Allegiance (Homogenized) and Diversity Stew

stewThe theme of homogenization is present in much of what I talk about in this blog because the president keeps doing it. If Trump weren’t trying to erase the identifying qualities of individuals it would not be an issue. His acceptance speech did nothing to identify any sub-group in the stew we call The United States of America. He simply doesn’t acknowledge the meat, potatoes, vegetables and seasonings in our bowl which provide unique contributions to the flavor of stew. He makes no effort to describe the difference between a bay leaf and a seared cube of beef. In his rhetoric we are interchangeable ingredients.

An effort is being made in this administration to avoid identifying one group over another unless he dislikes them. That’s why Jews were left out of the Holocaust Memorial statement, but the Muslims are banned by name. Identity groups are either an anonymous part of the stew who won’t get mentioned, or they are the named enemy who is vilified with disrespect and lies.That’s sort of a backhanded compliment to Jews in an odd way – inclusion in the group of the anonymous whole. Except that by ignoring the diversity of subsets in society they are homogenized into sameness. sheep20dogThe bullying behavior of the hate groups reinforces the drive toward conformity like sheepdogs steering the herd. They will knock over as many tombstones as necessary to keep the herd together. Trump said in his acceptance speech:

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

It seems as though he wants to put the stew through the food processor and make it grey-brown mush. He believes the flavor will still be there, but he doesn’t realize that humans want to taste, in each bite, the different flavors of beef, onion or carrot; that’s what defines a stew.  This reminds me of the Chinese grey-green uniforms with the red star on the caps. All groups are the same group; it sounds Orwellian. Ignore diversity to achieve homogeneity. Vibrant hues will be desaturated with the grayness of conformity.

porridge-President Obama enjoyed mentioning and discussing the nique characteristics of many diverse identity groups. In contrast, Trump has been forced to mention, at the top of his Address to Congress, the recent anti-Jewish violence, but he also felt the need to toss in a mention of Black History Month and a shooting in Kansas. He can be pressured into naming
a component identity group when necessary as long as it is accompanied by other groups to make them all the same. The less distinction the better, though, as he said in the address:

“while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.”

There can be unity through diversity or unity through conformity.  Trump prefers conformity. The red baseball hats are a symbol of conformity. He began his dictatorship with all white followers, all christian, evangelicals, and all undereducated. He is now including in his admixture the rest of us by erasing uniqueness and encouraging sameness. He will make us bland and compliant. Allegiance is the foundation of authoritarian regimes. Total allegiance is Totalitarian.

Alpaca Rhetoric

Words are meant to lead. The mother of a baby alpaca will repeatedly click her tongue and make a noise similar to, but quieter than an alpaca’s alarm call. The baby, or cria, learns the mother’s voice first, and knows what and who to pay attention to within moments of birth. The cria will be able toalpaca copy walk within the first hour or so; those noises from the mother must be understood in case the herd happens to move to a different spot. The kid must find her mother during the journey. A newborn straggler would become an easy lunch for predators.

The ‘words’ of the alpaca mother are, “come here kid” and “stay with me”.  Words that command the cria to follow. While a baby will take months to learn the human version of this same communication, the alpaca will pick up just a few more ‘words’ before reaching the limits of its lifetime vocabulary. Humans have a much more complicated relationship with language.

Rhetoric, the use of language to persuade, is a primary component of daily life. We place most of our trust in leaders who use the language well. I recall the opened-mouth fascination of watching Mario Cuomo’s speech from the 1984 Democratic Convention, or Reagan’s ‘Shinning City on a Hill’ Speech. Barack Obama wrote and delivered superior speeches that moved the soul on both an emotional and intellectual level.

Lets take a side track for a moment and talk about Theatre of the Absurd. It ties in with the topic at hand. So, if your family were farmers in certain parts of Europe it is possible that during both WWI and WWII your farm was destroyed by the fighting in the wars. After facing the reconstruction of your property for a second time you start to wonder – What’s life all about? Each bloodied soldier sitting on your crops could tell you their version of truth but none of it matters because you still have to bury the bodies, rebuild the fields and the fences and regrow the garden from scratch. Trying to make sense of this puts you in a state of existential shock. Your existence seems to be without purpose, illogical, out of harmony, useless, devoid of reason, meaningless, hopeless, chaotic, lacking order, and uncertain. Playwrights try to illustrate this frustration on stage through the use of Theatre of the Absurd.

