For those of you who have the highest trained consciences: HappyIndependenceDay!
It's one of my favorite holidays, and like you, I'm sad today. It is a bit of a struggle today to feel good about America. All around social media, I saw pessimism and dismay today. Like this:
and comments such as:
My answer is this. Being disgusted and outraged is Patriotic! The reason you feel outraged, disgusted, and less-than-patriotic is because you instill the very hope and the values that are at our base. We must not abandon American ideals now! We must, now more than ever, embrace the standards that have driven America for the last 242 years. Yes! Enjoy your hotdogs and watermelon today. Engage in some introspection and self-care. Dig down and find your strength as individuals so that we can, together, lift America out of this pit. America is great -- we need to work hard to make it better!
Why must we be Patriotic? Because it's hard.
“Nothing in this world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty. No kind of life is worth leading if it is always an easy life. I know that your life is hard; I know that your work is hard; and hardest of all for those of you who have the highest trained consciences, and who therefore feel always how much you ought to do. I know your work is hard, and that is why I congratulate you with all my heart. I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life; I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.” ― Theodore Roosevelt, American Ideals: And Other Essays, Social and Political
Go Team Resistance!
Little Sister Resister with a cuppa (gifted by Big Sister Resister!) and a good book.
"Now in November nearer comes the sun down the abandoned heaven." -- D.H. Lawrence
******Only 125 days until Election Day!******
Happy Independence Day!
Today I look forward from today, Independence Day, July 4, to four short months from now: Tuesday, November 6.
Twenty states still have federal primaries to go, including Louisiana, whose primary, strangely, is on Election Day. But with the majority of states having had their primaries, the fields are shaping up.
What are things looking like across the country? Will the left go more left? Where should we Bleeding Heart Leftie Libtard Snowflakes put our energy and our money?
There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats up for grabs, and I of course would be hard-pressed to look at all the races. The Cook Report and Ballotpedia are good sources for that! But I'll try to hone in on some races, some battlegrounds, and some close to home here in California. For House races, I'll especially look in California, Texas, Oregon, and New Mexico, as that is where some of my favorite readers reside. I'll also look at other important races across the country.
The House of Representatives
California has about 10 battleground elections, all held by Republicans. Dems need to take several of those seats to turn the House blue. I'm going to look at only a few. Read more at the LA Times or ballotpedia.org.
Daniel Issa (CA 49th) - Daniel Issa is one of the Republicans to turn tail and run, and his seat is up for grabs after he chose not to run for re-election. He had won the last election by only a half a percentage point. His district is turning blue. The two candidates going against each other in November are Democrat Mike Levin and Republican Diane Harkey. This is a hot race.
Edward Royce (CA 39th) - Ed Royce also decided to leave his seat. This is one of the hottest races in the country. Republican Young Kim will go against Democrat Gil Cisneros. It's generally considered a toss-up at this time. This one may be a good one to get behind.
Devin Nunes, (CA 22nd) is considered a battleground, but it is doubtful he will lose, as his district is solidly red, in the heartland of the California Valley. Last election, Nunes won by 35 points, but SCROTUS won here by only 10%. Nunes has had some backlash from his behaviors while chair of the House Intelligence Committee. It would be great if his challenger, Democrat Andrew Janz, could pull off a victory. I despise Devin Nunes.
Mimi Walters (CA 45th) will go up against Democrat Katie Porter. Though Walters won handily in 2016, the district went for Hillary. In the past, this district was solidly Republican. It should be an interesting race.
Dana Rorerbacher (CA 48th). Hillary squeaked by in this district, and it is a competitive race, with the incumbent Republican Rorerbacher going against Democrat Harley Rouda. It's considered a toss-up to slight tilt Republican.
Steve Knight (CA 25th) is another hot seat. Hillary won here in 2016, but Republican Steve Knight won the seat by 6 points. Democrat Katie Hill is challenging him in November. It's a toss-up to tilt Republican race. I think this race is where I may send some support.
Read more about Battleground races across the country at Ballotpedia.
I wanted to outline more elections across the country, but it's turning out to be a big project. So, I'll leave you with some links. Texas has some important battlegrounds. New Mexico has one. Oregon, true to his Dark Blue bent, has no battleground elections. Four out of five of Oregon's districts are held by Democrats, and they are expected to hold on to their seats.
There is hope for our country. There are exciting races coast to coast.
Last week, this exciting upset happened. Twenty-eight-year-old Alexandria Ocasio Cortez handily beat 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley for the Democratic nomination to represent New York's 14th District, and given the district's Democrat history, she is likely to take the seat. She is a far-left candidate who beat a reliably progressive incumbent. She is a ray of hope for the far left. We need to go far left to right our ship.
I am not a huge fan of Trevor Noah, but I like his report on Cortez's victory:
Nationwide, whites over the age of 60 with college degrees now favor Democrats over Republicans for Congress by a 2-point margin, according to Reuters/Ipsos opinion polling during the first three months of the year. During the same period in 2016, that same group favored Republicans for Congress by 10 percentage points.
WE WILL TAKE THE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER!
