The Increasing Lack of Class in American Politics

 

“Class” is a term describing a certain attitude.  It describes a person of high standards of civility, graciousness and general good character.

Seemingly, in our society today, it is used to describe its absence in a person more than its presence.

Thus, Donald Trump’s conduct and manner is classless.

Nancy Pelosi’s use of vulgar four letter words is not classy.

Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate John Federman wears a sweatshirt in  public appearances, distinctly unclassy.

And Hershel Walker’s promiscuous behavior and the fathering of several children out of wedlock is certainly lower class.

In older times, politicians on the national scene used discretion to conceal non-classy behavior.  It’s not that the quality of people was necessarily better.  But standards of behavior were.  Hypocrisy could be commendable.  To paraphrase Queen Victoria, “Whatever you do, don’t frighten the horses”.

Today, the lack of class displayed by so many politicians is not the result of the decision to forgo hypocrisy.  It is the absence or failure to follow standards of what constitute class.

I’ll accept that the term can seem loaded.  In other contexts, “class” was a term applied to one’s social status.  Certain attributes, speech patterns, dress and general conduct were expected of the members of a particular class.  That the aristocrat was easily distinguishable from the common laborer.

But America is very different, for instance, from the British who still relish the differences in social status.  Here, class can relate to conduct more than economic roots.  But that can be quite confusing for us.  If the upper class was traditionally the source of high standards and hence what was meant by class, what are we to think about the people in positions of high power or authority who are oblivious to it?

Are we to think that such people have redefined the meaning of class and so they have set new standards of behavior which are to be emulated?  Alas, for The Sensible Conservative, they have and they are

This set of circumstances is another chapter in the book on America:  “The World Turned Upside Down”.

Reflections on the Decline of the Family

 

Traditionally, the term “family” meant a male and female united to produce children.

Since a species – including human – dies off if it doesn’t reproduce, civilizations from ancient times have honored the role of families.  In fact, the importance of the family was recognized long ago in the formalization of the relationship of the man and woman in marriage.  Plainly, such relationships can exist without formal sanction.  But such historically were proscribed both socially, religiously and criminally (adultery and fornication).

As a matter of experience as well as moral admonitions – it would seem that people recognized that raising children in wedlock, with both parents present, was in the off-springs’ best interest.  They were healthier in all sorts of ways (modern-day empirical studies have reached the same conclusions).

Let me make an elementary observation that is obvious indeed.  The desire for sex is what draws men and women together.  But that does not mean that children will inevitably begotten.  Is there an innate desire to have children as there is a sex drive?  The apparent results of the sexual revolution which began in the 1960s places that proposition into doubt.  The birth rate in America has declined since then.  (It is now well below the rate of replenishment, much less expansion.)

The existence of a sex drive is a given.  There is reason to believe an urge to reproduce is not as strong a factor of human nature.

If it were, why would God command his people to procreate (Genesis 1:28)?

From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn’t sex outside of marriage be proscribed to promote it exclusively within?  Sexual intercourse would lead to conception and the birth of children within the sanctity of the marriage in a desirable outcome for society’s welfare.

The desire for sexual relations was not to be stunted – human nature would not permit it – but the practice could be restricted to serve beneficial ends.

Attitudes today support the disconnect between sex and having children.  Think of articles in the press of young couples championing the existence of “the pill”, etc., so they can enjoy each other’s company without worrying about bringing a child between them.

The family, as historically construed and supported, no longer can be counted upon to serve the broader society’s interest in providing healthy new generations.  Rather, we confront the reality that 40% of America’s children are born to single mothers.  (European statistics are similar, by the way.)  What will become of them – or us?  Prospects aren’t promising.

NOTE:  As The Sensible Conservative, I strive to be optimistic, but that is hard to do when noting the increasing societal deficiencies all around us.      That is not hyperbole.

Lessons Learned… and Forgotten

 

In the year since the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, books have been published, articles written, which rely on a variety of military and civilian sources to list lessons learned from our twenty year engagement.

For an American who served as a military and civil advisor in Vietnam fifty years ago, their assessments are déjà vu. 

So many of the mistakes in our conduct in Afghanistan were of the same sort committed in Vietnam.  That is simply tragic – and unforgivable.  Lessons learned have been forgotten.

Why?  Is it simply incompetence attributable to ignorance?  Is it hubris in the Greek tragedy sense?

Sure, you can, with resignation, rely on the cliché that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. But that attitude relegates the ignorance/hubris to human nature; it’s an unavoidable fact without remedy.

I deny that the sacrifices of Americans in Afghanistan (2400+ died and more than 20,000 were wounded) were unavoidable.

We entered that country as a result of the 9/11 attacks spawned there.  Our military handled the task of hunting down Al Queda quite effectively and efficiently.  But then, despite promises not to, we stayed to do “nation building”.  We’ve rarely been competent at the latter.