A key theme in this genre is the futility of language. When language doesn’t convey commonly understood meanings, communication becomes futile. Illustrating that on stage is baffling and frustrating to the audience who search for meaning in the words. The characters proceed on to the next event whether the communication is clear to the audience or not. It’s like the farmer watching the soldiers destroy the family farm again. No explanation is provided that answers the question, Why? Or, What is life about? Or, How can God exist in this horror?

7738585Harold Pinter’s The Caretaker is an example. The audience watches domination and submission games played by the characters who engage in somewhat mundane conversations.  One of its main themes is about family bonding without the help of dialogue between the two brothers. They speak, but what is spoken is not understood, resulting in isolation. There are long moments of silence in the play which create a menacing feeling. The characters deceive one another and themselves. Self deceptions are repeated throughout the play, creating an artful motif. The menace, lies and solitude suggest a world where the foundations of co-existence: time, place, and identity are as ambiguous and as fluid as is the language.

So, now we have a President and Republican Congress invading our farm. When Trump speaks, the futility of language is exposed. He deceives everyone along with himself, mostly with lies and delusions. Consequently, he feels isolated, even from his wife. He communicates through incomplete thoughts tweeted to the world in the middle of the night. His un-indicted and soon to be indicted co-conspirators pretend like it all makes sense. They proceed on to the next event as if nothing odd has happened. It’s like one big improvisational absurd theatre piece playing out for the world right in our own back yard.

A playwright gives a play structure, there are themes and metaphors and plot. The play may be enigmatic in meaning, but at least there is a structure to the story telling process. Events occur throughout the play in some sort of formalized manner, following at least some of the basic conventions of the theatre. Meanwhile, on Trump’s stage, the conventions of leadership have been torn asunder to such a degree that even a fairly conventional speech to congress can’t be taken at face value, or any value for that matter. He has teased the audience way too much with lies and misdirection. He has reached a point where his shtick no longer represents an artful tale of existential questioning. The time has come for the director of the production to say: We stopped being credible a long time ago, let’s go back and fix it. The essential function of Trump’s absurd communication is not sufficient to lead anyone anywhere, not even a cria to her mother.

Earning a letter in the LGBT…acronym

Between Frank Bruni’s NYT column yesterday, Two Consonants Walk Into a Bar …, link and the advance word on ABC’s mini-series, When We Rise, link the topic of acceptance is getting a good hearing.  The coming-out story of the LGBTQ movement is the story of learning what acceptance truly means. Gay folks have had to learn this lesson first, before progress could be made in the greater community. Equality cannot be fully understood until the least among us have asked for it and achieved it. The LGBTQ community has historically held the status of “least”.

There is a song that is mostly a series of questions from the musical, Side Show with book and lyrics by Bill Russell and music by Henry Krieger. The title is: Who Will Love Me As I Am? See, it’s a question. Some other questions from the song occur in the refrain:

Who will ever call to say I love you?

Send me flowers or a telegram?

Who could proudly stand beside me?

Who will love me as I am?

This is a catchy refrain, its message applies to anyone who needs human contact. The reason it holds value for the often despised LGBTQ folks is the overtly mean vilification coming from those pinnacles of morality: Religions. (I won’t say anything about child-rape by priests or adulterous ministers.) They cast us as the ultimate outsiders.

Like an odd exotic creature

On display inside a zoo

Hearing children asking questions

Makes me ask some questions too

Could we bend the laws of nature?

Could a lion love a lamb?

Who could see beyond this surface?

Who will love me as I am?

The history of our rights movement is the gradual self-awareness gained while we re-learned one lesson over and over again: we must treat others in the manner we are asking to be treated by others. Does that sound like The Golden Rule? You betcha. We are as guilty of the ills of society toward one another as society can be toward us.

Early gay rights groups struggled with the following issue: How can average, every-day gays ask for equality without including leather people and drag queens too. Those types don’t project the kind of PR image that Americans want to see. America won’t like us with that image, so we should hide them and shame them into invisibility.

