
You make some excellent points about the Supreme Court rulings. And no, progressive isn't moderate either. It's definitely important to remember that previous activist courts may have set precedents that were/seemed just as inappropriate to some as these recent ones have felt to others. Thanks for the reasoned response. I think it's always good to remember that none of this is black and white etc.
You've made a very good point here. We have to separate the man from the policies and analyze both separately. I think Trump has shown himself to be morally bankrupt, power hungry, insensitive, and generally corrupt. That having been said, not all of his policies are evil. Some make perfect sense. Others do not. Broken clocks are right twice a day, but we seem to want to deny that fact. It's like it's 12:30 PM and the clock agrees, but we deny that it's 12:30 PM because the clock broken so it must always be wrong and it cannot be 12:30 PM.
Specifically, what bothers me is that, if a Republican says "chemically blocking a child's puberty is dangerous," or "is it fair to limit how many Asians get into Ivy League schools?" or some other totally reasonable thing, the assumption is that must be a horrible idea because Republicans voted in Trump so they're all bad and can't have any good ideas. Again, we have to separate the ideas from the people espousing them, and also realize that we can disagree on some things and agree on others. As Bill Harrison said, he and Lisa disagree on about 80% of things, but he still reads what she has to say because it's intelligent - and they do agree on 20%! We need to get back to this and stop demonizing people with whom we disagree.
“We have to separate the man from the policies and analyze both separately.” 💯💯💯
I've enjoyed reading all of the thoughtful comments to your insightful post, Lisa. I would add - due to the crazy turns in life, I happened to have an insider view to the 2016 presidential campaign. This is when I saw up-front how manipulative the media had become, how removed from reality many in the "intellectual elite" were, and how "compassionate" liberal friends were actually incredibly shaming and dismissive of anyone who did not share their perspectives. It was incredibly eye-opening. And I was not at all surprised when Trump won that election. Since then, things have only become more extreme with the pandemic lockdowns and government policies (mandates, school closures, etc) along with a colluding media, that have led to a growing distrust by many in our country (and other countries) of authorities they had always assumed acted in our best interest. When I look at the candidates today, I am reminded of how art reflects life, which is why art history is so interesting - it shows what the culture was like in different eras. And I do think about how we have actually created these two candidates - what do our candidates say about what we as a culture value? Why does it take narcissism and arrogance to be a political candidate today, especially for the highest office? (Yes, Biden too).
In psychology we talk about one's shadow side, and I think that we as a culture tend to celebrate and lift up those who are arrogant enough to believe they know what the world needs - but the shadow side of that arrogance and determination is everything we are seeing today, that is toxic. But maybe it's always been that way, we just didn't know it because without the internet and social media, we were not aware of how narcissistic and toxic most of our previous leaders were. Womanizers, slave-owners, sexist, liars, etc. - these are nothing new among men in power. So I think the question we each need to ask ourselves is, what do I contribute to the toxicity and dysfunction? How can I do better at practicing humility and reminding myself, "seek to understand rather than be understood"? I am often struck, when I take the effort to do this, by how at the bottom of it all, we actually are not that different from our "opponents."
Even a broken clock is right twice a day?
I knew that things were seriously off the rails in journalism when I would beg older relatives to pay less attention to the national news for their mental well being and they responded that it was more exciting than any tv show.
I’ll credit the man with one thing, having a hunch for the old fashioned media spectacle. Barnum and Bailey style vaudeville advertising pizazz.
I would suggest everyone take a bit more care with what they say. Trump did not say he wanted to grab girls by the pussy. He was bragging that he could and in so doing was characterizing their willingness as much as anything. Similar distortions have been made and repeated regarding many other statements he has made. These are distinctions that do make a difference.
Thinking Trump got elected the first time because of racism is only a small slice of the victory pie. Sure, he has racist supporters (so do the Dems, think The Squad primarily), but it's not the only or even primary reason he won in 2016. He was helped a lot by a robotic Hillary Clinton who could never relax or get off a good zinger on him. She wasn't just guarding herself because she had so many misogynist haters (she did and still does), she's *always* been like that...most likely to please her uptight, reserved, conservative father. There are plenty of other reasons people voted for Trump, and writing his supporters off as racist misses much of what motivated them in the first place--primarily economic issues. They really are in a bad place, while the left pointed fingers at them and called them privileged because they were white. They sure as hell didn't feel privileged, and they weren't.
