When Will This Insanity End?
I'll promise never to bitch about why Donald Trump won the election in 2016 again. He won. The democrats lost. That is now ancient history. The fight isn't over the popular vote or the electoral college. That may be a fight for the future. The fight isn't over Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. They both sucked as candidates, but the people spoke about which candidate they thought sucked less. The fight isn't over WikiLeaks. We all know what they did. The fight isn't even about Trump's prior misogyny. That battle was debated in the court of common opinion and didn't rise to a disqualifier. So where does that leave us?
The problem is the current administration and the way they are going about attempting to govern, or if you will, rule, this nation. The problem is that we have become so polarized post-election that we don't see the forest for the trees when those trees totally surround us. The problem is that we are now encouraging the rule of law to be applied selectively, and that we now have a President, a Department of Justice, and, increasingly, a section of the population calling for selective application of the law. The problem is that, as a nation, both sides have forgotten that our government is an arm of all the people, not just a small slice of that population. The problem is that we live in a world that is getting smaller by the day, and therefore more dangerous by the day. That world can only be made safer by expanding our alliances, not shrinking them.
It's not enough to identify problems. That is the purview of the whiner and the perennial loser. Every problem comes with a solution. Some societies have developed solutions that have been brutal. The Americans under Andrew Jackson initiated the Trail of Tears to solve their "Indian Problem". The Nazi's initiated the "Final Solution" to solve their Jewish and Gypsy problem. The Turks sought to eliminate the Armenians in the first 20th century genocide. The list goes on and on. None of these "solutions" inevitably worked. You can't improve problems through the elimination of the source. The same principle applies in America today. We are a nation that is beset by problems. We are worse than split into political camps, we have always been split into political camps. Now we are getting to the point where we are split into warring factions. Everything that one side says or does is an anathema to the other. If a member of one "tribe" accepts a proposal from the other, that person is viewed as a pariah, a traitor, a criminal. If a piece of legislation is introduced by one side that was originally supported by the other, it now becomes the opposite of what it was when it was first introduced. Liberal legislation is considered conservative, conservative legislation is immediately considered liberal.
How do we solve the problem. The first thing is to understand that we are all entitled to our own opinions and that our opinions are not necessarily relating to governance. We need to understand that our governing bodies are not designed or intended to be our moral compasses. We need to come back to allowing our religious institutions and social/moral institutions to provide that. The role of government is to insure that all people have equal rights under the law. That includes those of us who believe differently then we do, those of us who love differently than we do, or those of us who have different views about the role of religion in our lives. We need to allow issues of morality to be changed in hearts and minds, not by government edict. We can then go to houses of worship that agree with our moral viewpoints, while maintaining a far more integrationist mood in other environments.
Concurrently with this, candidates for public office should not be allowed to make religious issues campaign issues. This is definitely the most divisive political issue we face in our nation today. Hatred of those with different religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs does nothing but divide rather than unite our nation. Our candidates should also have to keep issues that are inherently non-political, but definitely moral out of the political debate. Abortion rights is a personal moral issue. LGBT-Q issues are human rights and moral issues, not issues of the political debate. We can opt to go or not go to religious facilities that support those rights, but our government must support those rights because no matter what the orientation or religious belief of the individual, they are all Americans.
We must also find ways to return the judiciary to it's rightful place as an independent, third branch of government. The originalist interpretation of the third branch of government was to provide an independent check and balance on the other two branches of government. The best way to do this would obviously be a non-partisan judiciary. Both political parties are guilty of just the opposite. When in power, at any level of government, the party in power almost always seats jurists who agree with their political philosophy. This leads to a judiciary that is far from impartial. This is bad for the nation. We should get back to an independent judiciary. The only way to do this would be to force confirmations for judgeships to require three quarters vote for approval. That would require nominated judges to be centrist and not indebted to either political party. Doing this would de-politicize the judiciary in a manner that no other solution would.
The final area that I want to discuss is that of the law of the land being equally applied to every American. This would appear to be almost an oxymoronic statement. The first thing that comes to most of our minds is "of course the law applies to everyone, that is what America is built upon." We may think so, but events over the past few decades have proven that equal application of the law is a myth rather than a reality. Whether we were a working guy who cheated a bit on his income tax or a politician, or big business tycoon who illegally laundered millions of dollars, the outcomes if we were caught were going to be very different. No one should be allowed to flaunt the law. It should make no difference if you are a panhandler or the President of the United States, a teacher in Atlanta or a former General of the Army. A crime is a crime and they should be treated equally.
I do not understand why there is such an uproar over what is happening in the Office of the Special Counsel. He is a legally empowered investigator, who is looking into governmental malfeasance. He was appointed by an Assistant Attorney General who works under an Attorney General nominated by the sitting President. Just because the investigation is not going in the direction that the administration and supporters of the President would like it to go is not a reason to either condemn or end the process. It is a legal issue. It must be allowed to proceed to a conclusion and allow the rule of law to work impartially. Take the politics out of it, it would be good for all of us.
We've been a nation falling into the depths of insanity. Luckily, it's not an insanity that can't be cured. We just have to come to an understanding that not everything is political. Let's bring politics back into the political vein and allow the other issues to fall back into the realms that they belong in. If we do that, we'll be well on our way to curing our national insanity, and going back to being "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
"Featured Blog" . . . ????
If it's a new blog, they call it that. I posted a couple blogs lately that feel flat on their faces, and they were both 'featured.'
Great blog, Doc, opposition to Trump should be uniting us, the President is an absolute nightmare from any reasonable assessment.
While you and I agree, how many here will call us dirty liberals and wish we were gone from the face of the planet?
If you had mentioned Hillary's cheating and lying, I would believe that you wanted to move forward.
But, turns out to be just another bitch piece about Trump.
I could care less about Hillary. It's the same ancient history that I spoke about in the first paragraph. Did she lie and cheat? I don't see that the evidence condemns her, but that is my opinion. It makes no difference now since she is a private citizen. I do believe, however, if she committed a crime that is provable to a jury of twelve of her peers, she should be jailed like any other criminal. I don't like criminals or harassers whether their name is Franken, Conyers, Moore, or Trump. They all should be banned from public service.
I truly have a problem that just because we don't share the same political side of the fence, conservatives immediately attack the piece as an "liberal" attack piece. Maybe, just maybe, both sides could have something constructive to say. And maybe, just maybe, there might be discussions in the public arena that we can find common ground on.
An attempt to be reasonable?
Ahhhh that is what is wanted to be espoused but in reality......
The truth comes out.....
More Pseudo-intellectual rubbish...... (carefully disguised as reasonableness)
The identification of that as a problem is not a partisan statement. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have complained about rule by tweets, autocratic impulses, support for unpopular issues, etc. When you have these problems being recognized in two thirds of the population, it is a problem, whether you are a liberal or a conservative. It's a pity that you can't see that.
The problem is that we are now encouraging the rule of law to be applied selectively, and that we now have a President, a Department of Justice, and, increasingly, a section of the population calling for selective application of the law.
What selective laws are-you talking about? I hate it when people won't give details or examples.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have complained about rule by tweets, autocratic impulses, support for unpopular issues, etc.
Here again the vagueness is deafening. I would prefer that he would throw stupid tweeter away, but that's the way he prefers to communicate, not being selectively quoted by MSM. And what are some of those impulses and unpopular issues??
What's a pity Phil, is we've all heard this exact lament way too many times....
It usually comes about when one side or the other is beginning to recognize that they are loosing the battle. So they have to sound and act reasonable to keep their paradigm alive....
Been there done that......
As Buzz pointed out below, declaring evil solutions to problems that solely stem from hate is neither reasonable nor rational. Using such to explain your position I think is more revealing that you really wanted...
WE aren't biting...
Sorry
What tweet has actually become statute? Don't get me wrong...I hate his tweeting. But "rule by tweets"? I'm not so sure.
Off topic if I may but, since this is yet another Trump bash, or at least seems that way, anchors aweigh.
Actually, I believe the SCOTUS did the right thing here. What they did was send this back to the two circuit courts that are hearing the cases. Those courts are in San Francisco and Raleigh. The view of the court was that this action was actually premature and should be allowed to continue through the federal court process. They will rehear the case after the lower courts decide.
I have a "problem" with what you said in this paragraph about "problems":
My "problem" is what you call a "problem". You call the existence of Indians in America to have been a "problem". You call the Jews and Gypsies to have been a "problem". You call the Armenians to have been a "problem". Brutal "solutions" were carried out for those "problems". The REAL "problem" was those who sought to destroy all opposition to their control and the methods they used to do so. Majority rules? I have seen many argue that the majority of Americans did not want the result of the election, and so the result was a "problem" and the attacks on the administration have been "brutal", verbally, if not worse through rioting protest. Liberal universities try to control the "problem" of those who give voice to views other than their own by not controlling the "solution" of shouting down of those with differing views. Majority rules.
When it comes to religion, in my opinion the "problem" is those who wish to dominate, to rule, to convert, to control, not those who would prefer to be left alone with no wish to influence or force others to adopt THEIR concepts. However, there are forces in this world who do so, and you appear to uphold their right under your laws to do so. I have a "problem" with those who feel justified in naming many of those with different views to be "haters", when all they may have done is to expose and to tell the truth about and warn of danger to the freedoms that a modern society covets.
You point out "problems" but I'm not so sure that you have the right "solutions".
"Problems" are frequently in the eye of the beholder, and solutions are always the product of a pov. I don't believe that Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, or Native Americans were problems. I don't think that Muslims are problems. In every case, the vast majority of these people are good, honest, loving people. I used the examples more as a way of demonstrating how allowing the government to identify certain problems often leads to "solutions" that are really the problems.
There does seem to be a rush to the right since Trump became President, along with an even greater antipathy to any thought from the left. This is going to be problematical. The political pendulum of this country swings continually. It moves from left-center to right-center. Whenever there is a mistake and we move too far to one side or the other, there is an almost immediate correction. That is why ideological movements generally fail in this nation. We are already beginning to see that occurring. Virginia and New Jersey have proven that. The statewide elections in Kansas and Oklahoma are also showing that trend.
That, however, is not what I'm trying to do in this post. I'm attempting to blog my views on what we have to do to begin to bring this nation back together. Other people will have different views. I'm more than willing to discuss them with reasonable people, but I won't get into arguments with those who start with the argument that there will be no discussion until.......... That is a compromise stopper.
Thank you for your clarification. This beholder has an eye that perhaps differs at least somewhat from others.
sorry doc, no deal with the devil is a good deal... we are done with the socialist/communist psychobabble BS.
here is how it is going to go.
the left is going to learn to love or at least pretend to support secure borders, fair trade deals, a new normal of better than 2%GDP, low taxes, and a sovereign nation before they ever see the white house again.
there will be no debate on any of that... it just is what it is regardless what anyone says.
so maybe instead of getting religion out of politics? you will have better luck throwing the progressives out of the democrat party.
Cheers
YES SIR!!!! Will you be coming to enforce the orders yourself or join the goon squad first?
Trump has many 'Achilles Heels.' His worst is the money. Follow the money.
"The problem is that we are now encouraging the rule of law to be applied selectively,"
Fucking Please .....Your gonna tell me President Obama wasn't "selective" in his thinking ?
I seem to remember....just to be short here.... his neat little "Beer Summit" (The start of BLM and police murders), or his "Limited insurance Policy" idea (Not for the many, but for the few)...being VERY Selective.