Well, isn’t that exactly what society does to us all? Once that realization sinks in there is no real choice left. Wow, we can’t divorce ourselves from others who are in the same situation. That’s a tough realization to make. All sexual minorities shared a common plight and must join together in the fight. Every time we crossed that exact same bridge we fought amongst ourselves. Each group had to earn its consonant in the ever expanding acronym. We eventually learned how to be accepting in the way we wished to be accepted ourselves.

Once we were capable of accepting ourselves AND each other through reciprocity, we could do an effective job of demanding it from society. The way we did that was to teach society about The Golden Rule through our example. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is the way I learned it; each religion has its own variation while the non-theists and humanists say it is just plain common sense.
CHART.001The continuum of ‘acceptance’ starts with hatred on one end and tolerance in the middle; the extreme positive end is love. Acceptance is somewhere on the love side of tolerance. You see, tolerance is half way, it contains as much love as hate. It’s balanced, but a small bird landing on either side would be enough to shift the balance one way or another. Tolerance does not provide confidence. It’s hedging bets. It’s wishy-washy.

For a while we were content with half way. Tolerance was better than nothing. My doctor asked why we had to use the word marriage when I told him I was getting married to my partner of 27 years. Before I could give a response he answered his own question, “I guess anything else wouldn’t be equal, would it?” When he was sitting right there with me, and not in his church, he could make the necessary connection on his own. He just needed to be presented with the situation. Mere tolerance, for a while, provided enough “situations” to give people the chance to draw their own conclusions. The more the logic of acceptance creeped into their mindset, the more they pressed us not to settle for tolerance. That was the moment we won the battle.

Who could proudly stand beside me?

Who will love me as I am?

We all ask the same questions whether in high school popularity struggles or politics or daily social existence. First we ask who will love me as I am, then who will accept me as I am, then tolerate, then oppose, then hate. At what level do we belong? We deserve to be loved once we learn to give the things we want first, but sometimes we have to settle for tolerance before learning can happen. Then, we start building arguments for acceptance. As we do that, we discover similarities between every consonant in the LGBTQ family. We all share, in common, the same enemy; it’s those who don’t understand the Law of Reciprocity – The Golden Rule.

Bureaucracy, the Lesser Bully

Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gates and asked Mr. ronald-reagan-brandenburg-gate-west-berlin-june-12-1987-pictureGorbachev to “Tear down this wall”. It was an act of bravery. The risk he took was less than it may have seemed. The Soviet Union was ripe for collapse. A key bit of evidence for this was found in the products made by this cumbersome bureaucracy. A tractor was worth more in raw materials than it was fresh off the assembly line. There was no motivation for quality control in the massive State Committee for Planning’s centralized control system due to a lack of competition and overwhelming bureaucratic inertia. At the time I was predicting the same thing would happen here in the United States, except that it may take longer.

Bureaucracy – the structural processes of organizational operations – becomes entrenched and grows into mammoth entities with an insatiable need to expand. For example, when I started teaching in 1982, Universities employed mostly professors along with minimal administrative support. Now, professors are almost an afterthought to the management bureaucracies that have taken over. The priorities have ballooned to include satisfying the ‘customer experience’ and ‘job training,’ all of which can be done by staff or adjunct professors to lower the cost of running the school’s ever-growing bureaucracy. Students and faculty alike are intimidated by the intractability of the systemic bully.

When I think of a new start to a clogged up, non-functional system, I’d start with the goal first. What is this system meant to do? Then I’d look at what it actually is doing, then I’d start digging to find the obvious clog points, identify them and collect my observations. I’d study what I have found and then research the ways the same thing is being done elsewhere. A plan would be created for addressing the goals. I wouldn’t destroy the old system until the new plan is ready. The solution could call for anything, from a small patch job to total reconstruction, but destruction first and ask questions later is foolish.