Both candidates should step down immediately
Lisa’s beautifully thoughtful piece reminds me of what I thought to be a very wise article about the Middle East by Fania Oz-Salzberger. Here is a key point from it that I think speaks not only for the situation in the Middle East, but also for so many situations in which we find ourselves today:
“. . . the real chasm threatening the Middle East and the rest of the world is not between right and left, west and non-west, global north and global south, or even Jews and Arabs. It is between moderates and extremists. Consider the recent EU elections results in this light: left and right extremism have fed each other, building up a feverish pitch, while most middle-of-the-road voters stayed at home, sleepily enjoying their private lives as if these were the 1920s. The political laziness of sensible people is the greatest prize for fanatics.”
https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/extremism-feeds-extremism-7591/
For me, a bright spot on the landscape is the results of the elections in the UK. Even as I recognize there is much more to do to address those issues that draw us to Lisa’s site, what I see in Starmer is someone who is not ideological so much as wanting to dig in and fix what is wrong. Janice Turner, in quintessentially British style, put it this way in a London Times piece: “[Sunak’s] wealth drew him inevitably into the Cavalier flamboyance of fancy trainers and private lakes. Starmer wrote a 1,500-page law tome. Always awkward in the look-at-me brashness of campaigning, he is happily cracking his knuckles for a 90-hour week, a Roundhead to his bones.” (As an aside, hooray for Wes Streeting’s stance on puberty blockers, and I hope he stays the course: https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1812435914473295927)
We are all having to do a lot of hard thinking—and in this, Lisa is one who is leading the way. In my case, I want more Roundheads: decent, humane, competent elected representatives who have as their primary mission listening to and working on behalf of their constituents, whoever they might be. Then, when working within government, rolling up their sleeves and finding people who will work together to solve real problems.
What we know is that some policies coming out of any administration will be good, others bad, and still others simply meh😎. We can and should evaluate each individual policy on its merits, and our representatives should work together to solve the problems we face wherever they can. I was very pleased, in that regard, that Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff broke rank to oppose the confirmation of a judge who defended her decision to house a violent male in a women’s prison, with predictable results. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/first-us-senate-panel-rejects-biden-judicial-nominee-new-york-2024-07-11/ Ossoff was the only Democrat to join with the Republicans to do that, and his vote is what made the difference.
When it comes to Trump, however, my evaluation moves beyond assessment of individual policies to assessment of his ability to lead our country overall. There is plenty to go on here—we are, after all, not dealing with a blank slate. My conclusion from everything I have read and observed—which I recognize will not be shared by all here—is that Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy, and the consequences of electing him again will ricochet around and further destabilize the world.
So, to ascertain what we need to do now, I turn back to where I began, to the words of Fania Oz-Salzberger: “left and right extremism have fed each other, building up a feverish pitch, while most middle-of-the-road voters stayed at home, sleepily enjoying their private lives as if these were the 1920s. The political laziness of sensible people is the greatest prize for fanatics.”
Not using rhetoric like "morally bankrupt narcissist" is a good start.
How about convicted felon, rapist, known to not pay workers, a long history of housing discrimination...I see ample evidence of an actual bad person. I don't even need the media to help me with that. I need to understand the policies in China.
I agree. But how do we remake the Democratic party...or even reform the Republican one? I've been struggling with this question for weeks.
I hate the republican party's hateful rhetoric toward women and their right to be autonomous fully realized human beings. They don't really think of us as people, just brood mares and servants. JDV's position that childless women should have their wages garnished means I will never respect anything he has to say. However, I can handle that better than I can handle being told any man on earth can just declare himself a woman and from that point on have full access to anything previously set aside for women. And the authoritarian left demanding I accept that. I had to unfollow one of my favorite Instagram feminists because of this. I wish we had a sane choice but we don't.
I've thought so much recently about what I'll do differently this time if Trump wins the election. Go slower, more carefully. Listen more and across the political spectrum. Ask for evidence. Try to build bridges. Support free speech even when it's hard. Focus and ask, when possible, that we define, dream and start from the future we want to build