The Senate
Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs, 13 are considered battlegrounds. It's a little tricky for Democrats, as they are defending more seats than Republicans are, and of the Democratic seats that are being defended, 10 of them are in states that went for DumbHead, whereas Republicans are defending only one seat in a state that voted for Hillary. Dems need to flip only two seats, but it is a tall order this year.
I'll outline just a few exciting races.
North Dakota: Democrat incumbent Heidi Heitkamp is defending her seat vs Kevin Cramer (R). North Dakota is deep red, and the Puke Orange One won in ND with 63%; now he's at 57%. Still, Hietkamp, though a moderate Democrat, is in good position to keep her seat. She has a 47% approval rating, 37% disapproval, in this Red state.
Nevada: Representative Jacky Rosen could take the seat from incumbent Republican Dean Heller. Nevada voted for Hillary in 2016, and Heller had a damaging flippy-floppy in his stance on Obamacare, first siding with the unpopular Republican governor, then acquiescing to pressure from SCROTUS. His political missteps are positive for Rep. Rosen.
Arizona: Arizona hasn't had its primary yet -- it's happening August 28 -- but Senator Jeff Flake is retiring, and there's a chance a Democrat could win, namely Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who looks like the de-facto Democrat nominee and who is leading polls against all three Republican contenders. We need Arizona to flip blue. We need Joe Arpaio's (who is one of the Republican candidates) stain on Arizona to be cleansed. This is one race I can get behind. We need Arizona to redeem herself.
Texas: A long-shot, but ooooh how I hope Ted Cruz will leave Washington! He is wildly popular in Texas, though, but I'm rooting for underdog Beto O'Rourke to pull it off! Go, Beto!
...and Tennessee. Tennesee! Tennesee might flip. Republican Bob Corker is stepping down, and presumptive nominees Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) and former Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) will duke it out. Blackburn is solidly, rabidly pro-TЯUMP, but Bredesen is old-school and hugely popular. This one will be interesting to watch. Go, Tennessee!
I would love to go through all of the Senate races, but I'll point you to Ballotpedia and Politico.
It's important that we all continue to work hard to flip seats in both chambers. The stakes are huge.
And most of all, participate. Find a candidate to get behind. Donate money or time. Put up signs. Man a voter registration booth. Get people to the polls. This is the most important part! We need to get out the vote! It's critical!
To vote is to resist! Celebrate your Freedom today, and on Election Day!
"Children are the anchors that hold a mother to life." Sophocles
I joined my friend Lindsey, with whom I started my career in protests at the 2016 Women's March, and participated in the nationwide protest, Families Belong Together, calling for immigrant families to be reunited and kept together, calling for all of us to rethink immigration in general, calling out the Nation's racist roots, calling on white people to use their white privilege to help, and calling for action. It is encouraging and gives me hope that so many good people are out there, protesting, working, and resisting.
There were at least 1500 in De la Guerra Plaza yesterday. There were many inspirational speakers. And we marched in the streets.
We learned that words matter. We learned that immigrant children are at risk for horrors when they finally make it to the US and are captured. We learned that there are plenty of networks of helpers, ready to give legal aid to those in need. We learned that our white privilege should be wielded to support and advocate. We heard from immigrants who are truly grateful for the opportunities in our Land, and who still appreciate being in the US, despite being "scared shitless."
There was one moment that was wonderful to me in the sense that it affirmed to me that concerned citizens on the Left have reason and independent thought. When a speaker was describing some inflammatory, graphic, and shocking things about unspeakable horrors that some children face, people called out, "What are your sources?" I just don't see those kinds of shouts at a White Supremacy rally, for example.
And we made our voices heard.
My sister resister Lindsey and me
The dress I chose is symbolic. My daughter and I bought matching dresses. I wore mine, as I can't imagine the unspeakable anguish those mothers are experiencing.
The speaker's sign is made of wire and it reads, "Don't cage our children"
Surprisingly, there wasn't much coverage of the march in local media. At least, not yet. Noozhawk had an article. The Los Angeles Times outlined the marches in LA and across the Nation. Interestingly, the local TV news did stories on Santa Maria and Ventura, but nothing about our march. And, predictably, the local rag, The Santa Barbara News-Suppress (ok, its real name is News-Press), the only paper in the Nation to endorse the Fascist Cheeto, ignored the story as well.
After the March, I came home and donated to causes that are helping during our immigration crisis. And you should too. Find a charitable organization here. Or here. Or here.
And if you don't have money to spare, Volunteer. Call your Members of Congress. Protest. RESIST!
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santanaya
Facism.
Bristly word, huh?
I've always been a little hesitant to use the word to describe current events or to compare someone to Hitler. It's a serious comparison, strong and harsh. Comparing to Hitler or the Holocaust, or to any of the world's brutal fascist dictators, should be done with caution. Those were the darkest days of our world's history, and to go back there is the scariest of scenarios.
It seems like we're headed there. Gawd, it seems like the US is headed there! The old adage "Don't forget history lest you repeat it" has never been truer. We are so close in so many ways to fascism that we need to really look seriously at the situation and NOT let our guard down.
