Yup

 A very apt commentary by Lisa Benson on the state of USA politics at present......

The surreal world we live in

Holy Week for Christians starts on Palm Sunday (one week before Easter Sunday) and ends on Holy Saturday; it includes Holy Thursday and Good Friday, and is certainly not considered to be a happy week. Easter Sunday, which celebrates the resurrection of Christ, is a joyful day. 

Donald Trump has come out and wished Christians a 'happy holy week'. If he knew anything about Christianity, he'd know that it is not a happy week. He used the occasion to hawk the bible he is selling. Not just any bible, mind you, but a 'God Bless the USA' bible: Donald Trump is selling a 'God Bless the USA' Bible for $60 : NPR. Sixty dollars for a bible. It must be quite a special bible. The money earned from sales will go where? Into his pockets of course. The man is in desperate need of money as it turns out. What better way to make money than to prey on the consciences and faith of his followers. 

I don't get it. I really just don't get it. What is it going to take for people to see DT for what he is? Or don't his followers care? It is impossible that some of them don't care. They do, and they vote for him anyway. I know that God has used murderers and unsavory types to do his will way back when, but they saw the error of their ways, converted first and followed him (consider the life of St. Paul, who persecuted the early Christians before he converted and joined them). I don't see DT doing this. He isn't following God, he thinks he is God. Or he thinks he's been sent from God to save the USA. It's pathetic. 

We are headed down a slippery slope toward a future that no one will find appealing. Absolutely no one, not even DT's followers eventually. When they finally have to admit that they've been hoodwinked by a huckster, a con artist, a self-serving salesman. As the old saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute. Unfortunately. 

The politics of revenge (aka politics practiced by idiots)

This will be a short post, because I don't want to focus on negativity during the Christmas season. But it's also important to point out that we need a seismic shift in American politics away from revenge (tit for tat) politics and idiocy, toward balanced politics based on common sense, decency and intelligence. I wonder if that will ever happen, but God knows I'm hoping. Perhaps Santa will bear the latter down the chimneys of all of the politicians currently serving (I'm including a number of European politicians as well). 

How did we get here? I've asked that question many times. The great divide. The great disconnect. Why is it impossible for American politicians to meet somewhere in the middle without having apoplectic reactions on both sides? He said this, she said that, so I have to take revenge. Hasn't the American public gotten tired of being screamed at, lectured to, derided, insulted and otherwise treated badly by its politicians? Or do they just no longer care? Just asking. Because the current situation is likely to usher in someone who will take charge in a way that will no longer seem democratic. That person will crush all those who oppose him (or her). Think it can't happen? Think again. We are moving toward autocracy. I say wake up before it is too late.  

Summing up 2023, political cartoon-style

Sometimes the political cartoons sum up just about everything you've been thinking (or worrying) about.....

The long road to where we are now

I think we have to go back to Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation in order to gain some perspective on the controversies that defined Nixon’s presidency and how that influenced the political atmosphere henceforth. I believe there is a lot to learn from our past, because the two-party polarization we see now has always been a part of American politics to some degree. But in recent times, it has been magnified and strengthened by social media and a relentless press, and at present, is simply out of control.

I was a teenager when the Watergate scandal unfolded. I sat and watched the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973 together with my father, who was at home on sick leave at the time. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached for his role in the Watergate scandal. The Republican president Gerald Ford pardoned him in 1974, a pardon that was quite controversial; Ford justified the pardon by saying that he did not want to subject the USA to a trial that would only have further polarized the American people, who had already endured the Watergate hearings. After Ford came Democrat Jimmy Carter, who served only one presidential term (1977-1981); he was a forward-thinking president when it came to energy and conservation policies. He was followed by Republican Ronald Reagan who served two presidential terms (1981-89); his oratory skills and charm served him well, even though he was sometimes considered a lightweight because he had formerly been an actor. His economic policies--Reaganomics--introduced Americans to ‘supply-side (trickle-down)’ policies that supported decreases in taxes for corporations in order to stimulate economic growth. The intent was that corporations, since they would now ‘save money’, would use those savings to create jobs and to benefit the rest of the economy ("trickle down" theory). His economic policies were controversial. His foreign policies were rooted in anti-Communism ideology and quite bold, especially his challenge to Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Conservatives in both political parties embraced him when it came to his economic policies; I have to wonder if this was because he was a skilled orator and good communicator. I can remember heated arguments among the people I know/knew about his presidency; I was not a Reagan fan at the time, but when he challenged Gorbachev, my respect for him increased quite a bit. After Reagan came Republican George H.W. Bush, who served one term only (1989-1993); perhaps the most controversial decision he made was to involve the USA in the Gulf War. But his presidency did play a major role in the reunification of Germany. Bill Clinton became Democratic president in 1993 and served two presidential terms (1993-2001); while he enjoyed high approval ratings for his economic policies and his attempts to broker peace deals as part of his foreign policies, he was impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives (but not by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did complete his second term in office. The Lewinsky affair overshadows most of what otherwise occurred during his presidential terms. Clinton was followed by Republican George W. Bush who also served two terms (2001-2008); some of Bush’s most controversial actions would have to be the invasion of Iraq in the futile search for weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), and his handling of Hurricane Katrina. He was followed by Democrat Barack Obama who served two presidential terms (2008-2016); perhaps his most controversial policies are ‘Obamacare’ (the Affordable Care Act) that a number of my friends were opposed to since they were afraid of losing their private health insurance policies, and his support for same-sex marriage and gun control. While I do not think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was not of his doing; the Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee nominated him for the prize. I don’t know if anyone has ever turned down the prize before. His presidency was responsible for the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001. ‘Republican’ Donald Trump became president in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton; she won the popular vote but he won the Electoral College. It was not an optimal start for his presidency, which has been riddled with controversy since day one.