Trump has brought in bulldozers to deconstruct the ‘administrative state’ as Bannon said at CPAC. Cabinet heads were chosen to dismantle the government bureaucracy. We have yet to learn how it will happen in each area but given the haphazard behavior of Trump, I doubt they will do due diligence first. There is no attempt at hand to make things better, at least no one is talking about ‘improvement,’ they talk about ‘change.’ They talk about elimination of burdensome regulations and compliance checks. They talk about privatization and freedom for business. They talk about making it the ‘best’ without defining best. Remember Trump promised us: “the ‘best’ people will be in my cabinet” and look who we got.

greedI can see how people whose singular concern is making money would prefer the anarchy of the Robber Baron era, where each person fends for themselves.  Why not disregard the safety and security of the worker and her health and his family, and their ability to breathe and drink clean water and endure radical weather changes? The Trumpian moral god is me-first GREED. Humanity is what they exploit and consume to make money; it’s a necessary inconvenience on the path to wealth and dominance by the 1%.

Now, I hate the bully, bureaucracy, but the government’s is a necessary inconvenience I happily choose over being consumed by rich people. It is my preferred bully. It’s not perfect, but it is not meant to be malicious. A component element of greed is the damage it does to other humans. Greed is purposefully malicious.

The Moral Value of Posters at Westminster High

The cross is probably the most ubiquitous symbol of human society. It’s held that status well before Christians began using it. It is simple, easy to make and to understand. From a swastika to a four-leaf clover, two lines crossing one another have symbolized innumerable gods, mysteries, theologies and political entities. There exists a cross with an anchor on the bottom and one with a head-like shape on top called an ankh. There is a cross with a star, a yin-yang symbol, a flame, a chalice, a dead naked man, a star of David, and even one that identifies an artist formerly known as Prince. Each of these diverse symbols holds meanings far greater than the simplicity of their design. Whole armies gathered around some of them and wars have been fought for them. Such is the power of a symbol.

Ask Christians if their cross is a symbol of torture and cruelty or a sign of love and peace. I’ll bet they choose the latter. If you ask those who endorse the stars and bars of the Confederate flag “What does it symbolize?”, you will likely get a muddle of opinions on the topic. I find it hard to come up with anything of a positive nature to say in its behalf; the connotations of slavery overwhelm any good it may represent. People fight hard to keep it part of their southern heritage in spite of this. Its significance regarding violence and oppression of vast cultures of people has caused its removal from many public buildings and schools.

New symbols appear in our midst all the time. From a protest march in Oregon to a classroom in Maryland you can see marvelous illustrations of a women of color asserting themselves in a poster series called “We the People” by the artist Shepard Fairey, the artist who made the iconic Obama poster. They speak of liberty and freedom and diversity. They have deep significance for the gender and cultures who are oppressed in our society. The symbols in these posters do not use the image of a cross. They are new, so they have no established place in our history as the Confederate flag does. They are simply portraits of confident minority women asserting themselves in our society. They represent the diverse multi-ethnic population of the United States struggling to survive. They connote an altruistic and moral point of view.

That school in Maryland, Westminster High School, has removed the posters from the classroom as if it were the same as the confederate flag. The stated reason for this is that the symbol was also carried in opposition protests to Donald Trump’s politics. The denigrating bias of Trump’s politics on women, minorities, poor folks, Muslims and people of color turns these symbols, the posters, into something tainted by politics. The posters provide support for these moral values that Trump has made too controversial for this school.

Steven Johnson, the school’s assistant superintendent for instruction told HuffPost. “The Confederate flag in and of itself has no image of slavery or hatred or oppression, but it’s symbolic of that,” “These posters have absolutely no mention of Trump or any other political issue ― it’s the symbolism of what they were representing. They were carried in these protests.”

So, by carrying a symbol in a protest, that symbol becomes invalid as a conveyor of moral concepts for society and our children? The symbol – the posters – expressed a moral significance so succinctly that is was used in opposition to an oppressive political ideology. The well-made symbols of clearly articulated moral ideals must be suppressed in schools simply because those symbols have also been used in political campaigns on the side of those who lost the election. What would Vaclav Havel say about this?

I’m sure he would recognize the technique from his time under Communist rule. He speaks eloquently about this very situation when he discusses, in a letter to then President Gustav Husak of Czechoslovakia that his government had chosen “the most dangerous road for society: the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances; of deadening life for the sake of increasing uniformity.”