This was making its rounds on Facebook:
I checked Snopes.com (I try to fact-check most "factual" memes, and you should, too) about its authenticity. Snopes reports that though this wasn't a display at the Holocaust Museum, it was offered in the gift shop (no longer offered). It was based on writings by Laurence Britt, a self-described "amateur historian" who has written articles, chapters, as well as a novel exploring the beginnings of fascism in America.
In any case, it's an interesting list, and I thought of dissecting these points with an example or two. Some of them are obvious, but for reasons of clarity of thought and factual documentation, I wanted to go through these points one by one.
So here we go.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism. Well, this is quite obvious. He wants to "Make America Great Again" -- whatever that means -- and is unapologetic about his nationalism. He ran his campaign on Nationalism. In its purest form, Nationalism, is a positive. It's also called Patriotism. We all want to defend our country. We want to be sovereign and self-governing. But when Nationalism becomes extreme, such as by alienating allies, by punishing allies, by mandating patriotism, by developing a brand of White Nationalism, or by ripping immigrant babies from their mothers' arms, it becomes the first step toward dangerous ground.
2. Disdain for Human Rights. Jailing babies from other countries. Withdrawing from the UN Council on Human Rights. Human rights are at the basis of our country's ideals, and he just doesn't care.
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause. The Others are the enemies, especially if they are brown. Xenophobia is rampant in his base, and Cheeto Benito plays to the fear of Others, whether they are Black Football Players, Muslims, Mexicans, or anyone from Shit Hole Countries. "They" are the cause for our woes. He not only vilifies the Others, he dehumanizes them. It's a tactic of dictators, and it is putrid.
8. Religion and Government Intertwined.Oh gawd yes! Though this has been a hallmark of the Republican Party for decades, the Orange Scourge takes it to a new level. White Christians and TЯUMP: They are indistinguishable. Though his own personal religion is nebulous, if it weren't for White Christians, he would not have gotten the votes he got. And he knows it. 9. Corporate Power Protected. It seems superfluous to give evidence on some of these! Corporations control today's US politics. Period.
Oh goodness! Just after I finished writing this, I found this article, which also examines several traits of Fascism and their expression in today's America. Read it!
So, where are we? Do we really have a dangerous madman? Or is he, as this excellent article from The Washington Post, just a two-bit conman?
Do we dare have hope? Will our 242-year institutions and ideals hold up to preserve our Republic? Some have dim hope. Me? I have bright hope. We are a nation of laws. Our checks and balances so far have worked to keep Li'l Adolph in check. Our citizenry is rising, especially now, at our darkest. People are risking their businesses and their jobs in efforts to resist. The owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave her establishment. Antar Davidson quit his job this week at an immigration center rather than follow orders to prohibit family members from hugging each other. In Montana earlier this year, Jordon Dyrdahl-Roberts felt a moral obligation to quit his job rather than cooperate with ICE agents.
Wouldn't it be great if some organization started a fund for conscientious objectors who quit their jobs instead of following immoral orders?
The majority DID NOT elect 45, and the majority continues to grow. Our resolve to right our country's path also continues to grow. We do have hope. We have November.
And if we learn enough about the dangers, we can avert disaster. Here's a quick primer. (Thanks to Resister Anne for pointing me to this video)
Go! Register to vote. Help register the newly-minted 18-year-old down the street. Read. Perhaps pick up Madeline Albright's book, Facism: A Warning. Take action. Wrestle back our Democracy. Resist.
The United States of America began to use state-sponsored psychological warfare and child abuse as a weapon. Lady Liberty was brought to her knees crying.
Her poor, her tired, her huddled masses yearning to be free: ripped at the seams. Children torn from their mommies and put in cages.
I truly can't believe that my fingers are typing these words. I took up the task of documenting this shit show, and so I must. It's the hardest post I've had to write.
A year later, the policy was put in place, with the blatantly false narrative that it was a Democrat's law that mandated the separations. In April, 2018, Attorney General Sessions implemented the policy and by the end of May, over 2000 children were taken from their families and kept in detention facilities ran by prison contractors. Thousands more unaccompanied minors have also been held.
It was the most unconscionable act this sham of an administration could muster. It's hard to fathom than anyone would even consider this action. I'm sure you, like me, started losing sleep over it. I felt anxious. I could barely absorb the news; I didn't want to click on one more link.
On June 4, Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR) tried to gain entry to a detention facility in Texas and had the police called on him to make him leave. This week, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) tried to tour one of the facilities in his home state of Florida but was refused.
Let that sink in. United States Senators were denied entry into federal detention centers housing motherless children.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Gave Orwellian answers and flat-out denied that separations were happening. Just looking at this person with her gotta-take-a-poop look on her face gives me the willies.
Finally, yesterday 45 relented and signed a toothless executive order, which stopped the separations but did nothing to direct the reunion of mother and child. It was reported that Melania urged her husband to revoke the policy. Perhaps she did, her voice rising above the 7.6 billion other anguished voices, but she all but undid any of her nascent compassionate tendencies by her misguided decision to wear a $39 jacket that proclaimed with 6-inch letters on the back: "I DON'T REALLY CARE. DO U?" when she went to visit one of the detention centers holding primarily unaccompanied minors (she did NOT visit a center holding children separated from their families). Is she really that tone-deaf? Are her English language comprehension skills that limited? Did she have lapse of judgment? Did her handlers have a lapse in judgment? Was she sending a message to the media, as her husband claimed? Whatever the cause of the unfortunate wardrobe choice, it was really an unconscionable decision during the biggest crisis our nation has faced in many many years. The world's eyes were watching.
