Yesterday, a frequent reader and  friend sent me  an article by Mark Buchanan of BloombergView titled “Why Trump Gets Away with Lying.”  It points out how a survey taken after the 2016 election found, “Trump supporters don’t believe many of his lies, especially his most egregious ones.”  According to the researchers who undertook the study, it was never about the content of the message, but the style.  Trump was railing against the same voices that these “forgotten Americans” felt were unresponsive to what they viewed as an economic and social  crisis.  Sound familiar?  It is the latest iteration of the ancient proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Buchanan concludes, “Trump’s rise might signal the start of a necessary period of painful disruption and chaos, before we find a way to reverse decades of middle class social decay.”  I have to admit, if you think the term “deplorables” was not enough of a rallying point, tell Trump voters they represent “decades of middle class social decay.” Mr. Buchanan, I’m afraid your silver tongue makes you more a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In the counter-intuitive tradition of Deprogramming101, let’s consider the possibility we are approaching the issue from the wrong starting point.  As inventor Charles Kettering once said, “A problem well stated is a problem half-solved.”  In other words, before we start worrying about an appropriate responses, let’s examine whether we are asking the right questions.  Buchanan thinks the issue is, “Why do people who know Trump is lying vote for him?”  But if you step back, you realize a better point of entry is, “Why do so many voters believe progressives do not represent them?”  On the surface it doesn’t make sense.  On so many issues, a majority of Republicans and even Trump supporters align with progressive positions on critical issues.  Climate change.  DACA.  Universal background checks. Net neutrality.  Legalization of marijuana.  Affordable health care.  The cost of higher education.  Infrastructure.

So, if it’s not the substance, what else could it be?  If you want to understand the angst of residents of the “flyover states,”  perhaps the best source of advice is someone who grew up in that part of the country.  Ewing Kauffman–CEO of Marion Laboratories in Kansas City, owner of the Kansas City Royals and philanthropist–recognized the relationship between the authorities and those who labored under them was a marriage based on trust and respect.  Exploring this liaison from the perspective of his employees (who it preferred to call associates), he understood a guiding principle was not obedience, but rather buy-in.  As Mr. K would say,  “I don’t want to be managed, but I don’t mind being led.”

Understanding this approach requires a really off the wall analogy.  Progressives believe a woman has a right to choose.  In Kauffman’s words, all they are saying is, “Don’t manage my body.”  But, I may still go to church and listen to my pastor or priest make the moral argument against abortion.  And if I follow his/her lead, that too is my choice.  Now, consider former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort in 2013 to ban the sale of soft drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces.  Conservatives cried out, “You can’t tell me what I can and cannot drink and in what quantity.”  The law was eventually overturned by the New York Court of Appeals.  But I’ll bet those same conservatives might listen to their physicians make a persuasive argument about the hazards of “Big Gulps” to one’s health.

I have never met anyone who likes to be micro-managed.  In most workplaces we are informed of the boundaries and our responsibility to respect and operate within those established guidelines.  Perhaps it’s time to think of the United States as our collective workplace.   And all citizens, regardless of rank, are associates who do not want to be ordered around yet are open to persuasion.

Which brings me to the language in the Bill of Rights.  Amendment I does not enumerate what constitutes free speech, freedom of the press or establishment of an official religion.  Instead, it states, “Congress shall make no law…”  Likewise, Amendment X does not list everything the federal government can do.  It reserves to the states and the people all non-enumerated powers.  Individuals have the right to do incredibly stupid things.  It may not be in their own best interests, but it is not against the law.  Instead of a “contract with America” (the 1994 platform which led to the Republican revolution), maybe it’s time for “a progressive bill of rights for 21st century America.”  And in the spirit of the original Bill of Rights, it should focus on what the federal government–executive, legislative and judicial branches–shall not do.

Example:  Citizens United would be history if there was a Constitutional amendment which states “the federal government shall make no law which inhibits the ability of the states to ensure equal representation of all citizens in the political process.”  In 1962, Baker v Carr affirmed one-man-one-vote safeguarded the democratic principle that station in life did not weight the value of any citizen’s ballot.  Then, shouldn’t every citizen’s ability to participate in or influence  political debate not depend on their accumulated wealth?

I wish I had more answers.  But at the moment, perhaps having the right questions is a better place to begin.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP