On Real Friendship

 

The term “friendship” is close to meaningless in its usage in modern American society

Does a click on a Facebook post qualify? How about the relationship one shares with a political ally? Workmates? Fellow sports enthusiasts?

With each we can be friendly but is that the same?

Real friendship as I was raised isn't like that at all. Rather it's like being a member of a loving family and believing in the way, one spouse pledges to the other to "be there through sickness and health,” an admitted abridgment of a traditional wedding vow.

True friendship involves implicit commitment to another. Share the joy of the friend’s life and provide comfort and support for the person’s inevitable heartache

Life teaches that few of our acquaintances become friends in that sense. Sharing happiness is not difficult.  Providing support when times are the opposite of rosy is the test few of those we know will pass.

I do not mean to dismiss the value of friendly relationships. To enjoy someone's companionship because of shared interests and views and likability is a large part of life's enjoyment. True friends come from these acquaintances after all, yet few do.

I don't know if my experiences are typical or not.  My real friendships were generally formed when I was young in my late teens and early twenties or much older in my early 70s. In each of those periods, I guess I was seen by others as who I was rather than what I did.  I had not yet acquired the status that comes with accomplishments.  With advanced age and retirement, the status which had accompanied my active years largely disappeared.  True friends remained; those friendly acquaintances who were not disappeared. 

That was not a surprise.  Human nature commands for most of us the priority of self-interest. That means that when acquaintances are no longer valuable, they are jettisoned (as a lawyer for 45 years dealing with mankind's foibles, I never needed that guidance.)

Human nature, however, can surprise by its capacity to harbor altruism. What I define as friendship is inseparable from the commitment it entails. It is not an implicit "quid pro quo" promise.  Rather, it is unconditioned in the sense that a spouse commits to the other.  Perhaps viewed in that fashion, true friendship is a form of love.  If one gives or takes as life unfolds, it makes no difference

I have three friends from the early years.  One just turned 80 and is well along on the dementia path and requires in-home assistance.  Another is 79, still independent but fading.  The third is 78 with wits fully intact (as a light note, we first met as young Republicans. Since then, he has veered sharply to the left; I more strongly to the right. Still, our friendship thrives.) My oldest friend, after I assisted his move to a safer residence, said to me “thank you”.  I replied “I did for you what you would've done for me”.  He nodded yes.  My three new friends had been friendly acquaintances from my lawyer days who evolved. To emphasize the point of what matters, all knew of my politics and were not deterred from becoming friends even though they all consider themselves liberal Democrats! That I've garnered six true friends so far makes me happy indeed.

The Need for (Proper) Standards

Standards for life determine how people live, for good or bad. Who sets them?  What are they?

 In America the answer traditionally was the family which guarded the offspring and, with assistance from various societal forces including religious bodies, educational institutions and other entities forming the mores of the community.

 In today's America, such traditional influences are no longer active for many, if not most.

 The former sources for setting and upholding standards have largely abdicated that task. That is not to say that such moral elites have forsaken their personal beliefs in the rightness of certain guidelines of life hope (although certainly some have). Instead, it is that they have lost faith in the rightness of their doing so. In these terms the attitude is prevalent that no one should insist or suggest that others conform to standards of behavior followed seemingly since the dawn of time.

 It is as if the consensus of former moral leaders is that despite the manner of their conduct, they believe that it is presumptuous to offer guidance to others.

 Yet despite such reluctance the simple fact is that standards of behavior will be set. The void will be filled, although not to the benefit of society necessarily.

Social science studies make clear that certain behaviors lead to personal well-being while others do not.

The prescription for individual success can be summarized in chronological order: (One) get an education, (Two) get a job, (Three) get married, (Four) have children.  The order matters.  Obtaining a decent job presupposes adequate schooling; being self-supporting, for men, makes one eligible to attract a spouse and successful child raising is best accomplished within a marriage.  Abundant research has established that these are not debatable assertions.

 Of the four, the last is the most important (although its status flows from the  preceding three). Children, as the true but hackneyed phrase instructs, are the future. Their proper upbringing (including the inculcation of moral and life virtues) should be the paramount focus of society

 [Interestingly as cohabitation has increased and marriage numbers have dropped, child welfare has declined. On one level, the well-established fact makes no sense. Why should the fact that mom and dad are not married but living together affect a child's well-being or outcome? But it does. Perhaps, viewed from a different perspective, the lack of the relationship’s legal permanence – marriage – impacts the parents’ treatment of the off-spring.  Perhaps the “looseness” of the relationship shapes the parents’ commitment to the child (which he or she absorbs).]

