Who's to Blame for the Trump Shooting?

 

Of course, the simple answer, and I suggest the correct one, is the 20-year-old shot dead on the Pennsylvania rooftop. 

Apparently, the person was registered as a Republican but made a modest contribution to a left-wing organization. There is no evidence that he was other than a lone wolf whose motivation was unclear (as this is written). 

So why is this attempted assassination being treated as if it's more than it appears – an isolated action by a single individual? 

The immediate and almost instantaneous verdict is this was the product of America's deep polarization where members of each side hate their opposition. 

While the divide is certainly real and intense, it can't be blamed for the conduct of a lone wolf. 

Of course, the name-calling by Democrat leaders that Trump is a fascist and enemy of democracy causes a hostile reaction from his supporters in the same fashion that the former president's attacks on his foes as enemies of America do. 

Leave aside whether either set of allegations are true, they are political speech. Are such statements to be discouraged because hearing them may inflame violent actions? (If, however, such verbal attacks are demagogic it is simply irresponsible to utter them knowing their possible effect on a few of 330 million Americans.) 

Yes, many of America's leaders contribute to the polarization of politics in a way that transforms the view of opponents into enemies. That cannot be good for democracy which needs a commitment to shared values  to survive. 

But America, our system of government, is not responsible for the few loons who choose to kill in support of their apparent political objectives. 

[Postscript-- the positive of the universal condemnation of America's deep political division, implicitly the cause of the shooting, is the likely dampening, if not reversal, of bipartisan anger.  That would be a good thing.

 

Self-Interest Versus National Interest in Politics

 

There is (or used to be) a myth among the general population that people get involved in politics to offer public service. Idealistic high school civics classes are probably the main reason for that view. While it is not entirely false, the myth does not encompass the many who get involved for less selfless purposes such as power, status and financial emollients

 Alas  those motivated by virtuous intentions from the start are subject to an invidious corruption conflating self-interest with national interests.

 You've heard the expression that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 The fight over the survival of Joe Biden's presidency illustrates this very well.

 Take as a given: Joe Biden is suffering from dementia which should disqualify him from serving as president. His continuation office in office and reelection are contrary to the national interest. Our enemies are watching. A demented, senile commander-in-chief cannot protect us. Thus the drive to remove the president should be supported by all who know he is not fit to serve

 But Biden's removal will not be in the personal interest of many. Jobs, access to power will be lost.  So the truth is denied by those relying on the attitude of cynical comedian Groucho Marx:: "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" Some will cite the fact that the president is lucid at times. (Shall we gamble for the nation that crises will only appear on the presence good days? And there are such on dementia's downward path.) Others will say we can't dump Biden because Trump will win and that will be worse (than what, the destruction of America?)

 People who believe they are motivated to do right view their conduct in a favorable light. Thus to them their actions which seemly serve their personal interests are, of course, the right thing to do.

 Power corrupts. Some are incapable of seeing that. They think that their self-interest is the same as the nation's.

 It rarely is.

 

Dementia

 

Why has there been no national discussion on the nature of dementia?

It is incredible that Pres. Biden's mental deficiencies have not triggered a national discussion of dementia. Many millions of Americans know firsthand, including The Sensible Conservative, the effects of cognitive loss that often (but certainly not always) accompany old age. 

Yet commentators across the ideological spectrum seem ignorant of its effects. 

It would be helpful to understand the condition by having health experts (psychiatrists and others) give explanations for the broader public. Still, the many Americans who have had experiences observing the condition afflicting loved ones know enough. 

Dementia is progressive. However, those affected do not suffer a straight-down decline. There are good days mixed in with bad ones. With the passage of time, the former are fewer. It is an irreversible condition. 

Given that these facts are pretty much common knowledge, the ignorance (genuine or feigned) of this by the media – left and right – is astounding. 

Prior to the debate, Biden supporters attributed seemingly odd behavior of the president featured on Fox News to selective editing made to make him look bad. And they would cite his Teleprompter - aided  State of the Union address as evidence of his acuity, ignoring that reading a script is far less demanding than free flow articulation. 

Furthermore, holders of that persuasion will point out that Obama and Reagan both recovered nicely from poor debate performances. They were both prepared for the next one. But the lack of pre-debate preparation can't be the president's excuse. He had a week of it. 

On the right, Joe Biden's occasional "normal" conduct was dismissed, jokingly, as drug-induced. No, a fair response would be he simply had a good day. 

The failure to recognize the obvious – out of willful ignorance or intentional deception – is just another reason to condemn the sorry state of American politics. 

The deterioration of Joe Biden’s mental capacity is sad for him and a looming disaster for America until January 20 of next year and thereafter, of he is re-elected.