Way back in 2004, a then-up and coming Democratic senator named Barack Obama gave a stirring speech about how there were really no Red States or Blue States, but rather, there was just the United States. As a professor who teaches public speaking, I loved the speech because of its hopeful tone, and because it stressed that maybe Republicans and Democrats aren't so different after all-- maybe we do have things in common and maybe we really can find ways to compromise.
But as I watch our current political climate, I admit I'm not so sure; and I'm certainly not so hopeful, even though I want to be. More and more, it really does seem like what Republicans want is very different from what Democrats want. I am not saying one side is good and one side is bad, but our differences seem like an ever-widening gulf, and I'm beginning to worry that it cannot be bridged. For example, I'm having a really hard time finding common ground with those who support Donald Trump. According to exit polls taken in South Carolina after Trump won the primary there, large numbers of voters who chose him also believed that all undocumented immigrants should be deported immediately; that there should be a total ban on Muslims who want to enter the US; and that the Confederate battle flag should once again fly over the state house. Other polls, including some taken nationally, showed that as many as 20% of his voters believed freeing the slaves was a mistake, and about 1/3 of his voters believed that putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II was a good idea. Much has already been written about Mr. Trump's assertions that Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, and about his claim that President Obama wasn't really born in the United States; what's troubling is that many of his voters agree.
I admit to being stunned by Donald Trump's appeal. I would never have thought that so much demagoguery and bigotry would win over large numbers of people. And yet, he has become a hero to many Republican voters, especially working-class whites, who seem to long for the America that used to be, a mythical "good old days" before gay people could marry, a time when Christian prayer was allowed in the public schools, women stayed at home, and few if any black people occupied positions of influence (let alone aspired to the presidency). It was a world where everyone knew their place, and it's a world Mr. Trump seems to want to restore. Even a dear friend of mine from Tennessee, who has strong evangelical Baptist beliefs, is supporting Trump-- despite his three marriages and the fact that he admitted cheating on his ex-wives. She likes him because she believes he will be tough on illegal immigrants, and defend Christians (who she believes are under constant threat, even in America).
I know that some of my Republican colleagues and friends share those views. They have told me so, on social media and in person; and they are mystified that I don't agree with them. In addition to their utter contempt for Hillary Clinton, and their dismissive attitude about Bernie Sanders, they sincerely believe our current president is a total loser, and that only Donald Trump can restore America's greatness, which they are certain Mr. Obama has taken away. (They also agree with Marco Rubio's and Ted Cruz's talking points that Barack Obama has been destroying America intentionally, perhaps trying to weaken it to appease the Muslims, or trying to transform it into some Marxist paradise). And Mr. Trump, while no longer making the Birther claim that Mr. Obama isn't really an American, has also hinted that there is something "foreign" about him, or that he doesn't have America's best interests at heart.
Needless to say, I find these beliefs bizarre. As most of us in the blue states see it, President Obama actually did restore America's greatness during difficult times. He inherited a horrible economy from President Bush, and turned it around. He also inherited the results of a disastrous war in Iraq, and brought the vast majority of the troops home, while leading the mission that killed Bin Laden (something President Bush was unable to accomplish). But worst of all, Mr. Obama inherited a Republican party that no longer wanted to govern. Rather, as Sen. Mitch McConnell put it, his one goal was to make Mr. Obama a one-term president. In that, he failed; but he and his Republican colleagues were certainly able to obstruct nearly everything the president tried to do. To this day, the goal of Republicans seems to be total obstruction-- in an unprecedented move, Leader McConnell now says the Senate will refuse to even consider any nominee for the Supreme Court, no matter how qualified he or she might be. While previous congresses have wrangled over nominees and some have been defeated, the idea that the Senate will not even meet with or consider anyone the president nominates has never happened before, and we in the blue states think it's outrageous.
But for us, it's also typical of the disrespect the Republicans have shown this president since he first took office: not only have some questioned whether he is a "real" American, but others have sent out racist cartoons of him and the First Lady, or called him rude names. No matter what he accomplished (and he accomplished a lot), he never got the credit: if things were going well, it must be accidental, but if things were going badly, of course, it was all his fault. One congressman even felt it was okay to shout "you lie!" during a State of the Union address. I understand that not everyone will like what a president does, and even some of his supporters haven't agreed with every decision he made; but the level of anger and disrespect directed at President Obama from his opponents is deeply troubling.
So, is the anger that seems to be motivating Republican voters, anger that sometimes seems to boil over during Trump rallies, leading to some of his supporters threatening journalists or trying to forcibly remove protesters (Mr. Trump himself has waxed nostalgic about the era when one could just beat such people up). I don't know where the Republican moderates have gone-- surely there must be some out there, and surely they must be nervous about having Donald Trump, or for that matter, Ted Cruz, as their nominee. I've been observing politics for many years, and I can't recall seeing so many furious people-- Mr. Trump seems content to add fuel to that fire, as it is getting him votes. But the heated rhetoric and the encouragement of hateful views could have disastrous consequences. At this point, I don't know if anyone in the Republican party can stop Donald Trump, and he does seem to have a larger following than many of us expected. But I fear for our country, and for our democracy, if he is allowed to become the nominee... which seems more likely with each passing day.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
My Valentine's Birthday and My First Year of Blogging
Yesterday was my birthday. Over the years, I've had a love-hate relationship with that particular event. For one thing, my birthday falls on Valentine's Day, which is a day set aside for love and romance. As I've mentioned in earlier blog posts, I was quite unpopular when I was growing up. I had few if any friends, other kids told me I was ugly, and at school, I endured what today would be called bullying. It was a time that valued tradition and conformity, and I was just too different. Girls were expected to love makeup, high heels and frilly dresses (to this day, I love none of these). But I loved watching baseball, listening to rock music, and dreaming of a career-- at a time when a girl's only dream was supposed to be finding a husband. I also was not blessed with the genes that made me look like a Playboy Bunny, so I had no boyfriends; to my knowledge, I was the only girl in my neighborhood not invited to the senior prom. And every birthday, the only cards and Valentines I received came from members of my family. Truth be told, I dreaded birthdays-- not because I feared getting older, but because they were an annual reminder of how unlovable I thought I was.
Fast-forward to yesterday. I am 69 now-- I've never lied about my age, nor understood why women are expected to do so. I have no idea what being 69 means today; we Baby Boomers have redefined a lot of things, and after all, I got my PhD when I was 64. Still, whatever meaning age 69 has, I hope to set a good example for it. Meanwhile, a lot has changed since my teen-aged years, most notably the fact that I no longer dread either my birthday or Valentine's Day. Accepting myself was a long, slow process, but I did finally reach a place where I decided birthdays aren't so bad; and these days, I am grateful to be alive (I think most of us cancer survivors feel that way). But what I still find puzzling is the reaction to my birthday on social media: by my last count, nearly a thousand people have reached out to me on Facebook and Twitter. In many cases, they are people I've never met, who know me from my ongoing friendship with Rush. In some cases, they are former students; people I've mentored or encouraged over the years; people who heard me give a talk somewhere (or met me at a Rush-related event); some former and current colleagues; members of Rush's management and immediate family; and amazingly, a few former enemies who for whatever reason have decided it's okay to wish me well!
If you had told me when I was growing up that I would have that many people sending their good wishes in my direction, I never would have believed it. And yet, for whatever reason, that's what happened. People often criticize social media for its excesses, and yes, it can definitely be a place where rudeness, outrage, and conspiracy theories reign. But let's not ignore the other side: at its best, it can also be a place where there is encouragement, comfort, and even love. That is what I saw (and felt) yesterday, and I am both surprised and grateful. I'm glad that thanks to social media, I've come into contact with so many interesting people-- many of whom have views far different from mine, yet who keep in touch, and not just on my birthday.
Yesterday was also the one-year anniversary of my first blog post: you can read it here. http://dlhalperblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/yes-my-first-blog-post.html I never planned on blogging: I was recovering from cancer surgery and to keep my mind occupied (as opposed to worrying), I signed up for a course about political campaigns, a subject in which I've always had considerable interest. The professor insisted that we all have a blog, and that we write about current events. Had he not made blogging part of our grade, I doubt I would ever have started. I believed then, and still believe now, that the world has lots of bloggers and probably doesn't need more, but now that I've done it for a year (and gotten an "A" in the course I was taking), I will probably continue. I doubt my blog will make me famous, but it's nice to have a vehicle for expressing my opinion. I understand that the most page views occur whenever I blog about Rush (between 2500-4000 views, according to the blog statistics); but even if much of the time, my readership is small, I'm glad I can contribute to the public conversation, and I hope every now and then I say something interesting.
So, thank you to those who remembered my birthday, thank you to those who have kept in contact with me, and especially, thank you to those who have taken the time to read my blog. Coming as I do from an era when all communication was either in person, via letters, or by telephone, it's still amazing to know that I can exchange ideas with folks from Pakistan or Finland or England as quickly as I can with folks from here in Massachusetts; and it's also gratifying to know that even those who disagree with me still feel I'm someone they want to talk to. I'm sure as the presidential campaign heats up, the discussions may turn more contentious, and yes, I fully expect some folks will disagree with what I post. But for now, I have nothing contentious to offer. I'm just happy to be able to express myself, and appreciative that there are people who care about what I have to say.
Fast-forward to yesterday. I am 69 now-- I've never lied about my age, nor understood why women are expected to do so. I have no idea what being 69 means today; we Baby Boomers have redefined a lot of things, and after all, I got my PhD when I was 64. Still, whatever meaning age 69 has, I hope to set a good example for it. Meanwhile, a lot has changed since my teen-aged years, most notably the fact that I no longer dread either my birthday or Valentine's Day. Accepting myself was a long, slow process, but I did finally reach a place where I decided birthdays aren't so bad; and these days, I am grateful to be alive (I think most of us cancer survivors feel that way). But what I still find puzzling is the reaction to my birthday on social media: by my last count, nearly a thousand people have reached out to me on Facebook and Twitter. In many cases, they are people I've never met, who know me from my ongoing friendship with Rush. In some cases, they are former students; people I've mentored or encouraged over the years; people who heard me give a talk somewhere (or met me at a Rush-related event); some former and current colleagues; members of Rush's management and immediate family; and amazingly, a few former enemies who for whatever reason have decided it's okay to wish me well!
If you had told me when I was growing up that I would have that many people sending their good wishes in my direction, I never would have believed it. And yet, for whatever reason, that's what happened. People often criticize social media for its excesses, and yes, it can definitely be a place where rudeness, outrage, and conspiracy theories reign. But let's not ignore the other side: at its best, it can also be a place where there is encouragement, comfort, and even love. That is what I saw (and felt) yesterday, and I am both surprised and grateful. I'm glad that thanks to social media, I've come into contact with so many interesting people-- many of whom have views far different from mine, yet who keep in touch, and not just on my birthday.
Yesterday was also the one-year anniversary of my first blog post: you can read it here. http://dlhalperblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/yes-my-first-blog-post.html I never planned on blogging: I was recovering from cancer surgery and to keep my mind occupied (as opposed to worrying), I signed up for a course about political campaigns, a subject in which I've always had considerable interest. The professor insisted that we all have a blog, and that we write about current events. Had he not made blogging part of our grade, I doubt I would ever have started. I believed then, and still believe now, that the world has lots of bloggers and probably doesn't need more, but now that I've done it for a year (and gotten an "A" in the course I was taking), I will probably continue. I doubt my blog will make me famous, but it's nice to have a vehicle for expressing my opinion. I understand that the most page views occur whenever I blog about Rush (between 2500-4000 views, according to the blog statistics); but even if much of the time, my readership is small, I'm glad I can contribute to the public conversation, and I hope every now and then I say something interesting.
So, thank you to those who remembered my birthday, thank you to those who have kept in contact with me, and especially, thank you to those who have taken the time to read my blog. Coming as I do from an era when all communication was either in person, via letters, or by telephone, it's still amazing to know that I can exchange ideas with folks from Pakistan or Finland or England as quickly as I can with folks from here in Massachusetts; and it's also gratifying to know that even those who disagree with me still feel I'm someone they want to talk to. I'm sure as the presidential campaign heats up, the discussions may turn more contentious, and yes, I fully expect some folks will disagree with what I post. But for now, I have nothing contentious to offer. I'm just happy to be able to express myself, and appreciative that there are people who care about what I have to say.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Some Lessons from the New Hampshire Primaries
If you had told me six months ago that the winners of the New Hampshire Primary would be an outspoken TV celebrity and real estate mogul (Donald Trump), and a self-described Democratic Socialist from Vermont (Bernie Sanders), I would have said you must be joking. Back then, few pundits expected that Republicans would gravitate to someone who said John McCain wasn't a war hero, who advocated banning all Muslims from entering the country, and who promised to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants. And on the Democratic side, few pundits believed that anyone would listen to a 74 year old left-leaning socialist who railed against corporate greed and expressed frequent outrage at how most politicians serve their donors rather than the voters. According to the common wisdom, Republicans wanted someone "moderate'--Jeb Bush was supposedly to be the favorite; and Democrats were going to ignore Mr. Sanders in favor of the much more electable Hillary Clinton.