So, if that school deadens the brilliantly stated evocation of an ideal that happens to be part of its own mission statement which includes preaching “tolerance [and] acceptance of diversity”,  then there will be uniformity and compliance and consequently, inner decay. The richness of life will be replaced with clip-art posters of similar words and the homogenization of young minds will perpetuate blandness and complicity.

What about the Confederate flag? Doesn’t Steven Johnson’s equivalency of symbols argument hold true. Well, if they plan on using that argument there are a ton of images they will need to eliminate from the school in addition to those posters. They can start with any version of a cross that is not Donald Trump’s Presbyterian cross and any other religious symbols, especially Muslim symbology. They can clear out most of the art history department. The library can remove any literature, well, some can stay – pro-racist alt-right stuff. Get the point? They also marched with the American Flag, should that be replaced with a cartoon drawing too!

Look, the issue with the Confederate flag is that it is a symbol of oppression and domination and that it harshly reminds everyone of slavery. It screams its immoral history. On the other hand, the Fairey posters scream the morally valuable ideals of acceptance, diversity, equality, respect, and religious freedom. These are American values that belong to no single political party. There is no equivalency.

America needs to wake up to the subtle intrusion of inner decay. The purpose of school is not the homogenization of young minds. It’s not blandness nor is it complicity. Education is not about deadening life for the ease of uniformity. If educators, and all of us, do not learn to recognize it while it is happening and bother to stand up to this intrusion then we can expect decay.

ADF = Bully

 

Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost

my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of

myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation,

Iago, my reputation! 

Act 2 scene 3 of Othello has one of the more devastating moments to be found in any of Shakespeare’s plays. Iago intentionally gets Cassio drunk and embarrasses him in front of the boss. The character of Cassio is the epitome of goodness and virtue, and Iago is the most evil dramatic character ever created; the ultimate bully who revels in Cassio’s angst seen in those lines above.

Things to keep in mind about bullies:

They are smart.

They use strategies based upon circumstance.

They attack your reputation, knowing that you will protect it.

They almost always win.

To fight back you must accept the fact your reputation has already taken a hit, so put that reality to use. The bully is relying upon you to protect your reputation. You can beat the bully by removing reputation as the foundation of their strategy.

“You see what power is – holding someone else’s fear in your hand and showing it to them.”

-Amy Tan, from The Kitchen God’s Wife (1991)

If you fear the destruction of your reputation then the bully can keep you right where he wants you. Get rid of that fear and the bully no longer has power over you. A reputation is ephemeral, it ebbs and flows, it can be rebuilt when it is damaged. It is based in what other people think and you can’t control that. But you can control what you think about yourself.

The best way to get rid of the fear of damage to your reputation is to “know thyself.” Confidence in who and what you are allows you the fortitude to endure the inevitable assault. When you choose to oppose the attacking force, being fearless is like pulling their horses out from under them; they lose their momentum and gravity throws them into the dirt.

The Alliance Defending Freedom takes a strong oppositional stance to anti-bullying efforts in schools. Their strategy involves removing the ability for a child to become confident in themselves. The less the child knows about where they fit into the LGBTQ spectrum of existence the less confident they are. If you give them knowledge, you give them power so the ADF recommends that no information at all or even a mention of LGBTQ issues be part of anti-bullying campaigns. That will prevent struggling children from knowing themselves and certainly prevent sympathy for their lot in this circumstance. By ignoring the topic it becomes easier to use language like ‘fag’ and ‘queer’ and ‘dyke’ negatively since no-one has told them not to do so, or has even said that it is bad.

Social pressure, shame and reputation are valued in an authoritarian mindset where rules are respected more than individuals. Self-knowledge is irrelevant in this approach because standards have already been established for all individuals. So, if your kid doesn’t know the kind of pain he is causing a gay target when he calls him a fag, well, it doesn’t really matter because that childish shaming is what keeps the christian rules enforced. And, it is sort of the moral thing to do in their way of thinking because rules are more important than the individual. They don’t see the intentional restriction of knowledge as immoral either, especially if it helps the LGBTQ person know themselves. That sort of thing would let them think and reach conclusions that help build self-confidence which is the bully’s greatest fear. Keep them ignorant so they can be controlled. Let them fear being shamed and fear losing the false god of ‘reputation.’