I bring up this timeline of the presidencies (with help from Wikipedia) in order to make the point that something went majorly wrong in American politics during the Clinton presidency in terms of the rise of (morally scrupulous) fanaticism. One has to wonder about the underlying reason. It is hard to fathom just how ridiculous the Clinton impeachment, which was televised in 1998, looked to the rest of the world. It is hard for me to fathom how it gained the momentum it did. Internet was still in its infancy, and social media did not exist. Had it existed, it would have been even more unbearable for all involved. My husband’s father (Norwegian) labelled it a farce from day one. You’ve got to wonder what happened to the minds of intelligent people who essentially impeached Clinton for lying about a sexual affair he had with a young woman working in the White House. His lying about it pales in comparison to the current occupant of the White House, who lies about most things, forces others to lie for him, spouts fake news and demands that his followers buy it and be loyal to him. While I don’t condone Clinton’s infidelity, the infidelity itself was a private matter for him and his wife to deal with. If Hillary wanted to remain with him; that was her choice, and ultimately it was her choice. The actual impeachment proceedings were a joke; when you look at them now your first instinct is to cringe. And I can imagine the rest of the world cringed as well, for how it embarrassed the USA. Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s role in the entire sordid mess, Linda Tripp’s betrayal of Monica Lewinsky--taping the conversations Lewinsky had with her and turning them over to Ken Starr (who was already investigating the Whitewater scandal that involved the Clintons), bringing in a blue dress with semen stains on it in order to further the case. Starr was obsessed with taking down Bill Clinton, with destroying him personally, and you’ve got to ask the question--WHY? He managed to humiliate Clinton and Lewinsky; Lewinsky found herself nearly unable to live down her affair and have a life afterward, and it didn’t help that Clinton never apologized to her for essentially misusing his position and taking advantage of her. Yes, she could have said no and should have said no. But she didn’t. However, she didn’t deserve the life that ensued following the revelation of the affair. But Starr managed something else--he managed to humiliate himself and to ensure that his legacy will be the story of a fanatical man obsessed with personally destroying Clinton. At least that’s how I see it, and I’m no historian or political scientist. 

If one behaves like Ken Starr did toward Clinton, one must expect repercussions in the political arena for years to come. Tit for tat. Revenge politics. There are many Democrats who never forgot how Clinton was treated and humiliated, and how the USA was humiliated on the world stage. For a country that prides itself on ‘separation of church and state’, it certainly seemed as though the ‘tar and feather’ brand of religion (religious zealots) had overtaken the government, aided and certainly abetted by the evangelical movement, most of whom seem to be greedy charlatans. The moral finger pointing had started. Some few people decided that they had the moral qualifications to decide how others should behave. Christ would probably have called them Pharisees.

During the two Bush administrations, there was partisanship, criticism, bitter disagreements, and controversy. But Bush junior was never treated the way Bill Clinton was treated. He was faithful to his wife and honest about having had an alcohol problem when he was younger, so the Democrats and the press couldn’t exactly accuse him of immorality. Both the Democrats and Republicans criticized him for his handling of Hurricane Katrina as well as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But he had to contend, like the rest of the USA, with the 9/11 attacks. There was no time for frivolous attacks/attempts to destroy a man’s life and character when the country was united against an external enemy.

Trump started the fanaticism ball rolling again when he questioned whether or not Obama was born in the USA (the Obama birtherism conspiracy theory). He did this long before he even became president. He pushed this fake news story for all it was worth. He played the public humiliation game--let’s humiliate Obama--a game he was already quite skilled at from his earlier dealings with NYC politicians, his own family, and other businesspeople. It’s his favoured technique for inciting the masses and gaining loyal followers. In this case, followers who are white supremacists, racists, would-be racists, and those who simply were looking for a bully pulpit to speak for them. He forced Obama to produce his birth certificate to confirm that he was born in the USA. Trump’s alliance with the Republican Party meant that the Democrats had to fight against a man who revelled in being a pathological liar, pusher of fake news, and an inciter of many forms of bad behaviour, right from the start. When you start off by personally attacking your opponent, you know exactly what you are doing. You are taking the low road, and defining for your followers the road they are to take as well. The low road enables the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the bullies, and the underbelly of society, to come out into the open. And they did, in droves. What we see at present is the culmination of years of drinking at the poison well by Trump’s followers--a well that provided a steady intake of fake news, conspiracy theories, white supremacist ideology, fanaticism (aided and abetted by evangelical charlatans), Christian churches that refused to stand up against him, an alt-right and conservative press that lapped up his every word and that enabled him. While Trump can often come across as rather stupid, he was intelligent enough to know exactly what he was doing during these past four years. He exploited the polarization in American politics for all it was worth, for his own ends. ‘Divide and conquer’ is a tried and true technique used by despots to gain power and to keep it. He may not be responsible for the huge chasm that exists between liberals and conservatives, but he certainly exploited it with his outrageousness and lack of boundaries. The Democrats may have fed into this narrative by going after Trump and the Republicans with claws out and fangs bared, to destroy them as they felt the Republicans had tried to destroy Clinton. It’s definitely a real possibility that some of them think and feel this way; I cannot help but think that their hatred of Trump is a response to how Republicans treated Clinton. Perhaps for some, these past four years have been payback time. But payback comes at a high price--the ripping apart of America.

And here we are, in January 2021, wondering whether or not Biden, who is trying to take the high road and to focus on the crucial issues at hand, will succeed. Washington DC is an armed camp, tensions are running high, and violence is expected. One hopes that there will not be more deaths. You can ask whether all of this enmity is worth it, but you’re not likely to get a rational answer from anyone. The situation is out of control, and everyone knows it.