We Americans are generally a parochial and conceited people.   We have the best of everything in the world and do not understand why outsiders do not embrace our example in all ways.  Democracy, human rights?  Of course, we believe all people want them too, but so many are thwarted by their societies and authoritarian governments.  So we are surprised when, given the opportunity, that others take a different path.

An example, history shows that a liberal democracy cannot be grafted onto a society like a rose bush onto disease resistant roots.  It must be able to grow at the pace the society accepts.

We forget that our respect - as part of the Western democratic tradition - for human rights and self-government began in England with the Magna Carta and evolved over the next 1000 years.

And we expected positive results in nation building as we rolled into Afghanistan in 2001, a country with NO history of self-government?  We are disappointed that in 20 years no lasting progress resulted?

Did anyone remember what happened in the tribal nations of Africa which were freed from colonial rule in the 1960s?  The result was summed up by the biting ditty “one man, one vote, one time”.  The flowering of democracy does not thrive in barren soil.

Why can’t other people be like us?  Because they have different cultures and often different beliefs and values.  Yet that simple observation – and it seems so plainly obvious – was given little, if any, weight by the American policymakers.  We know best, don’t we?  So, of course, with the opportunity we’re offering, they’ll enthusiastically adopt our better ways.

History’s answer and lesson was clear – they will not… and they did not.

That makes America a fool.  We tried again what had failed before and, with no justification whatsoever, expected a different result. 

The cost of “relearning” that lesson is unforgivable.

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Husband of the Speaker of the House Fair Game?

 

NO! 

Paul Pelosi, the spouse of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was recently arrested in California on drunk driving charges.

Learning of the arrest, Fox News thought its coverage noteworthy.  It wasn’t and actually served as a new low.  It might have been appropriate if the event was more than publicizing the conduct of Mrs. Pelosi’s husband.  For instance, if Mr. Pelosi had been known as a strong supporter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the hypocrisy would have been worthy of attention. [That Mr. Pelosi may have a drinking problem has nothing to do with the Speaker’s conduct.]   The Sensible Conservative lines up on the right as does Fox News’ opinion side.

The Sensible Conservative lines up on the right as does Fox News’ opinion side.  That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t differences of opinion (on foreign affairs, in particular), and I am simply appalled by the juvenile nature of so much of its commentary.  A low-brow, school yard mentality permeates the prime time line-up.  The Bill O’Reillys, Megan Kellys and Martha McCallums have been replaced by the likes of Jesse Waters, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson.  The former line-up, plainly right of center, strove to be fair.  Opposing view holders were given a platform and assumed to be honorable even if flawed in their thinking.

Their replacements are prone to pettiness and are quick to conclude that conspiracies are afoot on the left.  As in “why would (fill in the blank of the leftist name or group) say such a thing which is so blatantly false they can’t believe it.”  The “Fox talker” would answer his own question.  “They are trying to undermine America.”  Actually, that indeed might be the result of the leftist position, but to call that an intended result is akin to labeling it treasonous.  Why can’t the Fox antagonist simply believe what they wish, contrary to reality as that might be.  People do so all the time.

From an historical perspective, it is accurate to accuse the left of impugning motives long before Fox News, Donald Trump, et al, arrived on the scene, I remember the 1960s Democrats  accusing Republicans of being against education because they opposed Federal involvement or hating the “poor” when they voted against expansion of the welfare system.  Republicans didn’t think that Democrats were serious just cynical so the aspersions on motives weren’t taken to heart.

Now, however, the sincerity of the character attacks are not doubted.  The hostility, even hatred, for the other side does indeed seem heartfelt.

So we pick-up any cudgel available to throw at the other side – even the personal – not political – misconduct of a family member of an opposition leader.

Note:  “They do it, too” is an unbecoming retort.  Conservatives, as self-proclaimed guardians of the past worthy of protection, should adhere to  standards, not joining the Left in trashing them.

 

Kudos to the Speaker

 

 

The Sensible Conservative has never done this before:  heap praise upon Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a very liberal Democrat.

Her visit to Taiwan, in the twilight of her career, may be seen someday as its highlight.

Her announcement of a trip to Taiwan at the time did not seem notable.  It was planned as merely a short visit to an Asian friend among other countries she was scheduled to see such as Japan and South Korea.  China’s vociferous reaction made the planned trip significant, indeed.

There were reports from the White House that Mrs. Pelosi was stirring up the proverbial hornets’ nest with a perceived provocation and should reconsider. 

Whether she felt insulted by that position was not revealed, but the person who is third in line to the American Presidency carried on and followed through.  She stood up for America – and Taiwan.  It was an example for all  national leaders.  America sets its own course!

Brava to her!