And another way to help: Protest. There are protests planned around the country for Saturday, June 30. We cannot rest until the families are reunited. The US -- and that's all of us -- MUST get the kidnapped children back to their moms and dads. Look for a march or rally in your area. Make a sign. Yell loudly.
Resist.
And just because I think he is brilliant, here is Colbert's take. Cuz yanno.
"We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone." --Ronald Reagan
Ah for the days that we had a positively left-leaning President Reagan!
"To be a good citizen, it's important to be able to put yourself in other people's shoes and see the big picture. If everything you see is rooted in your own identity, that becomes difficult or impossible." Eli Pariser
This is a huge post that I started at the end of January. I let it sit for a long time, partially because it is such a big bite to chew, and also because I decided to undertake a major remodel of my home, and I spent much of the beginning of the year sorting, packing, and moving. Then, of course, life and other blog posts happened. But I've come back to this post again and again. And now I finally hit "publish."
I ask a lot of questions in this post, and I don't answer all of them. Perhaps they are fodder for future posts. I do get at the crux of one question, but you'll have to bear with me while I lay out some background, a little about my political experience when young, questions and pondering, and many other thoughts-on-paper (thoughts-in-pixels). I invite you to journey through thought with me.
The Big Picture
One of my missions in starting this blog was (and I quote from my first post), "this serves is to clarify my own political and resistance thoughts. I think better when I write, so I shall write and think and formulate plans. This process will perhaps shape my journey." As I continued on this journey, I came to realize that I undertook this also to understand more. So today is a rambling of thoughts. Bear with me, please. Some of it is stream-of-consciousness. Some are questions with no answers. Some is my usual research, there's not much directly related to 45. I want to understand the big picture more. I know it is a huge topic, American Politics, with tentacles that weave. But let me take this opportunity to sort through my thoughts. Here we go.
Republicans vs. Democrats. The Right vs. The Left. I've had this topic on my mind for a while. I should state that I'm a bleeding heart liberal -- bet you didn't know that! -- and I have been as long as I can remember.
I've been interested in politics just about all of my life. I was thinking back to the when/why/where I got interested in politics. I really don't know. But I do know that since my early days, I have been decidedly leaning left.
I wrote about Baby Sister Resister early on in this blog, where I outlined my first election memories, as evidenced by my journal and by letters to my mother. I was obviously trending left then, and it just "was." I didn't think much about the why. It was just right. Haha, it was just left. And it fit me. Even though I have had left leanings, I have never joined the Democratic Party. I was always distrustful of the Two-Party system, and I didn't want to be labeled Democrat. Since I first registered to vote in 1981, I have been designated "Decline to State" on my voter registration. Indeed, I've voted for Republicans along the way, and I voted for Ross Perot!
I came from a conservative town, an affluent white town, 99% of whose residents worked for the government and the War Machine. Though it was a mostly white, conservative town, there were plenty of brown-skinned people in our lives there. I never had the feeling that brown-skinned people were different, or less-than. Women and men always seemed to have equal standing. I and my sisters and my brother were all equally encouraged -- no, expected -- to go to college, get careers, and be successful. My dad was a Republican. I don't remember him specifically talking politics at home. I don't recall my mom, who to this day at nearly 98 years old, leans left, talking politics either. Dad listened to Paul Harvey every day when he came home for lunch, though. I remember that vividly. My 6th grade teacher also had us listen to Paul Harvey in the classroom daily. There were decidedly many conservative influences on a young Little Sister Resister in the 60s and 70s.
And yet, here I am, a bleeding heart liberal.
My earliest political memory was when Shirley Chisholm ran for President in 1972. I had just turned 8 years old. I read about her in the classroom's MyWeekly Reader. She made a big impression on me.
My first well-formed memories of politics was probably the Watergate Scandal. I remember watching it unfold on the news. I remember when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 (I was nearly 10 years old). It was big news. I have memories of watching TV monitors, somehow, at my elementary school and seeing reports about Nixon and Watergate. I remember Nixon resigning in August, 1974. I recall that everyone hated Nixon, how he lied and was such a despicable person.
In 4th grade (around 1973), my teacher preferred to be called "Ms." It was my first exposure to that, I I didn't understand what being a "feminist" meant. I recall thinking that Ms. V disliked men and that she was a lesbian! It confused me when she talked about her boyfriend. Looking back, I think I had it in my head that feminism shouldn't have to be a "thing" -- women's rights were a given. Duh. I had plenty of strong women role models, including my mom. Women's Rights should be a non-issue. Move along, people, move along.
I remember reports about the Vietnam war and the evacuation of Saigon (1975) and the news stories with all of the helicopters. I don't recall much about the politics surrounding the war at the time. I didn't begin to be tuned in to the politics of the war until much later.