But the Alliance Defending Freedom doesn’t stop there. They don’t want teachers reporting bullying incidents. They want investigations into bullying events contingent upon whether the bully’s parents permit it. They don’t want bullying events reported by anonymous complainants. They equate any education about LGBTQ issues to be propaganda advancing a Gay Rights agenda and undermining the family structure.

Their version of rules for “anti-bullying” give tacit approval to bully the LGBTQ population. They preemptively steal the student’s ability for self defense. They do this with lawyers under the guise of false moral superiority. They encourage anti-intellectualism, cruelty and blind allegiance to their own ignorant belief system. This is not Christ-like behavior.

Alt-Right, The Alternative To Being Right, Welcomes the ADF

New words and phrases enter our vocabulary all the time. One new arrival is the designation known as: Alt-Right. This name is designed to prevent a visceral reaction to the extreme ideologies it identifies. The right wing of American politics has been renaming itself for a long time. Neo-conservative shifts in thought bring about a distinction called the “paleo-conservative,” who only became “paleo,” or old, once the “neo,” new conservatives asserted themselves. Old ideas or political philosophies require a new moniker to be successfully recycled.

The Tea Party evolved out of Pat Buchanan’s declaration of cultural and religious wars in the 1990’s. Buchanan was attempting to re-define the Republican party with his incendiary speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. He said: “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America”.  The Koch brothers and their cohorts used a different approach as they created a new movement to influence the Republican party which eventually became the Tea Party. This was given a name that folks could hang their hats on both literally and metaphorically. Its suggestion of rebellion was attractive to white middle-class evangelical types because it’s just like the American Revolution. Anyone could pin a teabag to their hat and join the rebellion. They all knew about the 1773 Boston Tea Party from elementary school so the historical reference made them feel smart. They were empowered by their metaphorical fight for independence while seeking extreme conservative change.

“Tea Bagging” faded after a series of Sara Palin-like fiascos cluttered up their image. Meanwhile, white evangelicals searched for a new leader. They were sorely afraid of the black president who managed a scandal-free eight years in the White House. The line-up of candidates in the 2016 republican primaries offered a passel of overtly Christian and sometimes chubby, mostly white guys. They chose, the least Christ-like and most Palin-like contestant in the group. Trump seemed to endorse calling a spade a spade, as they say, and stood up to political correctness by retweeting the words of white supremacists. Now, look at this, Trump appears to be direct and forthright by repeating these memes. He calls it as he sees it. However, he stops short of being clear. His true message is hidden in this misdirection but people think they have been given at least a wink and a nod: “See, I’m on your side,” They finally had permission to feel good about their bigotry.

These folks prefer the name, Alt-Right. It just sounds more respectable, like “pro-life,” and “pro-family” and “christian”. Who can complain about an “alternative” to normal right wing politics? After all, it’s much more respectable than clearly stating the actual bigotries that define them: white supremacists, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and all those plain-old-white-folk who are scared of sharing control with darker skinned folks.

The Alliance Defending Freedom was created by hate groups such as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family and Coral Ridge Ministries. ADF has provided legal support for a number of these like-minded groups. They masquerade as just plain lawyers while advocating harsh, unkind, hateful anti-LGBTQ points of view. Christian hate-mongers wearing legal robes this time. There is nothing about being a lawyer that removes the responsibilities of civility, but this group masks incivility with cunning legal gimmicks. Dressing up to seem respectable is the purpose of the term Alt-Right and it is the purpose of the ADF for Christian bigotry.

Evangelicals feel they deserve respect.  They want this respect while being discriminatory against immigrants, Muslims and gays. They want control over women, blacks, and transgender people while at the same time wanting to feel good about their bigotry. The go-to guys for Alt-Right legal and political action is the Alliance Defending Freedom. “Alt-Right” gives them cover to feel better about their immoral choices. ‘It is just an alternative, there is no need to turn up your arrogant noses at us; our beliefs are merely an ‘alternate’ to yours’. Shouldn’t an alternative have equal status?

The problem is that they are seeking equal status with the more-principled and morally correct ideals of equal treatment. They have skipped a few steps here. The name ‘alt-right’ is equivalent to the morally despicable ideologies of white supremacists, racists, homophobes and misogynists. If those ideologies elevate themselves up to an appropriate moral standard they might earn equality, until that time comes, both the ADF and Alt-Right are merely putting lipstick on a pig. In Trump’s case, he is putting makeup on some very wealthy pigs.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has always been a part of the Alt-Right crowd. With the recent designation from the SPLC of “Hate Group” we can break through the facade of credibility to speak bluntly about their vile nature.

ADF = Hate Group

The most efficient and effective anti-LGBTQ group is now officially a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Link. The Alliance  Defaming Defending Freedom (ADF) is an organization of Christian lawyers who defame the LGBTQ population with legal actions.

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that specializes in supporting the recriminalization of homosexuality abroad, ending same-sex marriage, and generally making life as difficult as possible for LGBT communities in the U.S. and internationally. [from SPLC site]

 

To PC or Not To PC

A recent commenter has me thinking about the nature of Political Correctness(PC). So, I found an article about the topic by Moira Weigel in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump. The history of the term is fascinating. My question is: What does it mean to be accused of political correctness? It seems to me that Donald Trump uses those two words to call people smart!

I don’t mind being called smart, but PC carries with it many connotations. By using this trick of rhetoric – naming an imaginary opponent: The PC – he envisions a triad of straw men. There is the stereotype PC person: upper middle class liberal, academic or urbanite, personified as a snobbish, middle-aged, bald, goateed, guy in glasses wearing a corduroy jacket with leather elbow patches, and reading Proust. There is the good, clean Christian farmer of hearth and home, with ball cap, bib overalls, a Bible, a hound dog, a wife and a blunderbuss. (I was a farmer for eight years, sans wife and blunderbuss. And a non-theist so the Bible stayed on the shelf!) Then there is the savior class of rich folks: Trumpites. Or as Trump promised: “I’m going to hire the best people for my Cabinet”; best does not mean a ‘qualified expert,’ it means wealthy. Money, apparently gives one superior knowledge of any and all things.

Trump has convinced the farming third of the triad he would help them. He complains about Political Correctness, but then – he lies often and blatantly. His behavior suggests that the lie – an immoral, deceitful, attack-on-civility – is preferable to the cautious, respectful, moral, civility of being politically correct . Honestly, he won the election by advocating dishonesty. I’ve spoken on this blog about why I think this behavior is appealing to Evangelicals and other Trump supporters in spite of the obvious conflict. They are moralist who have almost nothing to moralize about without fags to pick on, or muslims, or women or whatever is on their list that day. They are willing to make faustian deals with anyone just to get an ounce of the superiority that gay-bashing provides. Their identities are based upon their ability to look down on someone “lesser” than themselves. The low-caste groups they love to hate are protected by political correctness. But, the moralists really want to call them names, pick on them and abuse them. The urge to bully others is a primary driver once it takes over.

They either can’t think for themselves or don’t want to; sometimes they are guided by religious dictates that require thoughtless allegiance to antiquated rules excluding “others”. They desperately try to maintain a status quo that has passed them by. Verbal meanness is something they have been denied by political correctness and it burns their biscuits. Trump has opened the floodgates of their anger and allows them to be as condescending as they want now. This will likely be their only reward from him.

Inbred prejudice is partly a survival mechanism; they are using what god gives them to survive. When they think about it, I mean seriously and objectively think, they realize that they aren’t treating others the way they would want to be treated and are embarrassed by their thoughts. It clashes with their prime religious directive, “Do unto others…” At least I hope that they are embarrassed, the future will be irredeemable if they are not. That dissonance makes them angrier. They see that they are on the poop end of the stick where it is quite unpleasant so they lash out at what they consider oppression. Passions are raised when they see gays getting legal protections and the muslims getting away with a normal life, and women as bosses so their gut level reaction is anger.