Impugning the Other Side’s Motives Has Got to Stop

 

Seemingly long ago, differences of opinion on political matters were attributed by one side believing that those on the other side were misguided, misinformed, ignorant or even motivated by self-interest.  Sure, silly partisan charges were leveled as in “If you oppose Federal spending on education, you are against education” or, if you promoted some governmental-funded health care for the poor, you favored socialized medicine.  Demagoguery was certainly abundant as well.  Yet venom was not common.

My belief that Democrats “back then” were more likely to offend than be offended against may or may not be attributable to my own bias.  But these days, it’s hard to dispute that the vitriol gets tossed back and forth pretty equally.  And now, increasingly, each side sees dark conspiratorial motives at work.

On the right, Fox News’ primetime hosts highlight the massive influx of outsiders crossing our southern borders as being desired by the Biden Administration.  The lax enforcement (border wall not completed, etc.) is seen as more than a policy favoring open borders.  Rather, the real reasons are nefarious.  The Democrats want more immigrants, to bolster their electoral support, so they can tighten their control over [whom they perceive will vote left] America.

Democrats are hardly so farseeing.  First, the right to vote still requires (an annoying detail, admittedly, to some) citizenship which means steps will still take many years to climb.  Secondly, statistics show that if Democrats expect second generations to move in electoral lock-step, they are likely to be sorely disappointed.

Maybe many on the left don’t see the importance of secure borders because they don’t much care for their country.  What’s worth preserving?

Some on the right feel the need to impugn the motives of those on the left who favor loose immigration policies.  Why the urge to find “hidden” explanations?

On the left, CNN and MSNBC felt compelled to attribute criticism of the violent rioting following George Floyd’s death to a yearning for racist and authoritarian policies.  But does a desire for simple law and order and the resolution of disputes in a peaceful manner mean fascism is the goal?

There are plenty of obvious reasons to differ with the other side.  Can’t these merely be taken at face value?

It’s an outdated cliché, I know, for many, but a civil society needs to live by it:  “agree to disagree”.  Don’t impugn the other side’s motivation.

Why Do People Still Support Trump?

 

That is a question which simply befuddles the Left – and that is part of the answer.  If they hate him, so what?  It’s one reason, for those on the right, to continue backing him (i.e. what you oppose, I support!).

Yet the main reason is deeper seated.  Trump, carries the gauntlet that for the millions who believe they’ve been demeaned, dismissed and disregarded.  Although polls suggest that his support from the GOP base has begun to wane somewhat, recent primary results show that his opinion on candidates still matters greatly to many.

That is not to say that his substantial character defects and often crude and nasty comments about those who cross him are irrelevant to most (although certainly to some).  But they pale when contrasted with the generally hostile and overwrought treatment he receives from the non-Fox media.  The mainstream press, with leftist opinions often masquerading as “news”, has been the nemesis of conservatives long before Trump arrived on the national scene.  But the intensity of anger directed at the ex-president makes him particularly attractive on the Right.  (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  He is fighting my fight.)

It is pointless for Trump critics to cite his failure, for instance, to concede that he lost on 2020.  Yes, he lost.  But he doesn’t agree.

Don’t people often believe what they want to believe even though objective facts are contrary?  Think of Trump’s personality:  He seems incapable of admitting failure.  But the CNNs of the world are blind to the high probability that his denial of election defeat is sincere so they proclaim he is perpetuating a “Big Lie” when he insists he was victorious.  But, of course, CNN, in particular, will insist in good faith that its political coverage of Trump and other political subjects is not clouded by liberal bias.  Their denials are also untrue but unlikely to be lies.  They believe what they want to believe.  Confronting reality is an unpleasantness to be avoided.  That is why intellectual honesty is unusual.

Human nature usually rules for everyone, including Trump supporters.  As time goes by, they, too, will lessen their allegiance to Donald Trump.  Their object is getting older.  So are they.  In the meantime, they will disregard attacks as unbelievable because such are perceived to be malicious.

Even if the sources are not the liberal media or the Democratic Party, its alter ego.

 

Wokism in America Thrives

 

Have you heard the latest lunacy from the National Education Association (the largest national teachers’ union)?  It is proof that woke thinking still thrives.

The term “mother” is deemed to outdated: “birthing parent” is to be the preferred term affixed to a parent who gives birth to a child.

Huh?  Last I heard, wombs are found only in females.  Thus, giving birth is exclusively the activity of one sex.  “Mother” is descriptive of a particular type of parent which does not include the other sex.

The woke left (have their terms become interchangeable?) is obsessed with deleting labels or names which they deem offensive (to someone).  Thus, the successful campaign, for instance, to force the Washington football team to find a substitute for ‘Redskins” even though native American Indians were hardly on the warpath because they found the nickname offensive.

But the teachers’ union has gone even more nuts.  It wants to remove “mother” from the politically correct vocabulary even there is no purported victim!