I remember the Iranian Revolution in the late 70s and the Iran kidnappings in 1979. I thought it was so sad that President Carter had gotten such a raw deal, having the hostages released moments after he was no longer President. I was in high school when the hostages were released. I felt bad for Mr. Carter. He aged so much over the course of his Presidency, struggled so much for the 444 days that the hostages were held, and left the Presidency discouraged, sad, and with an approval rating of 34%.
So. Who taught me to pay attention? Who influenced my thinking? <shrug> I have no idea! I was always an "old soul." I'd like to think I've always thought deep and wide about things. But maybe I didn't think about it? It was just a part of who I am?
Now I'm thinking about it.
So, back to today. We live in a divided country. It's always been divided, but truly not as painfully divided as it has been since the 2016 Election. What should we do about our divisions?
I'm a Snowflake of the Libtard Variety. So of course I have a bias toward my beliefs, but I'm a also a reader and a thinker, and I strive to understand "the other side." What are the differences between the right and the left? We need both viewpoints and differing sets of values for a healthy Republic. Is there a way to find the similarities and come together? Do we need to? Should we? Or Is it better to respectfully embrace our differences? Is there a way to engage in meaningful dialogue? Should we work toward compromise? Or should we continue to dig in to our convictions and fight for them?
It got me to thinking more deeply about the differences between the Right and the Left, and about the differences between Conservativism and Liberalism, or Progressivism.
I know we need both, and the conservatives have many legitimate values. But how has the Right gone so radically wrong? Now that the party has gone so far to the right that it is dangerous, will it be coming back to center? Or has it really gone off the rails, or am I just so entrenched that I can't see or understand their side? Or, has it always had the Radically Wrong bent, that wasn't fully expressed before? And what about the Democratic Party? It has become so centered -- and thus losing the 2016 election -- that perhaps it is now time to go far left.
My definitions:
Conservative means, to stay the same. To avoid change. Maintaining tradition.
Politically, to me it means to support business, to support the War Machine, to reduce government interference, to reduce taxes and reduce spending.
Progressive means, to embrace change, to get better.
Politically, to me it means, to help others, to promote change for the better, to strive for equality, to help.
conservatism
2b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)
liberalism
2c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
conservative
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
progressive
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, asopposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
Not all of the Right's ideologies are inherently bad. We need checks and balances. Here is a nice comparison from Diffen between the philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. Good read.
We all know the fundamental ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats. But I'm also a scientist. Are there biological -- neurological or psychological -- differences between Republicans and Democrats? And can we reconcile those differences? Can people change?
One thing that I've come to really understand, is that today's Right -- and perhaps the members of the Right from days past -- live in a place of fear, and fear is what drives their beliefs and policies. They seem to be exclusionary and protective. The Left seems to be inclusionary and sharing. This has long been my thought. I wondered if the data bear that out, so I began to search. (AHHH! Finally, the meat of this post!)
One of the most succinct quotes I came across to distill this difference comes from former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts (R): "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good." Wow. Yeah.
So, what is the base of these differences? Can we explore deeper than the ideological differences and look at who they are, at the base of their psyches?
There is resesarch. As my professor would say, "Let's look at the data."
Here is an interesting article from 2013 Mother Jones, quoting neuro-psychological research into the brain differences between Democrats and Republicans. It seems to agree with my thought, that conservatism is based in fear, and that the beliefs are held at the neurological level. The author's conclusion is, "Scientists working in this new field tend towards the conclusion that the new research should make us more tolerant, not less, of political difference—not to mention a whole lot more humble about our own deeply held beliefs." Funny, but I come away with the opposite thought. If these beliefs are deep-seated in our neurology, then there is probably no understanding the other side, and probably little tolerance. Perhaps the best be can hope for is acknowledgment that "they" are there, doing their thing, but all we can do for ourselves is follow our beliefs passionately, because that is all we can do. We're hard-wired.
There was another study in 2013. This one showed that conservatives and liberals used different parts of their brains when making a certain risk-taking decision. The difference was strong. So strong, that the researchers could predict which party a person belonged to with nearly 83% accuracy. The article quotes the researchers who, again, have a positive take-away. They conclude that brains are molded by ideology and "'We can change our allies into enemies and enemies into allies,' says Schreiber — offering some scientific hope at least that humans can overcome their political differences." But we scientists know that correlation does not imply causality. And what if it was the other way around? What if the brain differences shape the ideology? Can we really change our minds? Can we overcome political differences if they are there at the neurological level?
This study from 2011 looked at the mirror neuron system of individuals via MRI and found:
The results found more neural activity in areas believed to be linked with broad social connectedness in Democrats (friends, the world at-large) and more activity in areas linked with tight social connectedness in the Republicans (family, country). In some ways the study confirms a stereotype about members of the two parties—Democrats tend to be more global and Republicans more America-centric—but it actually runs counter to other recent research indicating Democrats enjoyed a virtual lock on caring for others.
"The results were a little surprising," Newman-Norlund said. "This shows the picture is more complicated. One possible explanation for our results is that Democrats and Republicans process social connectedness in a fudamentally different manner."
