Category Archives: Culture

America’s “Basial” Divide

Culture, Politics, Uncategorized

 

The Wednesday morning quarterbacking is in full swing.  Journalists and pundits are pontificating what each campaign did right or wrong and the challenges facing both major political parties.  Being a political junkie, that was my first instinct.  This morning I woke up with a different perspective.

This shift in mindset comes not from the questions posed the day after the election, but those raised during the campaign.  Here are just a few.

  • Can Hillary Clinton hold the Obama coalition together?
  • Are there enough disenchanted white voters to secure a Trump victory?
  • In reference to various campaign decisions, is this strategy or event designed to solidify the candidate’s base or broaden it?

Tuesday night, analysts, using data from the exit polls, addressed these queries and mostly confirmed the conventional wisdom that we are a nation divided by gender, race and age.

Then, as they always do following a contentious election, commentators quickly shifted to the topic of “healing the deep divisions among the American electorate.”  And equally sad, just as THEY always do, the candidates followed the script.  In his acceptance speech the president-elect said:

Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

In her concession speech, Hillary Clinton urged the country to come together.

Last night I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.

What neither candidate did was take responsibility for creating what I have coined “the basial divide” during the campaign.  Microsoft Word does not recognize the term “basial.”  It is a derivative of the non-word “basism,” which, draws on the definition of racism.

A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among various political groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own political affiliation is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular political group is inferior to the others.

Race, gender and age are accidents of birth.  How individuals in these three categories migrate to one party or another’s base of support is the result of political discourse.  Therefore, it is the message from each candidate or party, in hopes of solidifying its base, which creates the political and cultural divide.

For argument sake, imagine each presidential candidate followed their post-election call for unity during the campaign.  What would it have required?  Please keep in mind, I am going to use extreme examples to make this point.

Donald Trump could have held a campaign event in a field of migrant workers instead of on the border.  He could have explained how undocumented workers are exploited when employers know they can pay lower wages without fear of their employees filing complaints with the Department of Labor.  He could have asked his supporters, “How many of you, given the opportunity to spend eight hours a day in the sun picking strawberries, would take that job?” At the Republican convention, they could have shown a video of the nominee’s encounter with migrant workers.  Trump could have asked, “Shouldn’t a GREAT AMERICA reward a hard day’s labor with a fair wage?”

Hillary Clinton could have shown how her theme of economic justice applied to all Americans.  She could have said, “I do not condone what the Bundy’s did in Nevada and Oregon, but I understand it.  If I were a rancher, I’d wonder why government subsidizes private ventures, but charges me fees if my cattle graze on public lands. STRONGER TOGETHER means we have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, even when we disagree with them.”

Or how climate change is about more than rising oceans or more violent storms.  Clinton could have said, “Farmers in the grain belt should be just as concerned about the impact of rising temperatures on their assets as beachfront property owners on the two coasts.”  I don’t recall seeing  a Democratic rally in the heartland or a television spot which made that point.

Why are these scenarios unrealistic?  Because bringing America together is hard.  Because it requires taking the time to make well-reasoned and well-articulated arguments as opposed to campaign slogans or thirty second sound bites. Because candidates would rather spend their time in arenas, being cheered by thousands of supporters who were always going to vote for them (i.e. their base).  Because they fear being rejected if they venture into hostile political territory.

downloadI believe there is a chance to re-unite Americans.  I believe this because I saw it happen.  And the individual who helped me see this is often characterized as one of the most divisive figures in national politics, filmmaker Michael Moore.  On October 6, he traveled to Wilmington, Ohio, an overwhelmingly Republican town which was devastated when DHL shuttered a major regional processing center.  He called his one-man show, “Michael Moore in Trumpland.”  For 73 minutes, he talked with a largely hostile audience.  He empathized with their economic plight and their fears.  And then made the case why Hillary Clinton’s policies would do more for them than Donald Trump’s.

We’ll never know what impact Moore’s experiment had.  After all, there were only a few hundred people in attendance.  It does not matter.  What does matter is there was no name-calling or violence and after the performance, Moore joined many in the audience at a neighboring bar.  Next election cycle, maybe the candidates should try this.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

What Do We Do Now?

Culture, Politics

 

Even though it is cloudy this morning (literally), I’m still pretty sure the sun came up in the East as it always does.  As it will for the next four years.

I have some thoughts about why American voters chose to elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, but will save those for another post.  The more important question is, “How do those of us who adamantly opposed his candidacy react to last night’s outcome?”

The response is simple.  And it is based on the Hillary Clinton ad which asked the question, “Who do you want to be a role model for our children?”  Although posed to differentiate between the two major contenders, the answer is and always will be “every one of us.”

So think about all the times you believed Donald Trump set a bad example during the campaign. Then do the opposite.  If you believe he disrespected President Obama, remind others that the office, regardless of its occupant, deserves our honor.  If you cringed when he declared only he had the answers, remember none of us is all knowing and seek out the wisdom of others.  If you were offended by his philosophy to take revenge ten-fold when you feel wronged, be more understanding and forgiving.

I have no doubts there will be more Benghazis, San Bernardinos and Orlandos in the next four years.  Instead of calling for investigations to find who to blame, ask our leaders to use their energies and resources to learn from these experiences and take the appropriate actions to prevent other tragedies.

And if during his term of office, the next president is ill or injured.  Do not remind everyone how he exploited Hillary Clinton’s bout with pneumonia during the campaign. Hope for his quick recovery.

In other words, be the role model you know you should be if Donald Trump never existed.  And, maybe, just maybe, we can become a role model not just for our children but for the nation’s leadership as well.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

My Rejected Screenplay

Culture, Media

 

The “butterfly effect” is defined as the scientific theory a single event, regardless of size, can change the course of the universe.  The concept has been used in many contexts.  For example, environmentalist have warned extinction of the most seemingly insignificant species might be the trigger that unleashes a  catastrophic ecological disaster.  And as one might suspect, the butterfly effect is rich fodder for many fictional books, movies and television shows.

The concept plays a prominent role in an episode of the original Star Trek series titled “The City of the Edge of Forever.”  Written by science fiction icon Harlan Ellison, the time travel theme revolves around the eventual outcome of World War II being dependent on the fate of a social welfare worker in depression-era America.  Ellison received the 1968 Hugo Award, science fiction’s most prestigious honor, for Best Dramatic Presentation. This is just one of many Hollywood treatments in which the butterfly effect plays a pivotal part. TasteOfCinema.com has identified at least 10 movies since 1990 which draw on the theory.

Being a political junkie, I was disappointed none of these tales centered on the electoral process and decided the time had come.  I began working on a screenplay in which a small, unrelated event determines the outcome of a contentious presidential contest. Knowing Hollywood loves salacious subplots, I decided the triggering event had to involve sex.

The following is a brief summary of the characters and the plot.

  • One candidate is the first female nominated by a major political party.
  • Her husband has a history of sexual misbehavior which her opposition exploits throughout the campaign.
  • She also has demonstrated some instances of questionable judgment.
  • Two weeks before election day, she appears to have overcome voters’ concern about both these perceived weaknesses and is posed to become the next president.
  • Somewhere in Midtown Manhattan, a divorced, former Congressman is sexting with an underage female.
  • During the investigation of the potential charge of child pornography, the FBI discovers material which turns the trajectory of the election upside down.

The working title for my screenplay  is “The Un-Buttoned Fly Effect.”  I sent the manuscript to several major studios and independent producers.  The response was unanimous, best summed up by the following in a letter from the Weinstein brothers at MiraMax.

While we find your treatment to be highly imaginative, we are afraid it lacks the credibility needed to draw a broad audience.

So much for my career in fiction.  But never give up.  I’m thinking about re-packaging the screenplay as a documentary.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

WikiLeaks and Executive Privilege

Culture, Politics

 

On numerous occasions, U.S. presidents have claimed executive privilege to avoid releasing what they considered private conversations.  They provide the following justification for their position.  Without executive privilege, staff and associates will be unwilling to share candid thoughts with the boss.

While many of you may disagree, personal experience tells me this stance is valid.  In 1984, I served as director of operations for South Carolina Senator Fritz Holling’s short-lived presidential campaign.  Fortunately, we were still some years away from broad use of email and the internet.  Most internal communication took place within the confines of our offices at 444 North Capitol Street in Washington, DC.  But I do recall two types of conversations I would never want to become public.  Some involved the candidate’s performance.  After personal appearances, we would assess what worked and didn’t work. We often focused on the negatives with the goal of avoiding the same mistakes twice or honing the Senator’s message.

In an October 24, 2016 Real Clear Politics article about John Podesta’s emails released through WikiLeaks, the writer Alexis Simendinger states, “In the chatter, she (HRC) is relentlessly interpreted and swaddled by handlers, dissected (sometimes unflatteringly) by allies and stakeholders, and heard from directly only rarely.” THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GOOD STAFF AND ADVISERS SHOULD DO.  Without that honest assessment of her performance, I doubt Secretary Clinton’s performance over the course of the campaign would have improved as much as many pundits believe it has.  Does anyone question whether her opponent would have been equally well served by a similar level of dissection by his confidantes?