[I will concede that someday, science may be able to give males the capability to give birth to another human being.  The nature of motherhood can be revisited at that time.]

By the way, for the more conventional wokers among us who insist upon the presence of victimhood before names can be changed, I suggest the following candidates from a list of baseball teams:

          Arizona Diamondbacks – what about people who are frightened by snakes?

          Los Angeles Dodgers – does that mean that people who don’t use crosswalks while “dodging” through traffic are to be commended?  What about the risks posed to the law-abiding drivers?

          Milwaukee Brewers – does it promote excessive consumption of beer and hence alcoholism?  Think of all the harm caused by that addiction.

          San Diego Padres – Spanish missionaries in California often demeaned the local populace.  Why honor them?

          San Francisco Giants – are little people less important?

          Pittsburg Pirates – why herald lawbreakers?  Law and order advocates are offended.

 

Wokers: you now have new targets to feed your need for                                            self-righteousness.  Get to work!

Should Politics Have Played a role in the Treatment of Roe v. Wade?

 

Most Constitutional scholars would not hesitate.  There is broad agreement that the abortion rights case of 1973 was wrongly decided.  That the Court made a political decision instead of pursuing sound legal analysis

Thus, in reversing the ’73 ruling, the current Court, in a 5-4 vote, corrected a 49 year old error.  The tally was not 6-3 because Chief Justice John Roberts thought that the case before it did not require such dramatic action.  And from a legal perspective, he was right.  The Court, given the views of the majority, need only have upheld the Mississippi law which banned abortions for a baby in the womb, in most circumstances, 15 weeks after conception.  But there was an unstated political reason for Roberts.  Don’t add to divisiveness in the country if such is not necessary.

The Sensible Conservative sides with the Chief Justice.  The Court is an institution which needs to maintain the respect of the broad public.  It is an integral part of our government and the crown on our judicial system.  That is a political objective and proper concern.  Plainly, and understandably,  millions of Americans are distressed by what they viewed as the revocation of an American right.  Of course, in many states – such as New York, California and Illinois – it remains one.  Yet Roe v. Wade was a symbol of good policy to its supporters (while of course that it was the product of judicial overreach doesn’t matter).  Their numbers can’t be ignored.

Conservatives should pursue policy changes, if involving matters of widespread concern and division, in a gradual, evolutionary matter.  That is much easier for those on the other side to absorb and rationalize.  Such an approach to change does not mean that the objective is abandoned, merely that the change occurring comes in a more palatable fashion and is thus less likely to fuel a heated opposition.  Don’t we have far too much of that already?

It would have been preferable for the nation’s sake if Roe v. Wade remained, but as a shell without substance.  That might have required legal sophistry.  But it would have contributed to a desirable political and national lessening of friction on the issue.  Despite what might be taught in law school, that would be a worthy result.

 

Note on slogans:

Realizing that “pro-choice” sentiment didn’t prevail, abortion supporters now promote the need to protect “reproductive health”, without noting the result for the unborn baby.

 

Perspective on Mass Murders

 

There is an understandable reaction of horror when learning of the latest slaughters in New York State and Texas.  This is followed by a cry of incredulity:  Again?  When will the seemingly senseless violence end?  A list of past massacres is recalled:  Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012 and Parkland in 2018.

But our present outrage and recall distort reality.   It may sound callous to say so, but the total of 87 killed in the mass murders above are far fewer than the homicides occurring each year in major cities such as Chicago (758), Los Angeles (352), Indianapolis (230).  [Source: 2021 FBI statistics]  While not all of these victims were shot, most were.

Maybe we as a nation have become numb to these facts.  Plainly, the impact of learning that a young person was a victim of a drive-by shooting on Chicago’s crime-ridden southside doesn’t generate the emotional ire of a slaughter at a school in small town Texas.

And that’s where the distortion comes in.  The former is a typical event; the latter remains unusual and dramatic.

Apparently, we view the routine and common event as merely a part of life to be tolerated and factored in to our activities (“be careful where you go at night”). School shootings, however, generate demands to do something!

Perhaps they are related. Don’t all these events result from a breakdown in order?

The school shooters were undoubtedly deranged and on the fringe of society. As such, they would seem to be especially vulnerable to the Internet and other outlets that foster attitudes of permissiveness and tolerance for deviant behavior. The deterrence to killing is weakened if not simply demolished.

Susceptibility to the allure of permissiveness would also seem a strong factor in the broader society as well.

A permissive attitude would affect the Chicago gang shooter in a different way than the Texan slayer. He’s not crazy. But he does see that permissiveness connotes leniency and reduced risk of consequences. It is not coincidental that reduced police presence and cutbacks on law enforcement were accompanied by a deterioration in order and respect for the law in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Would that wanton killings could be ended by stricter gun controls. People who want to murder always seem able to find a way.

Are there real solutions? Increased security for schools would seem required, including police and armed teachers. But remember that such targets are rarely hit. Culture also needs to be less tolerant of disorder.

But that sentiment is too general to be applicable across our country of 330 million people.

If changes in murder rates are a barometer of the culture’s attitude toward law and order, consider the following statistics:

Between 2011 and 2019, the U.S. murder rate (per 100,000 people) rose 10%, a significant change but not dramatic. And in states like Maine (20% down), Wyoming (31%) and Kansas (33%), the murder rate declined sharply.

On the other hand, during the same period, rates skyrocketed in the District of Columbia (up 34%), Missouri (54%) and Maryland (32%).

These numbers suggest that we should narrow our focus to understanding why cultural attitudes toward murder may be influenced by the setting: urban, suburban or rural. Are politics and policies involved? Missouri contains St. Louis and Maryland has Baltimore. We know what needs to change.

Are Supreme Court Justices Partisan?

 

Certainly, that is the general perception.  And it often true.  It is no coincidence that Court members appointed will be members of the President’s party.  And, unsurprisingly, they will tend to rule in favor of positions favored by their party’s members.  They are partisans.

To be sure, each member of the Court (as with any judge at any level) has taken an oath to be fair and impartial.  But I suggest that predictable alignments do not mean that a judge’s pledge can be dismissed as empty words.

Sure, some oath takers view the recitation as imposing no responsibility upon them.  Yet it would be rank cynicism – and simply untrue – to treat the promise as meaningless.

The history of the Supreme Court is replete with examples of justices who voted contrary to expectations.  Two examples:

                   **  Chief Justice John Roberts surprised conservatives and liberals alike when he voted to uphold Obamacare.

                   **  Liberal Justice Breyer shocked both parties in 2001 when he voted to in favor of George Bush’s election as president.

There are many others.  Of course, these can also be considered as exception to the rule.  Judges will contend that they are not influenced by their biases and prejudices – when common sense tells us otherwise.  We all prefer believe about ourselves what we want to believe.  But that doesn’t mean that we don’t try to adhere to standards we set for ourselves.  That attitude can be reinforced if others take your commitment to fairness and impartiality as one made in good faith.

Thus, it was a mistake for 47 Republican members of the Senate to vote against the candidacy of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court.  Her ascendancy was assured by the unanimity of the Democrats so the negative votes accomplished nothing but to highlight the refusal of the opposition to credit the nominee with “good faith”.

Ironically, the support of her three GOP backers (Senators Collins, Murkowski and Romney) may in the future cause Justice Jackson to take more seriously her oath because they voted for her in apparent reliance on her own sincerity,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Downside of Individualism?

 

The term “exceptionalism” rightly applies to America – and usually in positive ways.  We can indeed be proud that the USA is superior to the other nations of the world in so many ways… but not in all.

          *  During 2019-2020, alcohol-related deaths rose by 25% over the preceding time frame, fatal drug overdoses were up 38%.

          *  Suicide rates for the past twenty years have been on an upswing (in contrast, almost everyone else has seen declines).

          *  Young people, especially girls, are increasingly depressed.

 

Why?

We have long celebrated our national commitment to the individual and his rights politically (U.S. Constitution), economically (free enterprise) and socially (freedom from a class consciousness). But, from our early days, we also considered ourselves as social creatures, recognizing our participation in myriad associations with our fellow Americans.  In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting from France in the 1830s, highlighted the propensity of our forebearers to join together in tasks ranging from self-government to religious worship to community activities.

An observer today would see a different America.  We are much less inclined to join anything or participate in community social activities.  A social scientist used the decline of participation in bowling leagues as an illustration.  (His book on our increasing individual isolation is titled Bowling Alone.”)

What has changed?

With individual rights, comes commensurate responsibility.  We are social beings.  Our health as a society depends upon our participation in activities with others.

Ironically, the internet and social sites like Facebook and Twitter were expected to facilitate increased communication among us all.  Instead, social media, when not promoting hostility to its users, encourages isolation.  Who needs the demands of face-to-face contact?  (Well, actually, we all do.)  In ways that are obviously harmful to us, our focus on individualism has led many to isolation and loneliness. 

And no, social media is not solely to blame.  The drastic decline in trust among us is a major factor.  Our houses of faith, education, neighbors and yes, even government, used to be broadly admired and looked to for guidance.  But now they typically disappoint.  So we draw inward and are increasingly dependent upon our inadequate individual selves… with Facebook as our comfort?

I’m tempted to view what I’ve just written as pointless.  Isn’t the horse long gone from the barn?  But I am an incurable optimist more inclined to refer to John Donne’s pithy 17th century admonition: “No man is an island”.

Each of us has duty to build bridges, stop bemoaning the admittedly sorry state we inhabit and change it.  Now that’s positive individualism!
 

Liberals are for “Free Speech”… Sort Of

 

One of the clearly sacrosanct principles of our democracy used to be respect for free speech.

This was illustrated by the famous quote attributed to French writer Voltaire.  “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Unfortunately, a more updated version would read “I’ll support your right to free speech as long as I agree with you.  Otherwise, I’m for your canceling”.

Those on the Left who are less candid will affirm their continuing belief to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but will excuse the conduct of those who attempt to silence those with contrary views (almost always conservatives).

Left-wing Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude (who appears on MSNBC’s Scarborough show) put it this way.  (I’m paraphrasing.)  “Of course I support free speech but I also believe in non-violent civil disobedience.  That’s what protesting college students are exercising when they make noise to drown-out a speaker whose speech they find offensive.”

I suggest that the professor is using sophistry masquerading as an intelligent defense of reasonable actions.

The effect of such conduct is to thwart the exercise of speech with which one disagrees.  How does that qualify as an act of civil disobedience?

That principle can be justified as a response to a law that is wrong (as were pro-segregation policies in the South).  Thus, disobedience to such legislation can be sensible and reasonable in accord with what is believed to be a “higher” law.

Professor Glaude, however, apparently believes that using the gloss of a term popular in the Nation’s civil rights struggles will deflect attention from the cancel culture’s raison d’etre.  Its followers – and practitioners – are arrogant and closed minded.  They believe what they want to believe and oppose efforts by others to think differently.  They are offended.  

The First Amendment is about freedom – speech, press and religion – the essence of a liberal democracy.  The cancellers and their apologists, like the Princeton academics of the land, are its enemy.

 

When a False Statement is not a Lie

 

Back in our youth, each of us was prone to equate the statement of something that we knew to be untrue as a lie – and the person making it, a liar.

But as we grew older and (for some) more discerning in our use of language, the role of intent was recognized.  To lie is to state something is true when the maker knows that it is not.  Intention is the key to the definition.  Without it, the falsehood made stems from faulty information, flawed conclusions or beliefs that override facts.  They are errors, not lies.

To call someone a liar is a serious charge (excluding the minor white lies we all utter from time to time).  In today’s world, only the term “racist” is more incendiary.  And both are cast about with abandon.

Is Donald Trump a liar because he insists that he, not Joe Biden, won the 2020 election?  The Sensible Conservative readily agrees that this is not true.  So why does he repeatedly say it?  Because he believes what he wants to believe!  A cursory view of the ex-president’s personality and personal history makes obvious that he hates to lose and seems unable to admit defeat.  And that trait controls his view of reality.

Those who call the ex-president are either blinded by their bias and can not see the personality at play or see but are malevolent in their labeling.

And why do prominent media stars on the Right (Sean Hannity and fellow Fox headliner Tucker Carlson as examples) term the Conservatives with contrary views (e.g., Jan. 6 committee member Lynn Cheney or Georgia governor Brian Kemp) as liars because they view the results of the 2020 election as settled.  Is there not room for an alternative explanation that does not impugn one’s character?

Long ago – so it seems – when one believed that a foe was voicing falsehoods, one would prefer to believe that that person was mistaken.  And, even if intention was suspected, “liar” was not a slur to be uttered in polite company.  Discourse could continue.  Name-calling ends it.

Now, many of us simply shout and curse at others as the animosity deepens.

 

A Welcome Surprise – Liberal Media Provide Backbone to Biden Administration

One expects the conservative media to provide staunch support for military efforts directed at Russia (an unpleasant surprise is the apparent partiality of Fox News headliners like Tucker Carlson for Putin’s propaganda).  But the liberal media, with particular reference to the Washington Post, CNN and even-far left MSNBC have been prodding Joe Biden to do more.

Why?

Certainly, the facts that these outlets have reporters and video crews on the ground is part of the reason.  The barbaric conduct of Russia forces cannot be ignored when they are witnessed.  But also a factor is the simple, primal urge to rally round the flag.  The Russians are the bad guys and we side with the Ukrainians.

It's delightful to see a national unity in America which hasn’t been present since 9-ll.  And that feeling includes generally the media too.  (Of course, not everyone agrees.  MSNBC “wokester” Joy Reid posits that race is an explanation to consider.  After all, the Ukrainians are given special sympathy because they are white!)

Despite all the talk of divisiveness and bitter partisanship, we haven’t yet lost our willingness to come together on certain important matters and line up on the correct side.

In an historical sense, that is powerful evidence that America still remains the dominant force on the world’s stage (the ambition of China, notwithstanding) as long as we retain that capacity.