But somehow, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump didn't get the memo, and neither did the voters, who gave the two men resounding victories. As it turned out, voters were really, really angry with the status quo, and they didn't want someone they considered part of the establishment. While the stereotype of the Trump voter is someone without much education, it turned out that he picked up votes from across all demographics. The same was true for the Sanders voters-- they were not comprised of old hippies, but rather, a coalition of young people and middle-class adults-- and Mr. Sanders was especially strong with female voters. Of course, there is no guarantee that going forward, the results will be the same in other states: will Republicans really pick as their nominee someone who not only has little political and governing experience but also has a tendency to bully his opponents and make outrageous remarks? And will Democrats really choose as their nominee someone who offers an idealistic (and some say impractical) vision, but who forcefully objects to the way political campaigns are conducted in this country? Or will everyone decide to gravitate towards some safer, although less interesting, alternatives?
So, now that both Iowa and New Hampshire are behind us, I do have a few observations:
(1) It seems to be a year for non-traditional candidates. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Sanders has offered the proverbial twelve-point plan, nor really provided specifics about how they will achieve their goals; but both have their own kind of charisma, and voters seem willing to trust and believe in them. Mr. Trump, as I see it, speaks to the fears and anxieties of his voters, and promises to protect them from harm. Mr. Sanders speaks to the hopes and dreams of his voters and promises to restore their faith in democracy. Both men speak with authenticity, even when delivering their stump speech-- they seem to understand what their audience wants, and they know what issues resonate with voters.
(2) I'm not surprised that Hillary Clinton's surrogates did not help her win over women voters. She had some well-respected female members of congress stumping for her, as well as former political leaders like Madeleine Albright and high-profile feminist icons like Gloria Steinem, and even some female pop stars and actresses. Yet some of her surrogates came across like they were scolding anyone who dared to support a male politician rather than supporting a woman. As a second-wave feminist who has great admiration for many of Hillary Clinton's achievements over the years, I was totally turned off by the assertion that women should vote for other women just because they are women. And I was not alone in rejecting that assertion.
(3) Marco Rubio needs to find a way to talk to the voters other than reciting the same talking points over and over. I teach Public Speaking, and I can certainly sympathize with people who are so worried about making a mistake that they memorize their entire speech; but doing that is not an effective way to win over an audience, especially if your opponents (or reporters, or even voters) are trying to get you to deviate from your planned remarks. You really do sound like a robot if all you can do is recite your speech word-for-word, or repeat your talking points. Further, Mr. Rubio's claim that Barack Obama is somehow dangerous because he is trying to change America is utter nonsense-- ALL presidents, including Reagan and Bush, have tried to change America in one way or other. And whether Mr. Rubio is right, or whether he is wrong, repeating something five times, and then doubling down on it out on the road, just makes him sound unprepared. And it may have contributed to Mr. Rubio's poor showing in New Hampshire.
(4) Contrary to what Ted Nugent just said about the Jews (note to Ted: expressing views that are both neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic makes you seem like a truly vile human being), voters in Iowa and new Hampshire had no problem casting their vote for Bernie Sanders. In fact, Mr. Sanders just became the first Jewish person in US history to win a primary. And if I'm not mistaken, when Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus for the Republicans, he became the first person of Hispanic descent to do so. For all the huffing and puffing from certain bigoted people, voters seem willing to vote for the best person, regardless of race, religion, or gender. That is a good thing, and I hope it continues.
(5) Bernie Sanders is 100% right that there is too much money in politics, and yes, studies do show that a small number of billionaires can dramatically influence our elections. Whatever party you favor, the integrity of the vote must be maintained; and to help make that a reality again, disastrous Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United need to be overturned, or we will continue to get the best congress money can buy.
To be honest, I never expected either Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders to be on top. But it's pretty obvious these two men have touched a nerve, and that's why so many voters have responded. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know which candidate you believe will get the nomination-- is the Trump/Sanders victory a fluke? Is either one electable? (And why do I feel like we haven't heard the last of Hillary Clinton, who seems to campaign best when she is an underdog?) To say the least, it's an interesting time to be following politics, and I'm glad I'm not a TV pundit-- I wouldn't want to predict what will happen next. In fact, I admit I genuinely don't know...
But somehow, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump didn't get the memo, and neither did the voters, who gave the two men resounding victories. As it turned out, voters were really, really angry with the status quo, and they didn't want someone they considered part of the establishment. While the stereotype of the Trump voter is someone without much education, it turned out that he picked up votes from across all demographics. The same was true for the Sanders voters-- they were not comprised of old hippies, but rather, a coalition of young people and middle-class adults-- and Mr. Sanders was especially strong with female voters. Of course, there is no guarantee that going forward, the results will be the same in other states: will Republicans really pick as their nominee someone who not only has little political and governing experience but also has a tendency to bully his opponents and make outrageous remarks? And will Democrats really choose as their nominee someone who offers an idealistic (and some say impractical) vision, but who forcefully objects to the way political campaigns are conducted in this country? Or will everyone decide to gravitate towards some safer, although less interesting, alternatives?
So, now that both Iowa and New Hampshire are behind us, I do have a few observations:
(1) It seems to be a year for non-traditional candidates. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Sanders has offered the proverbial twelve-point plan, nor really provided specifics about how they will achieve their goals; but both have their own kind of charisma, and voters seem willing to trust and believe in them. Mr. Trump, as I see it, speaks to the fears and anxieties of his voters, and promises to protect them from harm. Mr. Sanders speaks to the hopes and dreams of his voters and promises to restore their faith in democracy. Both men speak with authenticity, even when delivering their stump speech-- they seem to understand what their audience wants, and they know what issues resonate with voters.
(2) I'm not surprised that Hillary Clinton's surrogates did not help her win over women voters. She had some well-respected female members of congress stumping for her, as well as former political leaders like Madeleine Albright and high-profile feminist icons like Gloria Steinem, and even some female pop stars and actresses. Yet some of her surrogates came across like they were scolding anyone who dared to support a male politician rather than supporting a woman. As a second-wave feminist who has great admiration for many of Hillary Clinton's achievements over the years, I was totally turned off by the assertion that women should vote for other women just because they are women. And I was not alone in rejecting that assertion.
(3) Marco Rubio needs to find a way to talk to the voters other than reciting the same talking points over and over. I teach Public Speaking, and I can certainly sympathize with people who are so worried about making a mistake that they memorize their entire speech; but doing that is not an effective way to win over an audience, especially if your opponents (or reporters, or even voters) are trying to get you to deviate from your planned remarks. You really do sound like a robot if all you can do is recite your speech word-for-word, or repeat your talking points. Further, Mr. Rubio's claim that Barack Obama is somehow dangerous because he is trying to change America is utter nonsense-- ALL presidents, including Reagan and Bush, have tried to change America in one way or other. And whether Mr. Rubio is right, or whether he is wrong, repeating something five times, and then doubling down on it out on the road, just makes him sound unprepared. And it may have contributed to Mr. Rubio's poor showing in New Hampshire.
(4) Contrary to what Ted Nugent just said about the Jews (note to Ted: expressing views that are both neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic makes you seem like a truly vile human being), voters in Iowa and new Hampshire had no problem casting their vote for Bernie Sanders. In fact, Mr. Sanders just became the first Jewish person in US history to win a primary. And if I'm not mistaken, when Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus for the Republicans, he became the first person of Hispanic descent to do so. For all the huffing and puffing from certain bigoted people, voters seem willing to vote for the best person, regardless of race, religion, or gender. That is a good thing, and I hope it continues.
(5) Bernie Sanders is 100% right that there is too much money in politics, and yes, studies do show that a small number of billionaires can dramatically influence our elections. Whatever party you favor, the integrity of the vote must be maintained; and to help make that a reality again, disastrous Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United need to be overturned, or we will continue to get the best congress money can buy.
To be honest, I never expected either Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders to be on top. But it's pretty obvious these two men have touched a nerve, and that's why so many voters have responded. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know which candidate you believe will get the nomination-- is the Trump/Sanders victory a fluke? Is either one electable? (And why do I feel like we haven't heard the last of Hillary Clinton, who seems to campaign best when she is an underdog?) To say the least, it's an interesting time to be following politics, and I'm glad I'm not a TV pundit-- I wouldn't want to predict what will happen next. In fact, I admit I genuinely don't know...
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
What We Learned from the Iowa Caucuses
Because I'm fascinated by politics, I was one of the folks who stayed up till about 3:30 A.M. to find out whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders won in Iowa. At this point, while Mrs. Clinton has declared victory, there are still some questions about whether she really won; and even if it turns out she did defeat Mr. Sanders, it was by the narrowest of margins. Six months ago, few if any pundits thought a 74 year old self-described socialist from Vermont would have a chance against a well-qualified (and well-funded) establishment Democrat like Hillary Clinton; and yet Mr. Sanders was able to run a strong race and come within inches of victory. Okay fine, it's Iowa, and Iowa's population does not represent that of the entire US, but it's still a great story. Going forward, can Mrs. Clinton win over those voters who see her as too much of a centrist? And can Mr. Sanders win over those voters who like his populist message but think it's impossible for him to get elected? Those questions remain to be answered.
The Republican story was equally fascinating, especially given the high expectations many pundits and pollsters had about Donald Trump; the common wisdom was that he could not possibly lose. But as it turned out, he could. And he did. We can all wonder whether his snub of the Fox News debate, or his feud with Megyn Kelley, had anything to do with his loss; more likely, he did not have the ground game that his opponents (especially Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) had. And as I suggested on several occasions, I think lots of curious spectators showed up at Mr. Trump's rallies and events, eager to meet the famous celebrity. Many even cheered at his speeches and applauded some of his most controversial assertions. But in the end, when it came to casting their vote, they chose someone else. One wonders what Mr. Trump was feeling as the votes were counted and it became clear that he would not be the victor. He had spent so much time bragging about how he always wins. His concession speech was short and courteous, but I wonder if this unexpected defeat will affect his style of campaigning. Will he brag and insult his opponents less, and instead focus on his plans for improving our country?
Another story-line in Iowa, and one that will probably persist, is religion. Because a large number of Iowa Republicans are evangelical Christians, most of the GOP candidates who campaigned there tried to out-do themselves in mentioning their own religiosity, quoting scripture, praising God and Jesus, and promising to restore morality to America (in some cases, it seemed they were also pledging to promote evangelical Christianity, or at least give it a favored place in the government). And while I have never been fond of candidates publicly announcing how religious they are, at least I could understand why Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio made their religious faith a central pillar of their conversation with voters-- if most of your voters are very religious, it's important to let them know you speak their language and support their views.
But here's what I don't understand: there was a recent anti-Bernie Sanders article in the Washington Post which remarked on his lack of religious piety, saying that his refusal to align with an organized faith or speak about God could hurt him in a general election. (It is well-known that Mr. Sanders was born and raised Jewish; but while he respects his heritage, organized religion does not play a central role in his life.) I tweeted about this-- I said I truly did not care what religion a candidate was, as long as he or she cared about the country and wanted to move things in a positive direction. In fact, I find it annoying when candidates pander to certain voters with mentions of how often they pray; and I find it equally annoying when voters feel they must know which house of worship a candidate attends, and how often they go there. I fail to see the correlation between going to church (or synagogue or mosque) and being a good leader for our country. There have been many politicians who were regularly seen in church, but who turned out to be corrupt and dishonest. The Founding Fathers were right when they stated in the Constitution that there should be no religious test. Sadly, some people think there should be one, and that their faith should win. (And whether a candidate who is proudly non-religious could ever get elected is another open question.)
So, now everything moves to New Hampshire. I'll be interested to see if the way Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio campaigned in Iowa will resonate with voters in the Granite State. I'll be interested to see how Mr. Trump recovers, and whether he comes back with a new strategy. And of course, I'll be interested to see how the Sanders/Clinton battle plays out. But whatever happens in New Hampshire over the next week, there is one trend from Iowa that I hope will continue: a large number of young voters actually came out and caucused, working hard for their favorite candidate, and becoming an active part of the political process. Too often in the past, young adults have not participated-- but in Iowa, to the surprise of many political observers, they did. I'm hoping this will continue. In fact, I'm hoping more people of all ages will get off the sidelines and begin to support a candidate they believe in. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or something else, there's a lot at stake in this upcoming election, and sitting around complaining on social media isn't an effective strategy for improving the direction of the country. Now is the time for all of us to get involved... or we have no right to be upset about the results of the next election.
The Republican story was equally fascinating, especially given the high expectations many pundits and pollsters had about Donald Trump; the common wisdom was that he could not possibly lose. But as it turned out, he could. And he did. We can all wonder whether his snub of the Fox News debate, or his feud with Megyn Kelley, had anything to do with his loss; more likely, he did not have the ground game that his opponents (especially Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) had. And as I suggested on several occasions, I think lots of curious spectators showed up at Mr. Trump's rallies and events, eager to meet the famous celebrity. Many even cheered at his speeches and applauded some of his most controversial assertions. But in the end, when it came to casting their vote, they chose someone else. One wonders what Mr. Trump was feeling as the votes were counted and it became clear that he would not be the victor. He had spent so much time bragging about how he always wins. His concession speech was short and courteous, but I wonder if this unexpected defeat will affect his style of campaigning. Will he brag and insult his opponents less, and instead focus on his plans for improving our country?