The researchers take a dimmer view of the potential for change and understanding: "The research also suggests that maintaining an open mind about political issues may be easier said than done. In fact, bridging partisan divides and acting contrary to ideological preferences likely requires going against deeply ingrained biological tendencies. And while there is evidence that mirror neuron connections can change over time, it's not something that happens overnight, Newman-Norlund said."
And this research! This one looked into the fear/conservatism angle again. This one did show that conservatives could be turned into liberals, if only temporarily, by using intense imagination exercises. When a conservative person imagined himself being completely safe, his responses were intistiguishable from a liberal's. Additionally, when a conservative simply had recieved the flu shot (and thus fear of becoming sick was reduced), his attitudes became more liberal. Read the article. It has some interesting insights. The researchers entreat folks to be aware and resistant to manipulation, and the researchers conclude that, "Instead of allowing our strings to be pulled so easily by others, we can become more conscious of what drives us and work harder to base our opinions on factual knowledge about the issues, including information from outside our media echo chambers. Yes, our views can harden given the right environment, but our work shows that they are actually easier to change than we might think."
This article from Scientific American summarizes several studies, including one that looked at people's attitudes after 9/11. The article summarizes, "Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks."
I know that it was true for me. After the attacks, I longed to hear from our President (George W Bush). I wanted to be reassured by him. I went out and got a credit card adorned with the American flag. I wore American flag pins. I was more fearful, and I was definitely more America-centric.
The studies I found --and I know there are more-- looked mostly at the Fear Factor as a driving force toward conservatism. And this is dangerous. As we know from a wise little guy, “Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.” (Yoda)
I'd like more studies that look at empathy and altruism differences.
My conclusion is that, perhaps due to fear, conservatives lack empathy and altruism and compassion. But, to me, those are superior traits! I feel sorry for conservatives who live in fear and who hold back compassion for their fellow human. I recently asked my Facebook friends what makes a good citizen. Granted, we befriend those who are like us, so my sample is naturally biased. But these were some of the responses.
Question: What makes a good citizen? Responses:
participating/voting (top answer - several people mentioned this)
working for the betterment of all/volunteering/caring for or helping others - several mentions
having empathy/compassion - also top answer
being considerate
being informed
speaking out about injustice
being kind
having respect
recognizing those who disagree may not be wrong
making daily decisions to help the environment
doing no harm
putting the good of the community/country above your own personal preferences
making the community/world a better place
lending a hand instead of pointing a finger.
leading by example
standing up for what is right
And here's one list from lifehack.com that lists the Traits of a Truly Good Person. Most of them are about empathy and compassion.
So after all the talk about the differences between liberals and conservative attitudes, just who is the better citizen? (YES! I'm judging here!!)
We have our President* who warns us (granted, the below is from The Onion, but satire is so close to the truth these days, it's sometimes indistinguishable):
WASHINGTON-Stressing that the very future of the republic was at stake, President Donald Trump called upon all Americans Monday to stand strong and resolute in the face of empathy. "Now, more than ever, we as a nation must remain steadfast in resisting the urge to understand the feelings and perspectives of others," said Trump, adding that a rising tide of dangerous empathy could, if unchecked, quickly engulf the country in compassion.
The Orange Maggot, Mr. Poster Boy of the Right, is himself an excellent example of the Right's lack of empathy and compassion. He has not only a lack of compassion; what he demonstrates is cruelty and meanness. He demonstrates it over and over, but here he tells a story about his absolutely disgusting behavior when facing an injured man.
And it looks like many agree with me. It appears that no one really likes Conservatives! Read this one by Santa Barbara's own David Atkins in the Washington Monthly. It's a well-written point of view. It sort of distills what I've just taken seven months to distill in my own head, and what you've just taken seven hours to read. ;-)
Compassion, empathy, sharing, and fairness are ingrained in our species, I'm sure of it. There are plenty of studies that show that members of our primate family show these traits. Here are just a few studies. There are tons more. I assert that it is deep within us to be this way.
Watch the whole TED talk here. It goes into other animal research. Fascinating stuff.
I've always embraced the idea that Love and Kindness Always Win. History has borne it out, and progress will always have its roots in love and kindness.
So back to today. The ideologies are wider apart than ever. What do we do?
What is the conclusion? Do we strive to understand each other? Do we try to come together? What do we on the Left do, to save our Republic and further our cause? Obviously playing nice has not worked. In less than 20 years, two Republican Presidents* stole the seat when the Democrat opponent was elected by the popular vote. Playing nice got us into this mess. We've got to find a way to play hardball, even though it goes against our basic instincts as left-leaning people. Do we come to the table and compromise? I say NO! Though it's the in the very nature of Democrats to want to cooperate, to compromise, to understand and empathize, it is NOT the way to get things done. As we've seen from the Tea Party and the TЯUMPers, fighting hard and fighting dirty is an effective way -- and maybe the only way -- to further the agenda. Luckily, I feel that the far left is rising up and clearing the way to make a change. The Left is becoming more Left. Hopefully with the uprising of sister and brother resisters, we can get back on a strong path to Progess. I have hope. I always have hope.
Others agree with me. This article in The Week suggests that the Left should gallop leftward harder, and that the public agrees. Issues that were sticky subjects for Liberals a few years ago, such as single-payor healthcare, gun control, higher minimum wage, and legalization of cannabis, not to mention LGBQ rights, are now embraced by the public and the Left can run with those issues.