Criticism of President Biden in the Midst of a Foreign Policy Crisis is Out of Line

 

There is little doubt that some responsibility for the Ukrainian War lies at the feet of Joe Biden.  His administration, for instance, allowed the Russian natural gas line to resume completion (which President Trump had thwarted) and halted the shipment of weapons to the besieged country (again reversing the previous policy).  These observations are not meant to suggest that the Russian tyrant did not already have his eyes on Ukraine.  But President Biden’s conduct certainly gave Putin encouragement that his designs would not be seriously impeded.

So Biden screwed up.

That fact, however, does not excuse the criticism he is currently receiving.  Belatedly or not, our president is taking action.  Russia’s leader is taking note of the support in America for the new policies aimed at him.

All Americans should make clear their support for our Commander-in-Chief.  By our conduct, we can dissuade Putin from thinking that divisions here diminish our determination to resist his ambitions for further aggression against the West (and our interests).

Should President Biden be held accountable for his policy failures?

Yes!

But not now.

We must project unity.

So, I’m saying to my fellow conservatives that the times call for support, not plaintive cries of “if only…”.

Tolerance for Violence Invites More

 

Do you remember the riots that sprang up in the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd?  How about the media coverage that emphasized that violence, which accompanied the protests from Seattle to Atlanta, was regrettable but certainly understandable?

Look back on January 6, a year ago, when a crowd of Trump supporters brought mayhem to the U.S. Capitol building.  A few hours after the rioting began, the President commended the participants for their devotion to him and half-heartedly asked them to go home.

Did one episode beget the other?  Or did it merely add to the increasing trend in America to excuse, justify and ignore violence when it comes from one’s own side?

That is dangerous indeed.  Social pressure – more than legal constraints – controls human behavior.  Tolerance for violence – including tepid condemnation – loosens inhibitions for many.  That affects both those whose side is the instigator as well as the target.

That fact brings new meaning to the folly of using a double-edged sword.  Violence will not only be reciprocated, but it will be employed more frequently by one’s own side.

Is Armageddon America’s destination?  Violence must not be tolerated or excused.  Period.  Are we really drifting toward the disorder that marks third world countries?

Another possible example:  shooting of (not by) police officers.  There certainly seems to be an epidemic of them recently – many actually seem to be assassinations.  Have they been encouraged (one certainly hopes inadvertently) by the hostility toward law enforcement displayed by certain political and community leaders encapsulated in the “Defund Police” slogan?

Do Many Americans Favor Violence against the Government?

 

You would think so given the high level of press coverage of a recent poll which was reported as finding that 37% of Americans favored violence against the government, including 41% Independents, 40% Republicans and 23% Democrats. 

Shocking!  (Is civil war really in the offing?)

But that report was false.

Here is the pollster’s question on violence

“Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government”?

Notice the language “ever justified”.  This is a hypothetical question.  It is not asking about the respondent’s attitude on violence against our current government.

In fact, additional questions inquired as to what circumstances would justify violence.  Many said deprivation of liberty and/or imposition of a dictatorship.

If a government came to power in the United States of America which abolished our freedom, who among us wouldn’t use all means necessary to fight it?

The alarming answer, based upon the poll, is that a majority of citizens believe that violence would never be justified.  The Sensible Conservative prefers to believe that those so replying were ignoring the hypothetical and focusing on the present.

Yes, hyper-partisanship is of concern but it does not yet generate significant support for violence today against one’s political “enemies”, the January 6 riot in the Capitol notwithstanding.

This is another example of the need to look behind the headlines.  The media is not only liberal-oriented but often sloppy with the facts as well.  Biased and irresponsible – what a harmful combination. 

Did Anyone Notice that the President’s Press Conference was Better than Expected?

 

Very few.  But The Sensible Conservative did.

Sure, he made some mistakes including being too candid about NATO’s reaction to a “minor” Russian incursion into Ukraine.  As is his wont, some responses did wander a bit.

But his performance – from a style perspective – exceeded expectations.  Since this was only the President’s second press conference after a year in office, many on the Right were cheering the prospect that his well-known history of public incoherence (the evident reason for his absence from the public stage) would be unavoidably on display.  Those on the Left were dreading that this would indeed come to pass.  Disappointment and relief, respectively occurred instead.

Joe Biden was calm, generally in good humor and seemingly knowledgeable on the subjects discussed.  In short, he came off as intellectually alert and confident in his responses.

That was, from a foreign policy perspective, good to see.  Characterizations of our President as incompetent and mentally challenged can discomfort our allies and encourage aggression from our foes.  (Why fear the leader of the free world?)

Such observations, however, were not made by conservatives in general.  Fox’s prime time hosts (7-11pm) had no compliments to utter.  It was as if favorable comments about the devil would bring down the wrath of God (or at least Fox’s viewers) upon them.  Has partisanship so taken hold of people that being fair is forbidden?

Ironically, given the general hostility of the Left toward an American role in the world, CNN and MSNBC took Joe Biden to task for confusing listeners (those in Ukraine in particular) about minor versus major incursions.  (The former would be ok?)  Maybe their general disenchantment with Biden’s failure to fulfill leftist legislative promises is the reason.

NOTE:  My approval is limited to his performance.  The substance of his comments is on the value of policies pursued is delusional.

 

Will Civility Return?

 

Hope is not a satisfactory answer.

The national trend of a decline in politeness and avoidance of insults in public life has been underway for years, well before Donald Trump arrived on the political scene.

Of course, for many, Trump’s coarse manner and general uncouthness brought the subject to the fore.

But the reality is that politics follows the culture, not vice-versa.  So one needs to reach further back.

Was it the internet that fostered mean, harsh comments?  Seemingly, the anonymity of messages encouraged some people to drop the pretense of civility that previously mandated decorum.  Now they could be blunt.  Eventually, as the more aggressive “pushed the envelope”, hiding one’s identity was no longer considered necessary.  Crudeness, nastiness and obscenity online and on TV was not only tolerated but applauded as audacious by the avant garde. 

Political discourse followed suit.

So why should we care?

Language matters.  No one likes to be insulted.  What used to be praised as polite discourse was founded on the principle that disagreements among people should be expressed in polite terms.  In other words, an exchange of contrary views should not aim to offend others.  Don’t make criticizing “personal”.  Of course, such politeness can be merely pretense.  But that’s better received, even if the attitude is not well concealed, than the blatantly hurtful.

Harsh words are not only deeply wounding but the target is likely to reciprocate not only the language used but, more importantly, the disrespect conveyed.

Mutual hatred can’t be far away.

In the political world, we know where that leads.  Look around.  One side views the other as its enemy - not as a foe with whom one respectfully disagrees.  Polarization is a euphemism (another polite term) for the formation of hostile camps.  Members aren’t interested in working together to serve a common purpose; their aim is to destroy the other.

Of course, this sounds like hyperbole.  And, fortunately, most Americans don’t yet think in such dire terms.  But we all know the trends are headed in the wrong direction.

How can the situation be reversed?  The task is not easy, nor is it to be accomplished by a flip of the proverbial switch.  A change in social mores is the only way.  Again, politics follows social views.  Traditional institutions such as religious, education and businesses used to set standards; they seem to do more to undercut than sustain positive examples these days.

In our entertainment-obsessed society, is there an option other than looking to entertainment to make the switch?  A slender hope, indeed.

Where else can we look?

Maybe a Spiritual Awakening like that which spread across America in the 19^th century.

Something must be done.

Is not the return of civility vital to the long-term survival of our democracy?

Animosity Toward Covid-19 Vaccinations Flows from Political Polarization

 How did that simple fact come to be?

Initially, America seemed united in the effort to develop vaccines in 2020.  And Donald Trump was in the forefront pushing for speedy development.  He even appeared almost daily at White House presentations featuring Anthony Fauci and other proponents.

But, late in the year, the President prompted criticism from the (liberal) media when he suggested already available drugs might work (a very controversial claim).  That reaction, along with occasional ambivalence by Donald Trump to mask-wearing, cooled the support on the Right for the anti-infection campaign.

For many Trump supporters, if their man is lukewarm on the need for vaccinations and his political opponents are for it, that’s sufficient reason “to be against it”.

That’s certainly in sharp contrast to the reception the polio vaccine received in the 1950s.  There was little resistance among the general public.  It was a health issue only.  Of course, there were then, as now, conservatives and liberals. But the sides did not view their opponents with the hostility so prevalent today.

The role of deep emotional divisions encompasses the wearing of masks as well.  The Biden Administration’s call for mandates unsurprisingly met with vocal resistance.   Again, the President’s demands for adherence  generate an intense, partisan reaction because what he proposes on essentially anything is opposed by many of his political foes.

Are those refusing to get vaccinated or wear masks doing so out of spite and – considering possible serious complications – biting off one’s nose… (you know the rest)?  Likely.

To respond that that makes no sense is to disregard human nature.  Those of us who consider ourselves reasonable (relying on reason, of course), and therefore rational in decision-making, are ignoring that we are all primarily emotional creatures.  Usually, we decide what we want to do on an emotional plane before seeking palatable justification.

So, foolish as a dangerous choice may seem to others, emotional satisfaction usually wins out.

Appeals to reason are not persuasive when the decision is founded on emotion. 

 

 

Music Lift Despair in Kentucky

 

The news from tornado-ravaged southwest Kentucky was seemingly never-ending horrific.

But there was a reminder of the resilience and optimism of America’s spirit among the storm’s rubble.

Alongside his demolished home, a farmer (judging from his overalls) was seated at his piano which, incredibly, had been pushed out of the house by the wind and was in one piece.  He was playing hymns!

He and his community will survive.

“Merry” had a different meaning for the farmer this Christmas but, for Christians, eternal joy remains on the horizon.