Another story-line in Iowa, and one that will probably persist, is religion. Because a large number of Iowa Republicans are evangelical Christians, most of the GOP candidates who campaigned there tried to out-do themselves in mentioning their own religiosity, quoting scripture, praising God and Jesus, and promising to restore morality to America (in some cases, it seemed they were also pledging to promote evangelical Christianity, or at least give it a favored place in the government). And while I have never been fond of candidates publicly announcing how religious they are, at least I could understand why Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio made their religious faith a central pillar of their conversation with voters-- if most of your voters are very religious, it's important to let them know you speak their language and support their views.
But here's what I don't understand: there was a recent anti-Bernie Sanders article in the Washington Post which remarked on his lack of religious piety, saying that his refusal to align with an organized faith or speak about God could hurt him in a general election. (It is well-known that Mr. Sanders was born and raised Jewish; but while he respects his heritage, organized religion does not play a central role in his life.) I tweeted about this-- I said I truly did not care what religion a candidate was, as long as he or she cared about the country and wanted to move things in a positive direction. In fact, I find it annoying when candidates pander to certain voters with mentions of how often they pray; and I find it equally annoying when voters feel they must know which house of worship a candidate attends, and how often they go there. I fail to see the correlation between going to church (or synagogue or mosque) and being a good leader for our country. There have been many politicians who were regularly seen in church, but who turned out to be corrupt and dishonest. The Founding Fathers were right when they stated in the Constitution that there should be no religious test. Sadly, some people think there should be one, and that their faith should win. (And whether a candidate who is proudly non-religious could ever get elected is another open question.)
So, now everything moves to New Hampshire. I'll be interested to see if the way Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio campaigned in Iowa will resonate with voters in the Granite State. I'll be interested to see how Mr. Trump recovers, and whether he comes back with a new strategy. And of course, I'll be interested to see how the Sanders/Clinton battle plays out. But whatever happens in New Hampshire over the next week, there is one trend from Iowa that I hope will continue: a large number of young voters actually came out and caucused, working hard for their favorite candidate, and becoming an active part of the political process. Too often in the past, young adults have not participated-- but in Iowa, to the surprise of many political observers, they did. I'm hoping this will continue. In fact, I'm hoping more people of all ages will get off the sidelines and begin to support a candidate they believe in. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or something else, there's a lot at stake in this upcoming election, and sitting around complaining on social media isn't an effective strategy for improving the direction of the country. Now is the time for all of us to get involved... or we have no right to be upset about the results of the next election.
Monday, January 25, 2016
They've All Come to Look for America: Some Thoughts about the Presidential Campaign
I must admit that I really like Bernie Sanders' newest campaign ad, the one that uses the song "America" by Simon & Garfunkel (and yes, he got their permission to use it). I'm not the only one who is impressed-- even some of his political opponents agree that this ad is beautifully done, whether you support Mr. Sanders or not. If you haven't seen it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug
When I first saw it, the ad reminded me in some ways of Ronald Reagan's classic 1984 political ad "Morning in America." It evoked some of the same emotions-- people who are going about their lives, happy to be in a country that's optimistic, unafraid, even hopeful. But sad to say, the current Republican candidates (who love to invoke Mr. Reagan's name) don't seem to share the optimism that he displayed-- their rhetoric is much more negative. It's all about hatred for immigrants, the need to drop bombs and declare another war, the need to build a wall, or place a ban on Muslims, and the constant fear of an imminent disaster. There are persistent references to what a mess the country is in, and constant criticisms of the president (as well as each other). For the current Republican candidates, there seems to be nothing to celebrate: America is not a very hopeful place at all.
With so much pessimism, it's nice to be reminded that there are still many reasons to be proud of America. Despite all the doom and gloom from certain politicians, every day, there are examples of altruism, kindness, and compassion. For example, I recently posted a newspaper article on social media, about a wonderful young woman I've been mentoring; she's a legal immigrant from Haiti who is trapped in a bureaucracy not of her making; she is struggling to get a college education while working two jobs and driving long distances to get to class. (You can read about her here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/24/education-slow-motion-thanks-immigration-law/UX6E9US63eSl5D1nWCSV4L/story.html) To her surprise, some readers sent donations to pay this semester's tuition. Several even insisted on remaining anonymous. She cried when she learned that she did not owe the college any money this semester-- she could not believe strangers would want to help her. And yet, they did. (If you too would like to help, contact me and I'll tell you how.)
I understand that America has its share of problems. I understand that every four years, candidates promise change and often fail to deliver. And I understand that some voters are angry, and others are cynical. Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, although offering two very different visions, are both benefiting from how frustrated many Americans are feeling. But beyond the rhetoric, beyond the recitations of what's wrong, there are still people who have come to look for America-- they are hoping to find the America where there is still tolerance, the America that welcomes the stranger, the America where there is still the opportunity to get a good education and find a good job, the America where it's okay to be hopeful. And despite all the partisan rancor that I hear, I continue to believe that America is a place where liberals and conservatives can work together and solve problems, instead of calling each other names. Perhaps that's why the Bernie Sanders ad made such a strong impression on so many people-- it evoked an America where it's not all about rage and hatred, but rather, about celebrating the things we all have in common. That's the America I believe in, and I too have come to search for it, in a time when optimism seems to be sadly lacking in our politics.
When I first saw it, the ad reminded me in some ways of Ronald Reagan's classic 1984 political ad "Morning in America." It evoked some of the same emotions-- people who are going about their lives, happy to be in a country that's optimistic, unafraid, even hopeful. But sad to say, the current Republican candidates (who love to invoke Mr. Reagan's name) don't seem to share the optimism that he displayed-- their rhetoric is much more negative. It's all about hatred for immigrants, the need to drop bombs and declare another war, the need to build a wall, or place a ban on Muslims, and the constant fear of an imminent disaster. There are persistent references to what a mess the country is in, and constant criticisms of the president (as well as each other). For the current Republican candidates, there seems to be nothing to celebrate: America is not a very hopeful place at all.
With so much pessimism, it's nice to be reminded that there are still many reasons to be proud of America. Despite all the doom and gloom from certain politicians, every day, there are examples of altruism, kindness, and compassion. For example, I recently posted a newspaper article on social media, about a wonderful young woman I've been mentoring; she's a legal immigrant from Haiti who is trapped in a bureaucracy not of her making; she is struggling to get a college education while working two jobs and driving long distances to get to class. (You can read about her here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/24/education-slow-motion-thanks-immigration-law/UX6E9US63eSl5D1nWCSV4L/story.html) To her surprise, some readers sent donations to pay this semester's tuition. Several even insisted on remaining anonymous. She cried when she learned that she did not owe the college any money this semester-- she could not believe strangers would want to help her. And yet, they did. (If you too would like to help, contact me and I'll tell you how.)
I understand that America has its share of problems. I understand that every four years, candidates promise change and often fail to deliver. And I understand that some voters are angry, and others are cynical. Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, although offering two very different visions, are both benefiting from how frustrated many Americans are feeling. But beyond the rhetoric, beyond the recitations of what's wrong, there are still people who have come to look for America-- they are hoping to find the America where there is still tolerance, the America that welcomes the stranger, the America where there is still the opportunity to get a good education and find a good job, the America where it's okay to be hopeful. And despite all the partisan rancor that I hear, I continue to believe that America is a place where liberals and conservatives can work together and solve problems, instead of calling each other names. Perhaps that's why the Bernie Sanders ad made such a strong impression on so many people-- it evoked an America where it's not all about rage and hatred, but rather, about celebrating the things we all have in common. That's the America I believe in, and I too have come to search for it, in a time when optimism seems to be sadly lacking in our politics.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Man of Words, Man of Music: Some Thoughts on the Passing of David Bowie
When I was in college at Northeastern University in Boston, I became the campus radio station's first female disc jockey in late 1968; I also became the station's music director, an incredibly fun and rewarding job which introduced me to some wonderful record promoters (a few of whom I'm still in contact with even now); but more importantly, it allowed me to hear the new music first. And so it was in 1969 that I received a copy of a single and an album by an artist I'd never heard of-- David Bowie. He was British, and his music was released on the Mercury label in the US. No offense to the fine folks at Mercury Records (for whom I ended up briefly working after they signed Rush in 1974), but back then, the label did not have a lot of hits. Still, I always tried to listen to as much new music as possible, so I put the single, "Space Oddity" on the turntable in the music library. And because our campus station was transitioning from top-40 over to a progressive rock format, I also gave the album ("Man of Words, Man of Music") a listen. To this day, I have them both in my collection, but I admit that at the time, I had no idea how influential David Bowie would become.
There was something about "Space Oddity" that I found compelling-- the American version of the single had been cut to 3:26 (in top-40 back then, a song was expected to be no more than about three minutes long), so it ended with the haunting lines "Ground control to Major Tom/your circuit's dead, there's something wrong/ Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom?" That was it-- the song faded out with ground control desperately trying to re-establish contact with Major Tom. I had never heard a top-40 single so disturbing-- clearly, Major Tom was depressed about something; clearly, he felt helpless, despite being a famous astronaut-- people admired him and wanted to know what brand of shirts he wore, yet all he could see was that "Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do." It was the Vietnam War era, and despite American optimism about putting a man on the moon, the ongoing war was casting a shadow on so many of us, especially those young men of draft age who were about to be sent to fight. But whatever Major Tom was referring to, I couldn't get the song out of my mind.
I was evidently one of the few who thought the song was amazing-- while it was a hit in England, it never even got into the Hot 100 charts in the US. Nor did the album get much airplay either (I still like "Cygnet Committee" and "Memory of a Free Festival," though neither has aged very well.) But while "Space Oddity" was soon forgotten, it would find a new audience a few years later: as sometimes happened in top-40, a song that had gone absolutely nowhere in its initial release (check out the history of "Dream On" by Aerosmith or "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues) was championed by a particular radio station, and the re-release became a huge hit. And so it was in 1973 that US audiences rediscovered David Bowie's "Space Oddity" and it ended up a top-15 hit, plus becoming a staple at album rock stations, which played the longer version (the one that had an extra verse).
While many people assume that David Bowie's best known (and most widely played) song "Changes" was a number one song, it never even reached the top twenty (it was first released in 1972 and only got to #66; the re-release did slightly better, getting to #41 in 1975). But its introspective lyrics, and its commentary on the generation gap ("And these children that you spit on/ As they try to change their worlds/ Are immune to your consultations/ They're quite aware of what they're going through...") resonated with many of us. In fact, throughout the 1970s, no matter what kind of radio station I was working at, I could just about always find a David Bowie song that was thought-provoking ("Life on Mars" and "Starman" were favorites of mine), or a song that was fun and radio-friendly ("Suffragette City" always got a lot of requests).
David Bowie was the master of reinvention. There was his blue-eyed soul period in the mid-1970s, with songs like "Fame," "Young Americans," and "Golden Years." There was his interesting collaboration with Queen in 1981, "Under Pressure," and his equally interesting (and surprising) collaboration with big band-era crooner Bing Crosby, "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy," recorded in 1977 and still played during the Christmas season by numerous radio stations. (And yes, he also collaborated with Mick Jagger for the 1985 hit version of "Dancing in the Streets.") And speaking of dancing, Bowie had his share of 1980s dance hits, with songs like "Modern Love" and "Let's Dance." And I must mention one other 1980s song: "Absolute Beginners." Recorded in 1985, it never really became a hit; but it has always been a favorite of mine, because it makes me think of my then-boyfriend (who became my husband a year and a half later): "... As long as you're still smiling/ There's nothing more I need/ I absolutely love you/ But we're absolute beginners/ But if my love is your love/ We're certain to succeed." Fads changed, fashions changed, Bowie himself changed. But he always remained relevant, and his music remained important.
As many of you know, I am a cancer survivor (so far); so, I must admit that whenever someone I respect, especially someone who is around my age, succumbs to the disease, it worries me. But in the case of David Bowie, there's an important lesson to be learned from how he lived with cancer. Here was a man who knew he had this disease, but he didn't let it stop him. He continued to live his life; he continued to do what he loved. He was turning out new music right up until the end... because what better way to fight your disease than to live each day to the fullest, doing what you most enjoy... And that is exactly what he did. It seems amazing to recall that I first heard his music nearly five decades ago, but throughout his career, David Bowie proved repeatedly that he was someone worth listening to and someone worth remembering. May he rest in peace, and may we find the cure for cancer speedily, soon, and in our lifetime.
There was something about "Space Oddity" that I found compelling-- the American version of the single had been cut to 3:26 (in top-40 back then, a song was expected to be no more than about three minutes long), so it ended with the haunting lines "Ground control to Major Tom/your circuit's dead, there's something wrong/ Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom?" That was it-- the song faded out with ground control desperately trying to re-establish contact with Major Tom. I had never heard a top-40 single so disturbing-- clearly, Major Tom was depressed about something; clearly, he felt helpless, despite being a famous astronaut-- people admired him and wanted to know what brand of shirts he wore, yet all he could see was that "Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do." It was the Vietnam War era, and despite American optimism about putting a man on the moon, the ongoing war was casting a shadow on so many of us, especially those young men of draft age who were about to be sent to fight. But whatever Major Tom was referring to, I couldn't get the song out of my mind.
I was evidently one of the few who thought the song was amazing-- while it was a hit in England, it never even got into the Hot 100 charts in the US. Nor did the album get much airplay either (I still like "Cygnet Committee" and "Memory of a Free Festival," though neither has aged very well.) But while "Space Oddity" was soon forgotten, it would find a new audience a few years later: as sometimes happened in top-40, a song that had gone absolutely nowhere in its initial release (check out the history of "Dream On" by Aerosmith or "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues) was championed by a particular radio station, and the re-release became a huge hit. And so it was in 1973 that US audiences rediscovered David Bowie's "Space Oddity" and it ended up a top-15 hit, plus becoming a staple at album rock stations, which played the longer version (the one that had an extra verse).
While many people assume that David Bowie's best known (and most widely played) song "Changes" was a number one song, it never even reached the top twenty (it was first released in 1972 and only got to #66; the re-release did slightly better, getting to #41 in 1975). But its introspective lyrics, and its commentary on the generation gap ("And these children that you spit on/ As they try to change their worlds/ Are immune to your consultations/ They're quite aware of what they're going through...") resonated with many of us. In fact, throughout the 1970s, no matter what kind of radio station I was working at, I could just about always find a David Bowie song that was thought-provoking ("Life on Mars" and "Starman" were favorites of mine), or a song that was fun and radio-friendly ("Suffragette City" always got a lot of requests).
David Bowie was the master of reinvention. There was his blue-eyed soul period in the mid-1970s, with songs like "Fame," "Young Americans," and "Golden Years." There was his interesting collaboration with Queen in 1981, "Under Pressure," and his equally interesting (and surprising) collaboration with big band-era crooner Bing Crosby, "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy," recorded in 1977 and still played during the Christmas season by numerous radio stations. (And yes, he also collaborated with Mick Jagger for the 1985 hit version of "Dancing in the Streets.") And speaking of dancing, Bowie had his share of 1980s dance hits, with songs like "Modern Love" and "Let's Dance." And I must mention one other 1980s song: "Absolute Beginners." Recorded in 1985, it never really became a hit; but it has always been a favorite of mine, because it makes me think of my then-boyfriend (who became my husband a year and a half later): "... As long as you're still smiling/ There's nothing more I need/ I absolutely love you/ But we're absolute beginners/ But if my love is your love/ We're certain to succeed." Fads changed, fashions changed, Bowie himself changed. But he always remained relevant, and his music remained important.
As many of you know, I am a cancer survivor (so far); so, I must admit that whenever someone I respect, especially someone who is around my age, succumbs to the disease, it worries me. But in the case of David Bowie, there's an important lesson to be learned from how he lived with cancer. Here was a man who knew he had this disease, but he didn't let it stop him. He continued to live his life; he continued to do what he loved. He was turning out new music right up until the end... because what better way to fight your disease than to live each day to the fullest, doing what you most enjoy... And that is exactly what he did. It seems amazing to recall that I first heard his music nearly five decades ago, but throughout his career, David Bowie proved repeatedly that he was someone worth listening to and someone worth remembering. May he rest in peace, and may we find the cure for cancer speedily, soon, and in our lifetime.
Friday, January 8, 2016
A World of Misinformation-- Life in a Post-Factual Society
I know I've mentioned this before, but if there's one thing I continue to be disappointed about, it's how little the facts seem to matter in our modern world. There is a famous quote I've always liked; it was most recently attributed to the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, circa 1988, but as it turns out, versions of the quote go back to 1946, when American financier Bernard M. Baruch first said it. The point of the various versions is basically this: we all have the right to our own opinion, but none of us have the right to our own facts.
When I was growing up (and no, it wasn't that long ago), honesty and trustworthiness still mattered. A politician or a celebrity or a high-profile business executive who lied or distorting the facts was harshly criticized, both by the media and by the general public. A newspaper that didn't get its facts right, or one that confused publicity with accurate information, was also criticized. And contrary to what a number of my friends insist, this has never been partisan-- there are Democrats who have lied, Republicans who have lied, celebrities who have lied, and corporate executives who have lied. (And then there's Donald Trump, who is in a classification all his own, having at various times in his life been a Democrat, a Republican, a celebrity, and a corporate executive, and who has created his own reality everywhere he went.)
When Bill Clinton lied about not having sex with "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky), GOP partisans in congress were gleeful because they thought they saw an opening for removing him from the presidency. But most Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, weren't gleeful at all; in fact, a majority of us did not agree that he deserved to be impeached, and surveys showed that repeatedly. It cannot be denied, however, that many Americans were bitterly disappointed that the president had lied, as well as that he had cheated on his wife. Sad to say, other presidents from both parties had lied about sex before; but a less nosy media from a more innocent time did not ask about presidential mistresses. And then it changed.
Beginning in the 1990s, attitudes about what should or should not be discussed in public were suddenly in flux. Serious newspapers and news magazines that had never before trafficked in gossip or scandal, and always tried to verify the facts, suddenly found themselves in the internet era, competing with online sources that could instantly spread rumors with the click of a mouse. There was also the launching of partisan media sources, such as Fox News in 1996, as well as various left-wing and right-wing websites, and later, in the 2000s, MSNBC, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and plenty of blogs. And what got lost was verifiable facts that we could all agree upon. Now, everyone could seek out their own facts, and many people did. Those who disliked the Democrats could listen to Fox commentators telling them that they were absolutely correct; and those who disliked the Republicans, could go over to the commentators on MSNBC and have their beliefs reinforced. And along the way, we not only stopped talking to each other but we started mistrusting any media sources whose version of the facts didn't conform with ours.
And that is why when Donald Trump says he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11 (even though not one mayor or governor from either party could verify what he claimed), his fans insisted he must be right. When Ted Cruz ran an attack ad asserting that President Obama is "coming for your guns" (even though the president has NEVER said he wanted all guns banned), his fans insisted he must be right. When Hillary Clinton has made claims that fact-checkers showed to be false or exaggerated, her fans insist she must be right. And it's not just candidates: Consider Josh Duggar, allegedly a fine example of living a pious Christian life. When he finally admitted he had cheated on his wife, many of his fans said they forgave him because we are all sinners. (Well, yes, but we don't all hold ourselves up as paragons of marital fidelity while frequenting the Ashley Madison "dating" site.)
The point is that these days, it seems that telling a clever and entertaining story (one that reinforces the beliefs of your audience) is more important than having the facts on your side. Time magazine has a fascinating analysis this week of how and why Donald Trump is winning, despite having earned the "Lie of the Year" award from the fact-checking site Politifact. Even being caught making statements that are 100% factually inaccurate only makes his fans love him more, since Trump partisans are convinced the media can't be trusted (a talking point frequently asserted by a number of Republican candidates). The Time article, written by David Von Drehe (and available here: http://time.com/4170772/the-art-of-the-steal/), notes that Trump has done away with the "middle man"-- he no longer needs Republican party leaders to promote him-- he can do it himself, and do it well. People already feel as if they know him, having seen him host several highly-rated TV reality shows, and make numerous appearances on late night talk shows. And they trust him because he seems to be so confident, so rich, and so successful. And even when a Republican pundit like Karl Rove, or a fellow candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly criticizes him, he can just swat them aside, and his fans admire how he doesn't feel the need to answer to anyone. I've been following politics for years, and I have never seen a candidate who is rewarded with more media attention, more free publicity, and more popularity the more he distorts the truth.