We must dig in hard, because with the fear and hostility emanating from the Right, there is rampant racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia in general. These traits go against HUMAN rights. We MUST fight for what is right and we must fight hard!
There was so much more I wanted to touch on in this mega-post. I wanted to look at conservative vs. liberal attitudes in many areas. Taxes, and our differing attitudes. How we get money and what we spend it on. Destruction vs. creation. Differences in interpersonal styles. Differences in communication styles. Wanting corporations to be people or not. Being ok or not ok with corporate sponsorship of lawmakers. Religious extremism. The Right's war against intellectuals. Perhaps these are future topics for more bite-sized posts. Or, if anyone would like to be a guest contributor, on one of these or any topic, please get in touch!
In the meantime, go back, read some of those links. Get angry. Dig into your compassion for your fellow American, and FIGHT for what is RIGHT LEFT!
Another school shooting. Another eight of our beautiful children gone forever, along with two of their devoted teachers, in Santa Fe, Texas.
I'm not sure I can add any more to the dialogue. So much has been said already about the epidemic in our country. But Little Sister has not been known to keep her fingers idle on this subject.
I have been an advocate for gun control for many years. One of my early arguments was that guns do nothing to help create. They only help to destroy. Destruction is not a value I hold. HUNTING! They cry. We do not need animal protein to live healthy lives, I reply. PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNICAL FORCES, they cry. Seriously? Just no, I say. We have a rule of law. SELF PROTECTION they cry. It's hard to determine the statistics, since gun violence is a U.S. officially banned research subject, but I suspect the incidents of actual self- or home-defense is actually quite low. (The LA Times has some statistics in a 2015 article). We are more likely to have one or two degrees of separation from someone who is a victim of gun violence, or who was threatened by gun violence, than someone who has protected him/herself with a firearm.
Me? I have zero degrees of separation - and if you know me, therefore, you have one. And right off the top of my head, I can think of three people who I knew personally who were shot, one of whom survived the gunshot wound. I know no one who has ever used a gun to protect themselves.
That's just outrageous. And sickening.
This topic for a blog post has been on my mind for a long time. It was more urgently on my mind after Parkland, when the kids began to rise up. A lot of people were chiming in then, and I wanted to also say my piece. But life interfered, time passed, and I got too busy to write a timely essay. And you know what I disgustingly thought? I thought to myself, "I'll just wait until the next school shooting and it will be more relevant."
I'll just wait until the next school shooting.
I'm ashamed to have that thought, and I'm ashamed of our society that allows that kind of thought to be the reality.
And here we are. Barely two months after Parkland, and we have another school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Ten more lives snuffed out.
Of course there are multiple issues surrounding school shootings. And of course school shootings are not the only form of gun violence that desecrates our Land. But I'm not going to go into depth about the culture of violence, the tragic state of entitled young men in our country, the misogyny that thrives in the 21st century, mental illness, the culture of fear, nor video games. I'm not going to look at toddler-related gun deaths, suicide by gun, accidental firearm discharges, domestic violence, nor hate violence. All those issues are important factors in the gun violence epidemic in our society. I could write for months on all of those issues, and maybe some day I'll pick apart some of those. But tonight I want to just look at the heart of the gun violence problem: Guns and Money.
These 27 words are at the crux of the issue:
Article II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's ignore that this amendment seems to be composed by someone without a firm command of English language composition. Even for 18th century writing style, this is a nightmare. But let's put that aside. This amendment has been parsed and discussed from here to Tuesday. Still, let me give my two cents. The gun proponents focus on the third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." But our forefathers did not write the amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are 13 more words. They included language about a militia. They included language about security. They included language about freedom.
I started doing some reading. What did they mean when they referred to a Militia? Is the militia mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution? What was a militia then, and what were our forefathers getting at, mentioning it in the Bill of Rights?
The Constitution itself refers to the Militia five times.
In Section Eight, which details the responsibilities of the Congress:
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In Article Two, outlining the duties of the Executive Branch:
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
In Amendment Two:
Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And in Amendment Five:
Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Just reading these sections of the U.S. Constitution, it is obvious that Militia, true to its word root, is a military body. It's not a private citizen.
Younger Little Sister Resister wrote the following letter to the editor in year 2000. I'll let her words stand here.
Dear Editor:
In discussions about the government's role and the Constitution's role in gun control, the following has never been addressed. In the main body of the U.S. Constitution, in Article One, Section Eight, it very clearly defines the "militia," to which it later refers in the Second Amendment. The U.S. Constitution reads in Article One, Section 8 that "The Congress shall have power: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
To my understanding, this gives a very strict definition of "militia."
The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If the government has the duty, clearly stated in Article One of the Constitution, to "organize, arm and discipline ... and train" this militia, this clearly does not give the implicit right for every Tom, Dick and Michael to own and use firearms. In fact, it says the very opposite. Furthermore, the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia, which again implies strong governmental regulations.
Clearly, if the NRA and others want to rely on the Constitution for their arguments and want to broaden the definition of "militia" to mean the common man, they should realize that the wording of the U.S. Constitution promotes more government control and regulations, not less.
The first step in the government's responsibilities to "organize, arm, discipline and train" is to register every weapon and license every user. For such a deadly and powerful item as a firearm, this is only prudent. In licensing, individuals should be required to be trained thoroughly. Trigger locks should be required on every single firearm. New technology needs to be developed and technology that already exists needs to be used to promote one gun -- one user.
The sales of firearms should be carefully monitored, with thorough background checks wherever guns are sold. In addition, we need to strengthen enforcement of laws that are already on the books to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the wrong individuals.
Perhaps Bill Clinton's new proposals can help this meet this goal. But surely, the government should have a very strong role in gun control, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Little Sister Resister, Santa Barbara
And a political cartoon by Tom Toles, my favorite cartoonist, from back in year 2000 Little Sister Resister's pocket. (Note the date of the cartoon is 1998, the year before Columbine)
This week, I went searching a bit for information about what our forefathers meant by "well-regulated" and "militia."
A militia, however, was, in the 18th century, an organized military group, made up of citizens, but not a standing army, which as a separate body.
I found this balanced article in the Washington Post. The Founding Fathers wanted every white citizen to be a member of the militia, and they wanted each of those citizens to be armed. Interestingly, the ideas of the 18th century about arming citizens had very much to do with disarming non-whites, as much as it was about ensuring that every white person was armed.
Quotes from the article:
At its best, the Second Amendment was a commitment to citizen participation in public life and a way to keep military power under civil control. At its worst, it was a way for whites to maintain their social domination.
The United States still seems willing to tolerate a significant degree of instability and violence on the part of white American men, the demographic group responsible for the majority of mass shootings.
And yes, from the 18th century, fast forward to the 20th and 21st Century. White people in control of guns is still very much the reality. White people in control of the money is very much the reality of U.S. politics as well. And that's the second part of the problem, to my mind.
The National Rifle Association is a powerful group. It's hard to know the demographics of the members, as the NRA does not ask about gender, race, age, or religion. We do know, however, that it is made up of mostly Republicans, with 77% of members being Republican, according to Pew. And as such, I think it's safe to say that it is primarily a white, male group. It's also a very rich organization, and they use their riches to further gun rights and fight gun control legislation. Pew also has found that, by far, not all gun owners are members of the NRA, and many of those disagree with the NRA's stances and actions.
In any case, we know that there is a lot of money flowing through the NRA, and much of it goes directly into the pockets of our lawmakers. They lobby hard, and they lobby well. Much of their money is Dark Money.
And this month, as part of a congressional probe, it has come out that Russian money may have been funneled through the NRA and directly into TЯUMP's coffers to further Russia's political agenda in the USA. We aren't sure yet, as the NRA is no longer cooperating with the investigation, but we do know that the NRA contributed $30 Million into the SCROTUS campaign, while, according to the New York Times, writing in the year 2000, "In the last year, it has donated more than $540,000 in so-called soft money to Republican Party committees, while giving nothing in soft money, or unregulated donations, to the Democrats. In 1996 the NRA gave less than $100,000 in soft money to the Republican Party."
But not only does the NRA spend money to line lawmakers' pockets, they spend money to defeat candidates who even whisper about laws to control guns. Where the money comes from, and the ways in which the money flows, is complex. This is a long read from Quartz Media, but it's a good one. It explains a bit about how NRA money controls Republicans. This article from Yahoo Finance describes that the NRA is so powerful because there is no opposing organization.
(As an aside, Politifact has a great run-down of fact-checking gun and NRA claims)
Money in politics perverts our Republic, put simply. All corporate money should be out of politics, not just NRA money. The Citizens United ruling, which helps to foster the interests of Corporations over the interests of the People, should also be overturned. We are a nation of citizens, each of whom have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is without question that gun entitlements take away these basic citizen rights.
Money in politics is a huge issue and the root of what is wrong with our system. Before Citizens United, but more so after, money from the hands of the few that influence laws that affect the many, is a problem. If we can fix that, if we can stop money from influencing the decisions of our lawmakers, we will be better off. It's a difficult task, as you have to take the teat from their mouths. They won't let go willingly.
Back to my thought about waiting for "the next school shooting." Why is it so easy to toss around ideas like that? Perhaps we are being desensitized, or at the very least, becoming more detached. With all the pain and sorrow that these events create, the psyche has to protect itself, and so it detaches. We would be walking puddles of goo (and some of us are) if we didn't separate ourselves from the awful atrocities. The horror becomes "over there." And there is the thought that this desensitization is actually one of the root causes of the gun violence epidemic. This excellent essay by David French of the National Review refers to an earlier essay in the New Yorker about the Threshold of Violence. It is asserted that one of the chief reasons for the mass shooting epidemic is because of a form of desensitization. More and more are reaching their violence threshold. It is becoming the norm. "Everyone is doing it!" Read both essays. It's quite a sobering outlook.
There is no one easy answer, no one path to navigate. It is complex, and the issues and the money are so very deeply entrenched, that it seems there is no way to dig out. But we must try. And that starts at the ballot box. There is where our power lies. Resist, think, and VOTE!
Thanks for reading.