Unfortunately, their role-model is Donald Trump, who wears the facade of money well. His behavior is not the least bit polite. He looks great in a tux, but don’t mistake that for being civil. Dressing up a bully does not make the ill effects of his behavior any easier to take. Unless, of course, you have never stayed at a hotel as fancy as his, or worn your own tuxedo, or flown in your own jet. Those people fall for the shtick and the bluster. They know they are bound to this devil by their faustian bargain and at some point will begin to regret the deal. The politically correct people will eventually accept them back and forgive them because it is the PC thing to do. Until that happens Trump’s battle with civility must play out.

The hard part for evangelicals is that they gave up any moral high ground they may have had. In the past, they could at least say God was on their side. They can’t say that now, they made a deal with the devil and their’s is a vengeful god!

Win or Learn

On one hand is the idea that any moral code has certain noble and universal qualities. On the other hand, well, it’s full of the shit commonly known as reality.

‘Sweet mercy’ may indeed ‘be nobility’s true badge,’ so naturally, we are disillusioned by the vigor of Republicans and the Plutocracy they promote. Greed tramples mercy into oblivion. Our leaders, of all stripes, have no nobility. The conversation has been usurped by truthiness and deception.

If the Christian ideal of teaching by example were truly observed by the youth we would have a generation of lying, deceitful hypocrites who pray on Sunday and abuse mercy the rest of the week like the rich, well-heeled Plutocracy that now dominates America’s government.  What am I saying? Those people could be my freshman peers from the hyper-religious Grove City College in the 70’s who earned degrees in hypocrisy ostensibly by studying Biology or Spanish.  Mandatory chapel 35 times a semester only helped justify the debauchery at the frat house the night before.  Each student organization was labeled with the word: ‘Christian’ pointing out the impotence of the word itself. What isn’t ‘Christian’ if everything is labeled as such regardless of its true merit?

I taught Theatre Arts for a living. My students would study techniques for presenting metaphors of great ideas to a live audience. Now, the technology of my art has been stolen for nefarious purpose. The Plutocracy has scripted a fantasy of truthiness and dispersed it throughout mass media where it has taken hold of the gullible and lazy. I know of their tricks of illusion and persuasion, so it pains me to see them misused for deceitful political and theological purposes.

Persuasion has replaced discourse. Two sides are not ‘both alike in dignity’ when one says: “I am here to grow in understanding” and the other says: “I am here to win at all cost”. There is no nobility in the pretense of honest discourse when the only goal of one side is to persuade through deception. In the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump you could almost see the library of knowledge and experience behind her as she discussed policy with detail. He, on the other hand, was steaming with red-faced passions and vitriolic pettiness shrouded in orange and yellow hair. As she spoke we were all focused on the melodrama, not her. She was upstaged. He gave a hyperbolic voice to frustrations and she said a lot of smart stuff. Which sells more? The spectacle, of course!

So, you take a block of styrofoam and carve it into a shape and paint it with gold paint and Ta Da! You have the substance of: TRUMP. Majestic, isn’t it? A genuine facade! Look, it’s gold! That’s impressive isn’t it? Well, maybe not to someone reading this, but much of America doesn’t see past the surface veneer.

When having a conversation with evangelical Christians, are they there to grow in understanding, or to win at all cost? Isn’t their mission to win? Christian Dominionists “believe they have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions including government” http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/02/14/dominionism-is-the-new-religious-freedom/#sthash.oZOGjF8a.dpuf. A conversation with them is the same as with a used car salesperson, “What will it take to have you drive out of here with a shinny newish Toyota?” Perhaps not as brash but certainly as determined and aggressive. They already know, with certainty, all they need to know. They are there to persuade, not to learn and grow together.

Due to their label, Christian, they have a facade as artificial as the gold-painted styrofoam that Trump has. The problem is that the word Dominionist is attached and that means dominate. God mandates that they control all of mankind until Christ returns. If this reminds you of Sharia Law then you’ve got the plan. Label everything “Christian” even if it is just waste removal or whatever, force attendance at chapel, require bible study in school, and turn a blind eye toward the human parts of life.

Money, gods, and racism are all tied up together in this Presidency. They all want dominance, and they don’t want to grow beyond their certainty. Truthiness has the upper hand right now. Does Democracy have what it takes to counter this stupidity or do we destroy and rebuild?