 (Based on my experience, some very thoughtful people would say this explanation applies more to men than women.  Mothers tend to stick to their kids through thick and thin.  A mother’s commitment to the child would increase, not decrease, if she and her partner weren’t married.) 

Dismay

 That accurately describes the feelings of The Sensible Conservative and other traditional conservatives (Reaganites of old) when noting the staying power of Donald J Trump.

 The expectation was that Trump’s support from 2000 would sharply decline in the aftermath of his (contested) defeat. His ascendancy to power would lapse into history as an aberration.

Now one has to wonder if his foes were the aberration, not the other way around.

 To understand what happened, the focus should be on how his base, not Trump himself. The former president, after all, is a known quantity. The motivations of his supporters, however, may be hard to discern. After all, Trump is undeniably a mean, nasty man who displays shocking (at least to his detractors) ignorance of history and the country’s system of government. Knowledge of these facts, some would still think, doesn’t  discourage Trump backers from supporting him.  They do so despite that knowledge.  But that may be a faulty reading.

 There is strong evidence that his support is more likely to stem from  “because" he talks and acts that way.

 Listening to Trump advocates makes clear that the antagonism against "Washington elites" – both conservatives and liberals/leftists – is palpable. They are neither believed nor trusted.

 Trump is seen as a champion – fighting for them.  Thus, when he says the 2000 election was stolen or that Ukraine should not receive our full support, those positions are adopted.  They believe he’s on “their” side.

This occurs even though that person previously had no hesitation in endorsing as generally honest our electoral system or strong opposition to Putin and Russia.

 But faith in Trump overcomes prior beliefs. Have many Trump voters become cultists as in he is viewed as a savior? Is "make America great again" a theology?

 It is, of course, simplistic to lump all of Trump's supporters into a single category. And it is not fair or accurate to do so.

 Certainly, some have faith in a devotional sense that he will lead them to the promised land. But polls suggest that most Trump backers are motivated by anger over the status quo which they see as their foe. They  want a warrior to fight for them. Yet the fight seems more important than success. (Electability is of secondary importance to fighting hard.)

 That seems odd in a conventional political sense. But if the anger is combined with pessimism, the priority is sensible indeed. If defeat is to be expected, "going down fighting" has its allure.

 [Note: if one believes that the election was stolen from Donald Trump in 2000 – 3/4s of Republicans do – shouldn't Trump's nomination be assured? The wrong must be made right. With that in mind, DeSantis and Haley were never able to attract such voters.  They remained loyal.  Opposing candidates were doomed before they began.]

Is Donald Trump an Authoritarian?

"Authoritarianism" appears to be the current term in vogue among those who consume large doses of politics on a daily basis.  The left contends that encompasses Donald Trump and his minions, as well as the likes of Vladimir Putin and other dictators and tyrants over the globe.

In current usage, authoritarianism is treated as synonymous with dictatorship, one-man rule. It is the opposite of democracy

 Trump’s antagonists have seized on his response to a question on the subject. In what was plainly a nonserious tone, the former president said that he would be a dictator for one day (January 20, 2025) so that he could build his wall.

 But what if he was serious? Leave aside the self-imposed single day limitation.  If Donald Trump seeks to be an American dictator, he will confront the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. 

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

and Article 2, Section 1 imposes the following duty upon the president:

“I… will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. 

In other words, our founding document was designed to thwart would-be dictators. James Madison, et al., understood human nature. Mankind is inclined to seek power. It's a quest, not an aberration. This trait can be dangerous, of course. Lord Acton, a British statesman of the late 19th century, encapsulated that truth in the memorable expression "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 History is replete with examples of political leaders accommodating the demands of human nature

 It therefore seems quite natural for someone with power to use it in ways that he thinks are appropriate even if his exercise of it is supposedly restrained "by the law”.  One does not need to search deep in American history for examples: Barack Obama announced at the beginning of his second term that he could avoid congressional intransigence by the use of  executive orders ("I have a pen and a telephone”).  [Previously, he had concluded that he lacked constitutional authority to take the contemplated action.]

 How about Joe Biden using executive orders to aid legal aliens despite acknowledging that the action was probably unconstitutional? (The Supreme Court agreed.)

That the urge is powerful to implement one's wishes "to dictate an outcome” is obvious. Of course, Donald Trump will be tempted -  perhaps more than most – if he becomes chief executive once again. [A most disagreeable event from many perspectives] but the U.S. Constitution remains.   I do not believe that the American public including the Trump cult will abandon it.