But here we are, in a post-factual society, where well-known people can say one thing and do entirely another and suffer few if any consequences: Bristol Palin promotes abstinence, yet has two (!) children out of wedlock. She remains popular, and her fans defend her, rather than holding her accountable for not practicing what she preached. Former congressman Anthony Weiner presented himself as a happily married man while sending lewd photos of himself to other women; yes, he is no longer in congress, but he is still a guest on talk shows and some sources say he is thinking of running for office again. I won't be shocked if he is able to reinvent himself. These days, even a major scandal won't necessarily doom your career.
Don't get me wrong-- I absolutely do believe in second chances, and I'm willing to forgive; lord knows I've made my share of mistakes over the years. But I just wish that as a culture, we would place more value on honesty. When I was growing up, I was taught that a great leader was one who was unafraid to tell the truth and willing to admit a mistake. These days, I see very few great leaders. I see a world where politicians and celebrities rarely own up to what they did wrong-- they offer a convenient excuse or they change the subject. I find it frustrating, but maybe I'm the only one who does. So, let me ask you this, my friendly readers: Can you name me a current political figure or a current cultural leader you admire, someone who sets a good example for being honest? Or has our post-factual society lowered our expectations? I eagerly await your comments!
When I was growing up (and no, it wasn't that long ago), honesty and trustworthiness still mattered. A politician or a celebrity or a high-profile business executive who lied or distorting the facts was harshly criticized, both by the media and by the general public. A newspaper that didn't get its facts right, or one that confused publicity with accurate information, was also criticized. And contrary to what a number of my friends insist, this has never been partisan-- there are Democrats who have lied, Republicans who have lied, celebrities who have lied, and corporate executives who have lied. (And then there's Donald Trump, who is in a classification all his own, having at various times in his life been a Democrat, a Republican, a celebrity, and a corporate executive, and who has created his own reality everywhere he went.)
When Bill Clinton lied about not having sex with "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky), GOP partisans in congress were gleeful because they thought they saw an opening for removing him from the presidency. But most Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, weren't gleeful at all; in fact, a majority of us did not agree that he deserved to be impeached, and surveys showed that repeatedly. It cannot be denied, however, that many Americans were bitterly disappointed that the president had lied, as well as that he had cheated on his wife. Sad to say, other presidents from both parties had lied about sex before; but a less nosy media from a more innocent time did not ask about presidential mistresses. And then it changed.
Beginning in the 1990s, attitudes about what should or should not be discussed in public were suddenly in flux. Serious newspapers and news magazines that had never before trafficked in gossip or scandal, and always tried to verify the facts, suddenly found themselves in the internet era, competing with online sources that could instantly spread rumors with the click of a mouse. There was also the launching of partisan media sources, such as Fox News in 1996, as well as various left-wing and right-wing websites, and later, in the 2000s, MSNBC, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and plenty of blogs. And what got lost was verifiable facts that we could all agree upon. Now, everyone could seek out their own facts, and many people did. Those who disliked the Democrats could listen to Fox commentators telling them that they were absolutely correct; and those who disliked the Republicans, could go over to the commentators on MSNBC and have their beliefs reinforced. And along the way, we not only stopped talking to each other but we started mistrusting any media sources whose version of the facts didn't conform with ours.
And that is why when Donald Trump says he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11 (even though not one mayor or governor from either party could verify what he claimed), his fans insisted he must be right. When Ted Cruz ran an attack ad asserting that President Obama is "coming for your guns" (even though the president has NEVER said he wanted all guns banned), his fans insisted he must be right. When Hillary Clinton has made claims that fact-checkers showed to be false or exaggerated, her fans insist she must be right. And it's not just candidates: Consider Josh Duggar, allegedly a fine example of living a pious Christian life. When he finally admitted he had cheated on his wife, many of his fans said they forgave him because we are all sinners. (Well, yes, but we don't all hold ourselves up as paragons of marital fidelity while frequenting the Ashley Madison "dating" site.)
The point is that these days, it seems that telling a clever and entertaining story (one that reinforces the beliefs of your audience) is more important than having the facts on your side. Time magazine has a fascinating analysis this week of how and why Donald Trump is winning, despite having earned the "Lie of the Year" award from the fact-checking site Politifact. Even being caught making statements that are 100% factually inaccurate only makes his fans love him more, since Trump partisans are convinced the media can't be trusted (a talking point frequently asserted by a number of Republican candidates). The Time article, written by David Von Drehe (and available here: http://time.com/4170772/the-art-of-the-steal/), notes that Trump has done away with the "middle man"-- he no longer needs Republican party leaders to promote him-- he can do it himself, and do it well. People already feel as if they know him, having seen him host several highly-rated TV reality shows, and make numerous appearances on late night talk shows. And they trust him because he seems to be so confident, so rich, and so successful. And even when a Republican pundit like Karl Rove, or a fellow candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly criticizes him, he can just swat them aside, and his fans admire how he doesn't feel the need to answer to anyone. I've been following politics for years, and I have never seen a candidate who is rewarded with more media attention, more free publicity, and more popularity the more he distorts the truth.
But here we are, in a post-factual society, where well-known people can say one thing and do entirely another and suffer few if any consequences: Bristol Palin promotes abstinence, yet has two (!) children out of wedlock. She remains popular, and her fans defend her, rather than holding her accountable for not practicing what she preached. Former congressman Anthony Weiner presented himself as a happily married man while sending lewd photos of himself to other women; yes, he is no longer in congress, but he is still a guest on talk shows and some sources say he is thinking of running for office again. I won't be shocked if he is able to reinvent himself. These days, even a major scandal won't necessarily doom your career.
Don't get me wrong-- I absolutely do believe in second chances, and I'm willing to forgive; lord knows I've made my share of mistakes over the years. But I just wish that as a culture, we would place more value on honesty. When I was growing up, I was taught that a great leader was one who was unafraid to tell the truth and willing to admit a mistake. These days, I see very few great leaders. I see a world where politicians and celebrities rarely own up to what they did wrong-- they offer a convenient excuse or they change the subject. I find it frustrating, but maybe I'm the only one who does. So, let me ask you this, my friendly readers: Can you name me a current political figure or a current cultural leader you admire, someone who sets a good example for being honest? Or has our post-factual society lowered our expectations? I eagerly await your comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)