The second reason involves campaign conversations around hypotheticals.  Almost every strategy discussion includes the phrase, “What if we…”  In the interest of levity or to vent frustrations when things did not go according to plan, we sometimes threw out a range of options, some bordering on illegal or just plain crazy, which I’m glad never saw the light of day.  The relevance of these conversations becomes important ONLY if we had chosen to execute them.

And therein lies the difference.  Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over the Watergate tapes.  But in this case, a crime and cover-up had been committed.  Those conversations were evidence in judicial proceedings (the trials of the Watergate participants and the House impeachment hearings).  Similarly, FBI access to State Department and Clinton’s private emails was valid in determining whether her or her staff had violated the law.

Here is what I find ironic.  WikiLeaks’ own privacy policy includes the following statement.

Wikileaks encourages sources and volunteers to act courageously. Where possible we try and minimize real (as opposed to perceived) risks. WL volunteers face very little risk, but a small fraction may be seen as a useful to observe or befriend in the hope that this will lead to the sources of important political or intelligence leaks.

While Julian Assange and his colleagues offer to protect the privacy of their contributors in the interest of encouraging “sources and volunteers to act courageously,” they see no problem with applying a different standard to their targets.

To this point, I have focused on executive privilege as it relates to sitting presidents or those who seek that high office.  However, doesn’t every American have the same right?  Aren’t we all the executives of our own lives?  How can any of us raise and assess options courageously if we believe a hypothetical discussion, which may be viewed as reckless or even dangerous, becomes public?  Shouldn’t the Watergate standard of presidential executive privilege be applied across the board?  In the investigation of actual criminal behavior, transparency is essential.  But in the absence of an identifiable action, has WikiLeaks become what they often claim to fear the most?  Thought Police!!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Things That Scare Me

Culture, Politics

 

I love horror flicks.  I read almost every Stephen King book as soon as it is released.  And I still sleep well at night.  Why?  Because I know there is no Jason who will rise from Crystal Lake and kill me if I have pre-marital sex (as seems to be every victim’s sin in Friday the 13th movies). And I don’t believe  bullied students can seek revenge with telekinetic powers (Carrie), homicidal clowns live in the neighborhood sewer (It) or having been the site of a vicious murder results in a hotel being haunted for all time (The Shining).

There are only two King novels which actually gave me the willies.  I have been bitten by a dog (as in Cujo) and experienced the anxiety of not knowing whether I would need a painful regimen of rabies shots.  And there are too many instances of mentally unstable fans, like Annie Wilkes in Misery, who stalk celebrities (John David Chapman/John Lennon or Yolanda Saldivar/Selena) or crave attention and commit violent acts (John Hinckley, Jr./Ronald Reagan).

If I were to give this syndrome a name, it would be “anxiety déjà vu (ADV).” It emerges when one’s fear index rises having witnessed something they have seen or experienced before.  Fortunately, occasions on which I suffer bouts of ADV are very rare and very infrequent.  This morning was again one of those instances.

Several news outlets, reporting on a Trump rally of Iowa evangelicals in Council Bluffs, quoted the Republican presidential candidate as saying.

Raise your hands, Christian Conservatives…everybody.  Raise your hand if you’re not a Christian conservative—I want to see this, right. That’s—oh, there’s a couple people, that’s all right. I think we’ll keep them, right? Should we keep them in the room, yes? I think so. (Source: Time.com, September 28, 2016)

Huffington Post reported Trump “appeared to be joking.”  And that very well may be the case.  But even an attempt at humor triggered my ADV.  How can a candidate for President of the United States not appreciate asking people to identify themselves according  to their faith has historical precedence?  Whether those asking were Roman, German or the Islamic State, the outcome has always been the same.

Photograph of the smashed interior of the Berlin synagogueDo I believe Donald Trump is the next Hitler?  No.  But history tells us he doesn’t have to be. Kristallnacht (Chrystal Night also known as the Night of Broken Glass), the most infamous pogrom (violent riot) against German Jews was not conducted by the military under Hitler’s command. The November 1938 event was carried out by German citizens and the Sturmabteilung (the paramilitary arm of the Nazi party).  All the German government had to do was look the other way.

And that is what REALLY scares me.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP