True Trump

It was not easy, but prior to a one-on-one interview with the President, CNN was able to slip sodium pentothal into his drink.  Things got interesting very fast as Anderson Cooper asked questions.

Cooper:  Mr. President there are those who claim that your response to the needs of people devastated by Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico was very different than your response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and there are those that claim it is going terribly in Puerto Rico while you claim it is going great.  How are things in Puerto Rico?

Trump:  First Anderson, let me be perfectly clear.  I was not at all interested in helping the folks in Puerto Rico.  I do not think of that island as part of the US.  Those people chose to live on an island in the middle of the Atlantic – what did they think was going to happen?  All the money we spend on them could have helped build a wall.  But when public opinion began to turn against me I had to trot out another lie to appease my base, so I did.  Thank God editors at Fox do not think and do not fact check, and thank God my base does not think or fact check.

Cooper:  Are you admitting that you lie to the American people?

Trump:  Of course I lie.  Why is that such a surprise?  I know folks think of me as a big negotiator, but I am really a salesman, a really great salesman, probably the best that has ever been.  I am not going to tell the consumer that the car I’m selling is terrible and the transmission will fall out in 50,000 miles.  I will tell them it is a wonderful car and they should buy it.  So far, my base continues to buy it.

Cooper:  What other lies have you told us?

Trump:  Most of my campaign was a lie.  I’ve been worse since the inauguration.  I knew I had fewer people there than Obama.  It pissed me off and I wanted to be thought of as the greatest, so I lied about the attendance.  I still cannot believe Clinton got more votes than me, so I made up the voter fraud issue.  I knew the FBI would eventually get around to investigating my ties with Russia so I tried to push some of that off on Obama.  I have been claiming these great economics since I was elected but all that is really due to what Obama did.  I hate Obama and I just want to wipe his record from the history books.  I don’t care if it hurts people or not, I want him gone.  I am embarrassed that we ever elected a Black man to this office. 

Cooper:  Can you give us an update on our relationship with North Korea?

Trump:  That little piss ant dictator really gets under my skin.  He’s a nobody.  He surely does not have the power or importance I have.  When I tell him to stop doing something, I expect him to stop.  He is strutting around like he is something important.  I’ll tell you, Anderson, I need a war.  I need to give the American people a reason to get behind me and support me.  I am ready to nuke him, but the generals don’t like that plan.  I may end up sending in a bunch of troops, but I am not putting up with his stuff much longer.

Cooper:  That is horrifying, Mr. President.

Trump:  I know!  I can’t believe it either.  This guy needs to back down.

Cooper:  You were very critical of President Obama for playing golf.  Now it appears you have played more golf than President Obama did in 8 years.  What is that about?

Trump:  First, do not refer to him as President Obama.  He is not President anymore.  I am the only President this country has.  Second, it’s none of your damn business what I do.  I am the leader of the free world.  I shouldn’t have to answer to anyone.  If I want to go to one of my resorts and play golf I am going to go.  I am not going to share the list of people who come with me, or the people who visit me in the White House any more than I am going to share my income tax.  I am a private citizen with an important job to do and everybody, especially you guys in the media, need to get off my back.  Do not mistake me for a public servant.  I am not.  I serve me and folks who support me.

Cooper:  Tom Price just resigned.  But he is but one of a long list of your appointments who have left.  Why is this happening?

Trump:  I can’t believe you asked me that question, Anderson.  He left because of you and others in the media.  I promised to drain the swamp.  That meant running all these long-time governmental officials and so-called policy experts out of Washington.  I appointed people to take their place that I knew thought like me, supported me, and were loyal to me.  Think of me as the boss of the United States.  No boss would tolerate his subordinates hurting his image or his power.  But you guys just keep hounding them.  You expect to look behind every door, under every carpet, inside every closet.  That is none of your damn business and you have to back off.  No leader shares everything.  Tom left because he became a liability, he was doing my image more harm than good.  He understood.  But the only reason he was hurting me was because of you pesky reporters.  Freedom of the press must be seriously reviewed.  I am sick of all this.

Cooper:  One final question, Mr. President.  Can you tell us what you think the Mueller investigation into Russian connections with you and your campaign staff will ultimately reveal?

Trump:  Sure.  I have told you I am a negotiator and a salesman.  Before and during the time I ran for President I was seeking ways to make money across this planet.  So yes, I was in contact with the Russians in hopes of doing business with them.  Once I announced I wanted to be President the Russians offered intel on Hillary that they claimed would sink her candidacy.  And they offered ways to hack the election so that I might win, place ads supporting me on-line, etc.  What kind of business man would turn down those opportunities?  Only business men who are no longer in business.  So yes, I looked to find out what that intel was and accepted the support in other ways.  No big deal.  I won and the story is over.

Cooper:  Are you aware, Mr. President, that those acts are considered treason in the United States?

Trump:  Yeah, so what.  I did what I had to do to win and my base will continue to support me no matter what comes out of this investigation.  I am just not worried.  I am the best President this country has ever had.  I will be the most loved and adored President ever.  You just wait and see.

Cooper:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And thank you for your candor.

Trump:  You’re welcome.  What did I say?

Knowledge is not Wisdom; Opinion is not Truth

When Kim Jong-un called the President of the United States a “Dotard” and “deranged” in response to the POTUS’ slurs calling him “madman” and “Little Rocket Man” I had to google the term dotard to find out what it meant.  And though my opinion is that both men are correct in their assessments of each other and that both men are operating at the same level as middle school boys on the playground, it is good to be able to know exactly what the juvenile insults imply.  I love Google, and Bing and all the other search engines.  I can get knowledge on any topic with a few keystrokes.  In fact, I can get multiple interpretations of topics, history, etiology, current use, op eds, etc., etc.  Encyclopedias are dead.  Long live Google.  (Perhaps as are dictionaries.  Long live spell check.)

In many ways I wish more people did research using search engines.  I saw a claim on line yesterday about something a celebrity said that triggered a fact-check search on my part.  The claim was totally false.  I wish everyone who denies climate change as a result of human behavior would google the research.  I wish everyone who thinks the earth is flat or that it is 6,000 years old, etc., would google those topics.  The knowledge is out there.

On the other hand, rapid access to knowledge does not make one wise.  It makes one knowledgeable.  There is a huge difference.  Google wisdom.  Each definition includes a combination of experience, judgment, expertise, critical thinking, global thinking; all accrued over time.  One simply cannot be wise at age 12 on any topic, except for those children who have experienced significant hardships.  No 30 year-old can be as wise as a 70 year-old, unless that 70 year-old stop learning and seeking a long time ago.  It takes life experiences, mistakes, errors, pain and expertise to accrue wisdom.  Knowledge alone is cheap.  Earning wisdom tends to be very expensive.  Wisdom is individually accrued.  Though the wise may seek to share their wisdom, they cannot pass it on.  Knowledge spreads.  Wisdom either grows in the individual or it does not.

I believe I am wise in some things and repeatedly unwise in others.  Ten years in the classroom, a master’s degree, four years as a campus administrator, five years as a central office administrator, seventeen years as a superintendent of schools and 3 years as a resident graduate assistant at a university.  I have seen much come and much go when it comes to public education.  I have deep knowledge.  I believe I have wisdom.  For instance, when the Texas Legislature considered implementing a career ladder (merit pay) for teachers I testified against it knowing that not only would it not work, that it was counterproductive, it had not worked anywhere else, and demonstrated a total lack of understanding of what happens in a school.  The legislature did it anyway under the umbrella of “make schools more like a business”.  It was a dismal failure and was repealed 8 years later.  The same is true with charter schools and vouchers.  They do not work, they harm kids and their only purpose is to provide the private sector access to public tax dollars earmarked for schools.  But, we continue to try it and continue to expand these failed notions.  The policy makers may have access to knowledge, but they have no wisdom when it comes to public education.  Worse, they do not recognize that they lack wisdom nor are they willing to listen to the wise.

Why is that?  I believe it is the second bizarre phenomenon that individual opinions, individual beliefs, tend to take precedence over the facts.  The stronger the opinion or the belief the less likely facts or knowledge will influence the opinion.  Evolution is a fact as is demonstrated over and over again.  Some do not “believe” in evolution and no amount of factual evidence will change their minds.  The same is true about climate change.  The same is true about religious beliefs.  The same is true about political beliefs.  No amount of evidence will influence the minds of the true believer, those who hold opinions, beliefs, attitudes that are free floating and are not grounded in facts and science and knowledge. 

It is for this group of people, or for any individual who holds a strong belief that runs contrary to reality, that wisdom will never come.  Faithfulness to the belief may come, but not wisdom and not knowledge.  For every legislator who believes the “cure” for public schools lies in emulating the private sector, implementing strict accountability, standardized tests, charter schools, etc., no amount of facts and historical data will change their minds.  They believe it.  They want it to be true, but it is not.  Those of us who see their folly would be amused if we were not subject every year to more and more attempts to implement their malignant beliefs.  It is as though they see they are headed down the wrong road so they decide to go faster.  Worse, our new Secretary of Education is a missionary regarding such efforts.  Lord help us and help the kids of the USA.

The same is true for supply side economics, or the trickle-down theory.  The entire notion that if we can somehow leave more money in the hands of the wealthy our economy will be better.  Time and time again such a belief has been proven false, sometimes with disastrous results.  And yet, we try it again as there are those committed to this notion despite the history and despite the facts.

I could go on and on.  But I would be amiss if I did not point out that the same philosophy that values flawed opinions versus facts now has a major spokesman and advocate in the White House.  Our President describes a world as he wishes it would be, not as the facts indicate it is.  Over and over and over fact checking his speeches reveals he is either grossly misinformed, ignorant or is flat out lying.  And yet there are those who so believe in him such facts are irrelevant.  And I find that very sad and very scary.

Our progress must be based on facts, on reality, on science.  To hope for progress based on beliefs and opinions is to advocate a return to the Dark Ages.  And that will not make America Great.  If our policy makers do not have the wisdom to seek out the wise for consult, then we shall be harmed by the enactment of opinion that runs contrary to fact.  We are in the midst of that right now. 

I have reached a place in my life where my intolerance for false opinions is at an all-time high.  Frankly, I do not care if you still believe in Santa Clause, still believe we should persecute people for thinking differently and being different, still believe that supply side economics works, still believe that junior high bullying is our best foreign policy strategy, still believe that some humans are “better” than other humans, still believe that oil companies have our best interest at heart, that banks still have our best interest at heart, that the Koch brothers still have our best interest at heart, still believe that walls to separate people work, and/or still believe climate change is a hoax, then I am here to tell you that you are wrong, the facts say otherwise.  Knowledge is not wisdom, opinion is not truth. 

God help us all.

Hoods in the Hood: A Robin Hood Variant

You know the tale.  Good King Richard was off fighting Muslims and his wicked brother, King John, took over in his absence, seeking wealth for himself at the expense of what in feudal times was already a very poor population.  John gathered up the properties of other nobles while they were off on the Crusades, and through his hatchet man, the Sheriff of Nottingham, levied heavy taxes on the poor, hard-working serfs.  Robin of Loxley returns from the Crusades, finds his lands claimed by King John, and gradually puts together a band of others who have lost everything.  They hide in Sherwood Forest and begin to steal from the rich.  What made Robin such a noble and lasting folk-hero is that he gave the wealth he stole to the poor people of Nottingham.  Once Richard returned, King John and the Sherriff were outed and peace returned to Nottingham and the surrounding fiefdoms.

The story could have been very different, however.

If King John were as astute as modern day politicians, he would have assembled criers, or spokespeople, to go from town to town, fiefdom to fiefdom, to convince the commoners that Robin was really a thief with no good merits at all.  John would enlist the help of clergymen like Friar Rush, Bishop Bannon, and Father O’Reilly to provide a steady stream of misinformation about Robin.  Among the claims made by John’s henchmen was that Robin was out to do them in by importing Muslim labor.  Not at all true, but a source of fear and concern to the locals.  They argued that the only way life would improve for the poor was to allow the rich to maintain their wealth so that they could support the poor.  Again untrue, but widely promoted.  And finally, that Robin was only interested in helping those who were not willing to help themselves so any support Robin received meant less support for the hard working poor of Nottingham.  Again not true, but because it connected with the fears of the poor, uneducated serfs, was widely believed.

Sadly, more and more of the poor began to believe these liars and friars.  Anger began to grow against Robin.  His deeds, once seen as heroic, were now viewed as promoting the wrong causes.  Many poor hardworking people came to believe they would be better off supporting King John.  King John’s priests even claimed that Robin was not of noble birth and that he was in fact a Muslim.  Robin clearly had some converted Muslims and Africans among his band and racial tensions were used to undermine Robin’s support.

Eventually, John’s PR efforts paid off.  More poor working serfs supported John than supported Robin.  Anglo Supremacists arose to stop Robin.  Wealthy clergy continued to bash Robin from the pulpit.  Rush, Bannon and O’Reily continued to harp at every public meeting.

New groups formed to stop Robin.  They went into Sherwood to root out Robin’s band.  They were hoods in the Hood.  They attacked Robin on every front and gradually Robin’s ability to steal from the wealthy to support the poor came to an end.  John argued that Robin should go to prison and many of the poor agreed with him.

Finally, Robin was vanquished and John took total control.  The poor who supported John seemed glad.  Until a year or two later they realized that no one was stopping King John from taking all their wealth again and that the richest in the land grew richer while the poor were suffering more and more.  Too late, they gave control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches to John who simply used all this new power to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 

Robocare ended and the poor suffered even more.  As Robin was marched off to prison he cried, “Follow the Money!  See who benefits!” and he was not heard from again, defeated by the Hoods of the Hood. 

Fireable Offense?

So Jemele Hill, an ESPN Black female sports anchor, tweeted that Donald Trump is a white supremacist. Then Sarah Huckabee, the White House spokesperson, calls Hill’s behavior a fireable offense.  I find this interesting, amusing and scary on so many levels.

So, are those the rules by which we play?  If you say good things about the President you remain in his good graces.  If you say bad things about the President you should be punished.  That is absolutely absurd and contrary to any sense of the right to have one’s own opinion and share it.  What sort of freedom does that promote?  Trump freedom from verbal attack and ridicule?  Please.  If we followed the same rules for everyone, then Trump should be fired for labels he placed on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Glenn Beck, Joy Behar, Ruth Ginsburg, and on and on.  (Check out the 365 people, places and things Trump has insulted since becoming President:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?mcubz=1.)  The truly ridiculous part of all of this is that Trump’s insults are not backed up by facts.  Hill’s are.  And, Sarah Huckabee should be fired for her comments about Hill.  This kind of circular logic only works in a state where the leader is immune to questioning and second-guessing.  Such a state is not free.  Such a state is not a democracy.  Such a state does not have the Bill of Rights. 

The problem is bigger than that.  We appear as a nation to have devolved to a position that simply states think like me or get out of here.  I find that horrifying.  Why isn’t Colin Kaepernick an NFL quarterback this year?  He thinks differently than the owners.  He protested during the playing of the National Anthem.  Imagine:  A professional football player legally protesting and he becomes a pariah in his profession.  Yes, he upset a lot of people, people who think differently than Kaepernick.  So?  The majority perspective rarely needs to protest, that is why protest is protected in the Constitution.  But because Kaepernick does not think like he is supposed to think he is unhireable, which is tantamount to fireable.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN commentator, ordered the microphone turned off and ended an interview with a panelist who said he believes in the First Amendment and Boobs.  Brooke was horrified.  How dare he say such a thing on her show and in 2017?  She totally disagrees with his attitude toward women, so she kicks him off the show.  Brooke entirely missed the point.  She violated the First Amendment by removing a person with an alternative view.  Even more interesting to me is when I did a search on Brooke and found an entire series of pictures of her clearly flaunting cleavage.  That’s fine.  But to take offense when a man says “boobs" while displaying your own is pretty hypocritical to me.

Fans at Fenway displayed a banner that read, “Racism is as American as Baseball.”  They were kicked out of the park.  Should people have the right to express what they think?  I think so.

I do not agree with Colin Kaepernick.  I do not agree with the panelist on CNN.  I do not agree with the insults Trump has thrown around at almost everyone.  I do not agree with the fans at Fenway.  I do happen to agree with Jemele Hill.  Does not matter.  Is it safe for me to have an opinion different from the opinion of those I work for or wish to work for?  If it is not safe, then I am not truly free.  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say I am a Christian as it is to say I am an atheist?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say “Impeach Trump” as it is safe for me to say “Support Trump”?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say that I think women are inferior to men, should obey men and exist as sex objects for men as it is for me to stand on a street corner and say I believe women are equal to men and in some ways superior? 

In a free society freedom of speech and freedom to protest are hallmarks of freedom. 

I remember a school board member telling me that the superintendent of schools should reflect the community values.  That sounds reasonable, but it isn’t.  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that does not value academics?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that wants to punish kids for looking different?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community where there is no vision for students after high school?  Suppose a professional educator is in a Republican community that supports charter schools, vouchers, increases accountability, decreased funding, etc.  Should a real professional educator reflect those values or should he or she serve as a catalyst to question those values. 

When “right think” rules the day, liberty and freedom get fired.  I disapprove of what you say, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  (Probably Voltaire)

Liberal Assumptions

Just did a piece on the false assumptions that underlie the conservative agenda in the US.  I missed some, I know.  I will miss some in this piece as well.  My effort is to state as clearly as possible the basic tenets of my liberalism.

So, I’m a liberal.  A lot of people are liberal, but we tend to be less vocal than conservatives in church or leaning on the back of a pick-up truck.  It has been my experience that conservatives do not respond well when their thinking or beliefs are challenged.  I live for the day when a conservative turns to me and asks, “So Bob, what do you think?”  So in the event that may happen someday I should be prepared to answer.  This is what I think:

Human beings on planet earth have historically been ruled by tyrants, those tyrants identified by lineage and/or birth, or by force of arms when one army conquered another army.  Tyrants had the habit of acting tyrannical, that is they insisted that everyone should think like them, have the same religious beliefs they have, look like them, act like them, totally support them, and hold the tyrant in some sort of special esteem, sometimes even worship.  Punishment was swift and sometimes fatal.  What is the fun of being a tyrant if you are not the boss and can say “off with their heads” if someone disagrees with you?  By definition, tyrants tend to be the wealthiest people in their fiefdom because they simply take what they want.  Not all tyrants have been evil and many attempted to better the life of their subjects.  But even in such a benevolent tyranny many were at risk if they were not sycophants; brown-nosers or boot lickers.  So for the thousands of years of human history people have lived under the heel of military or birthright tyrants and religiously believed whatever the tyrant believed.  Some tyrants set themselves up as a god, some simply said god was a turtle or a cow.  Whatever, human lives were dictated by the dictator.

Then along comes Rene Descartes, an amazing French philosopher and Mathematician.  In the simplest terms Descartes said human life should be grounded in reason and science. "Cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am.  He was a brilliant mathematician, but his lasting impact is that he is the founder of modern day western philosophy.  Influencing Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hobbes and others, he initiated the age of reason.  Tyrants should have trembled everywhere.

Especially when John Locke came along.  Locke was born in 1632, just 5 years before Descartes published his first philosophy.  Locke expanded Descartes thinking to include the notion that human beings are born free and equal, therefore, monarchs and kings have no justification to rule.  Wow.  He argued that individual consent should be the bedrock of all governments.  Read that to say, Democracy. 

I cannot stress enough that Locke’s philosophy promoting reason, science, individual human equality, and consent of the governed as the only legitimate form of government was the most radical, liberal thought of the day.  Nowhere was there such a government.  Everyone was ruled by a tyrant.  The simple thought that humans are equal at birth and that each human should participate in granting consent to the government was way out in left field.  Only the most liberal scholars of the day were willing to take his notions seriously because such notions meant replacing tyrants with individually selected leaders and policies endorsed by the governed. 

Among those who took him most seriously were Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  These men crafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the US Constitution in 1789.  Both documents are firmly grounded in Locke’s philosophy.  Both documents stress the rights of every person, the equality of every person, the requirement that government governs only with the consent of the governed and that democracy was the fundamental form of such a government.  It is hard to describe what a shock it was to the world that a nation would be born following these premises.  It was so left-field that no one suspected it would work, much less last.

All of this is simply to say that the USA began with the notions of equality, the notions of democracy, the notions of seeking the consent of the governed, the notion that neither birth-right nor military force can be the basis of legitimate governments, and guarantees that the government would never infringe on the citizens’ rights to believe what they want to believe, say what they want to say, protest against the government, never be at risk of the government falsely accusing them or falsely imprisoning them, nor could any citizen be forced to testify against himself, and against the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of properties.  The colonists had experienced all these things and more under British rule and wanted to ensure that they would be safe in their person and property under a new government.  The very notion that government should be limited is profound.  The notion that individual human rights should be sacrosanct is groundbreaking.  The US of A began as a liberal bastion for the world.

So, what are my liberal assumptions?  First, all people are created equal.  Rich, poor, Anglo, Black, Christian, Muslim, atheist, men, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc., etc.  We are all created equal.  None of these identifiable groups holds a birth-right superiority to any other group.  When a liberal hears anyone proposing discrimination against any identifiable group, the liberal is outraged.  That is how it was before 1776; that is not how it is meant to be since then.  Our history is a march toward more and more civil liberties protecting every group from suppression.  At least, that has been our history until very recently.  We regress if we hire or do not hire people based on whether they think, believe or look like me, or of we hire people because they share a similar lineage.  That is old school.  The American school is we hire people based on the quality of their performance.

Secondly, there must be an impenetrable wall between religious beliefs and the government.  Never, ever should the government imply that one belief system is superior or inferior to another.  The inherent right of each human to decide what he or she believes regarding gods, afterlife, holy texts, etc., is purely an individual right and the government must stay out of it altogether.

Thirdly, government officials and governmental policies must be based on reason, rational thinking and our best science.  To base policies on antiquated or self-centered belief systems is not meant to be a part of this democracy.  So, evolution is real, climate change impacted by human behavior is real, a woman’s right to control her reproduction, etc. etc. are all liberal beliefs based on science.  Anyone who would argue that those beliefs should not form the basis of policy are arguing that their own religious beliefs should be held in higher esteem than someone else’s beliefs.  Such an argmument o a liberal is un-American.  Asking for your 10 commandments to be erected in governmental spaces, and asking that governmental employees lead others, much less children, in a prayer that is clearly supportive of one belief over another is a horror.

And finally, that while the government must protect individual liberties it must also protect the safety and well-being of its citizens.  That is a governmental function, not a free market function.  Monitoring and regulating production is the same as maintaining a standing army.  Both are government functions.  Maintaining a free public education is more important than providing entrepreneurs the right to siphon off tax dollars for private sector education as in charter schools and vouchers.  Liberals do not believe that the free market, free enterprise, or whatever, is a good way to promote the equality of all.  In fact, as the gap between the rich and poor in this nation grows and grows it appears it is a terrible solution from a governmental perspective.  Is health care a way the government should protect citizens?  A liberal would say absolutely.  The private sector has made some very rich while so many go without the protection of health care.

Those are for me, at least the big 4 liberal assumptions.  It remains hard for me to understand discrimination, especially government sanctioned discrimination, against any group.  It remains hard for me to see a difference in our military protection, our health care protection and the provision of public education all of which are fundamental foundations of a democracy.  And I am deeply, deeply concerned whenever I hear a follower of one religious belief system advocate that everyone should follow their belief system.  Individual rights are not measured by majority vote, if so, all of us in Texas would have to be Catholic.  In a democracy, the majority may feel empowered to act as tyrants and that is blocked by the Bill of Rights.

I bet there are more liberals out there than you imagine.  At least if you are a conservative you should be able to argue that you are not biased against liberals, and the proof is you know one.

The False Assumptions of Conservatives

It is highly likely that this post is merely a report on my own self-inflicted angst.  After all, I live in Texas, the home of grand illusions, and I actually read Facebook and watch Fox News.  All in all it appears to me that as a nation we have arrived at a position where history and science are ignored and false beliefs form the foundation of our national goals.  I fully recognize the risk in milking the sacred cows and pointing out that the emperor is in fact naked, but there is so much poppycock and balderdash floating around out there that I cannot live with myself if I do not protest.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative.  They vote Republican.  They placed the leadership of Texas and the US in the hands of conservatives and they still lament government action or inaction.  It surely must strike them as at least odd to awaken to a world where conservatives control government and the world grows worse each day.  If not, then they are among those conservatives who would rather not think, would rather not review what we know versus what we believe.  I think the conservative angst exists because conservatives operate on a foundation of false assumptions.  We hear those assumptions from a host of conservative leaders, articulated in ways that imply these are some kind of bedrock truths.  Not so.  So, here I go:

There is an assumption that the United States of America was founded by conservative Christians and based on Christian principles.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who left Europe to come here were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking economic opportunities not available in the caste system of Europe.  Nothing scared our founding fathers more than a government attached to a set of religious beliefs.  They railed against it.  They placed that right up front in the Bill of Rights.  Never again should the state persecute citizens based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  In Europe Anglicans persecuted Catholics and vice versa.  The colonies were populated by French Huguenots, Catholics, Jews, Dutch Calvinists, German Reformed Pietists, Scottish Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and other denominations all of whom were fearful that the state would declare one of these beliefs as “the” belief.  Add to that widespread belief in astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft and the US was a hodge-podge of pilgrims seeking a safe place to believe what they wanted without state interference, without the state telling them what they should believe.  The very best evidence of this beyond our Constitution is the philosophical statement the Treaty of Tripoli, the earliest statement we have from an act of Congress regarding the relationship of our government to Christianity. This is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a Muslim state, in June of 1797, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc., all wrote in clear language that the government should never be based on one religious belief system nor should the government ever act in ways to support one belief system over another.  The assumption that the USA was founded on Christian principles is just flat false.

There are economic assumptions that persist despite the fact they have never, ever worked.  The worst of these assumptions is that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy and on corporations there will be more economic growth.  That has not ever worked.  In fact, every time it has been tried the results have not only been negative they have been nearly disastrous.  Hoover argued that in the 1920’s and we got the Great Depression.  Reagan argued the same thing in the 1980’s and triggered a national debt beyond anything ever seen.  Bush 2 tried that in the first decade of this century and we got the Great Recession of 2008.  Trickle-down economics, supply side economics, whatever moniker is used, does not work.  It does not work for anyone but the wealthy.  Why so many lower and middle income people still believe this is beyond me.  Only those making more than $400,000 per year will benefit from the Republican proposed tax plan.  In simple terms, if one wants the economy to improve and jobs to be created the simple thing to do is to put more money in the hands of more people in the lower areas of our income brackets.  They are the ones who then go to stores, buy homes, etc. and stimulate the economy through increased demand.  The producers will not increase production if no one has money to buy their products.  This assumption is false.

Akin to the supply side nonsense is the government regulation nonsense.  Reagan laughed at the phrase, “I’m from the government and I am here to help.”  That is sarcasm if the government rep is talking to producers.  It is the truth if the government rep is talking to producers on behalf of consumers.  Maximizing income and profit is an incredible motivator and producers will reduce costs if they can to increase revenue.  Safety is expensive.  If you are the only producer working to keep your employees in a safe environment your costs will be higher than every competitor.  If the government requires all producers to practice occupational safety the playing ground is even and workers are safe.  The same is true for securing the safety of our food.  The same is true to protect us from pollution.  The same is true to protect us from harmful ingredients like lead and asbestos.  On and on.  If producers did all that voluntarily there would be no need for regulations.  Producers won’t because it adds to their cost.  Only if they are all required to do it will it happen and be fair.  The same is true of regulations regarding banks, hedge funds, stocks, etc.  If the regulations disappear consumers are put at risk even though those in the financial industry will make more money.  Government regulations are a good thing.  Seat belts, smoke detectors, monitoring pesticides and fertilizers in our rivers, ensuring the safe packaging of our food, etc., etc. are all good things.  To stop any or all of these regulations helps producers make more money and threatens the safety of consumers.  The same false assumption that providing more money to the wealthy and to the producers via taxes proves false for reducing regulations.  Yes, regulations are expensive and a pain to producers.  But reducing birth defects and other societal ills make them worth it.

Wrapped up in all this poppycock is the corollary assumption that the government that governs least, governs best.  Or again from Reagan, “Government does not solve our problems, government is the problem.”  Never has a bigger load of horseshit been dumped on the American public.  So, Harvey hits Texas and Irma hits Florida.  Who do we turn to?  Government.  First responders, FEMA, National Guard, NOAA, Coast Guard are all governmental agencies.  The very conservative governor of Florida was on the television this morning assuring Floridians that the he was from the government and he was there to help.  He talked about all the resources he is bringing to bear, yada, yada, yada.  In times of conflict and times of crisis we always turn to government for help and solutions.  When the economy crashed in 2008 the very first people standing in line at the government trough were the very corporations who contribute to candidates that want to reduce regulations.  They were not shy about accepting government support when they needed it.  They just oppose government support for others when they themselves do not need it.  The more we reduce government regulations, government programs to help the needy, the more hypocritical this assumption becomes when the wealthy need governmental help.  In fact, the only reasons to actually oppose government help is that it costs money, generated by income tax, and these folks are not willing to pay taxes for services they do not need to help people who are in need. 

And finally, for me, the conservative assumption that what I believe to be true is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is anti-science.  Such a believe is at best medieval and at worst pre-historic.  I am so sorry, but climate change as a result of human behavior is real.  No matter how much the fossil fuel industry wishes it was not real, it is real.  I am so sorry, but evolution is real.  It is verified over and over and over.  I am so sorry, but the earth is not flat and is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.  I would argue that if you believe climate change is a hoax, evolution is not real, the earth is in fact 6,000 years old and Donald Trump cares about anyone other than himself, you should be required to forfeit air conditioning, internal combustion engines, cell phones, computers, microwaves, etc., etc.  To taste some of the fruits of the tree of science and then deny the existence of the inconvenient fruits is so hypocritical lightning should strike.

The evidence for everything I have listed above is public knowledge.  It is available to anyone who seeks to find it.  How the wealthy have talked so many working poor, so many hourly workers, and so many Christians into buying this bilk is beyond me.  I remain astounded.  But I also remain convinced that the conservative philosophy is self-serving for the wealthy and is grounded on false assumptions.  If this is a shock to you, I am sorry.  Get your information from somewhere other than Fox News, the pulpit, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh and the like.  Those folks all have a self-serving, not a people serving, agenda.  Until we become the liberal nation we were set up to be we will continue to struggle.

Perhaps next I should address the basic assumptions of liberalism.