Month: February 2017

Yesterday we talked about the power of our words and how our intentions get lost in the way we use our words.  We are dangerously close to letting the intelligent use of words that for so many generations have successfully painted our thoughts, feelings, ideas, and ideals slip away into a world of sound bytes.

Today’s political environment gives us numerous examples of this.  President Trump has in just a few short weeks shown the World his words have meaning and of course consequences too.  And today’s media have proven the premise in this conversation again and again by manipulating his words to establish and perpetuate a political agenda — an agenda of “fake news.”  Remember recently when virtually every news outlet maintained again and again that President Trump tweeted that “The media is the enemy of the people?”  I Googled that and I stopped counting at 173 different stories that quoted that Presidential tweet.  THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETED!

The ramifications of those stories?  Tens of thousands if not millions of people heard and read — “words” — in which the U.S. President called the media the enemies of the people.  So most of them believed it.  He didn’t say it!  Here’s what he said:  “The FAKE NEWS media (failing NYTimes, NBC News, ABC, CBS, CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” (tweeted 2/17/17 at 3:48 PM)

Do you see the danger in this precedent?  Multiple news sources are obviously using THEIR words to push their political agendas at the cost of THE TRUTH.  They are crying that the President is showing traits of historical despots and dictators.  But what is really happening is that purveyors of fake news are marketing a world in which all that is right, wrong, good for the People, necessary, and righteous is defined by — guess who — THE MEDIA!  American politics has with the election of Donald Trump become an entity that the American media as a whole feel they should control.

For many years that bastion of neutrality in television news — FOX News — has almost always held true to their mantra “Fair and Balanced:  We report, You decide.”  Now there are Fox reporters and show hosts that have put on the media mantle of Fake News, choosing to join their fellow journalists in attacking the President for his constant attacks of the news media.  They too are now parroting the lie that Mr. Trump called the media the “enemy of the people.”

After Friday’s CPAC  speech by the President, Chris Wallace guest hosted the Bill O’Reilly show and had Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg discuss his thoughts on the President’s speech.  Goldberg said, “This isn’t Donald Trump shooting from the lip,” he said, “this is a coordinated, calculated war on the media. The goal is to try and bring them down, to delegitimize them, and try to take away what little credibility they have left. Steve Bannon and Donald Trump want to bring what they call the ‘fake media’ down before the media brings them down.”  Goldberg criticized the president for demanding that the media no longer use anonymous sources when reporting stories.   “Donald Trump says reporters should not be able to use any sources without attaching names to them, but if that were the case we would not know what was going on in the White House during Watergate. Some reporters would like to see Donald Trump destroyed, but bias is not ‘fake news.’ Donald Trump will have to realize that all news he doesn’t like is not fake.”  Really?  Did Goldberg listen to the President’s CPAC speech or did he get his cues from “fake news” sources?  Here’s what the President said at CPAC:

” In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people — the fake news. They dropped off the word ‘fake.’ And all of a sudden the story became the media is the enemy. They take the word ‘fake’ out. And now I’m saying, oh, no, this is no good. But that’s the way they are. So I’m not against the media, I’m not against the press. I don’t mind bad stories if I deserve them, and I tell you, I love good stories, but we won’t talk — I don’t get too many of them. But I am only against the fake news media or press. Fake. Fake. They have to leave that word.”

That’s what the President “said.”  He repeated at CPAC what his Februrary 17th tweet that started this firestorm actually said.  Now he’s said at least twice he doesn’t think that ALL the media are enemies of the people — just FAKE news media.  I’m sorry Bernie; there is no WAR on the media from Donald Trump.  He has gone to war with the FAKE news media.   And he’s defined who they are and the way they work.

Does it bother you to hear and read stories that quote “anonymous sources?”  Who are these people and why can’t they just report facts that have been verified?  One of the fundamentals of journalism is all story sources are verified before stories are published.   But how can the public trust the voracity of a story that comes from “anonymous” sources?  There’s not way to trust the story because the source is unknown.   But the media again and again release stories confirmed by “anonymous” sources only for those stories to again and again be debunked as false.  There are only a few reasons for these sources to be anonymous:  the source is not authorized to give the information; the information is classified and therefore is not to even be released at all; the information is UNTRUE.  There are NO other reasons for anonymity.  So, Bernie, President Trump got it right:  STOP QUOTING ANONYMOUS SOURCES FOR NEWS!

And this morning, FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera is asking for ALL news media to “stand together” against the White House position against fake news.  Why?  Because in the Obama Administration, the “fake news” outlets stood with FOX News when Obama railed against Fox.  He did so not because of incorrect or false news content, but for reporting news that dissented with him and his policies in any way.   Do they not see the difference?  “Negative” news reports are not the same as “Fake” news reports.  And of course Geraldo never misses an opportunity to gripe about prosecution and/or deportation of illegal immigrants as the President has begun — for convicted felons ONLY!  These are not dreamers or peaceful, hard working immigrants who are in the legal immigration process.  They are convicted of committing felonies.

I’m afraid FOX News is in the tank.  That’s unfortunate.  But it just makes it tougher for Americans to find the truth in news.  I do not think this will stop people from acting on their hunger for facts.  Americans are smarter than that.  Keep digging….keep vetting….keep asking questions.  “The truth will out.”  Don’t simply believe what you hear on television news or read online.  Don’t rest until you find facts (that don’t come from “anonymous” sources)

Remember:  “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

The first time I heard this phrase it was used by Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio show.  I can’t remember the specific context of his use, but it probably occurred during the first Clinton presidential term in the 90’s.  It intrigued me because until hearing it I had struggled with grasping the reasoning for the rollout of much of the Clinton policy — most did not make sense to me.  (Apparently I was not the only one)  And since that day with Limbaugh’s explanation for this phrase I have been able to understand the purpose of many liberal policies:  “Symbolism over Substance.”

Through both Obama terms it was common to hear allegations made as fact, explanations given as certainties rather than possibilities, promises made never intended to be kept (which ultimately were not), lies spoken many of which were blatantly false even as they were uttered.  If it had not been for Limbaugh’s clarifying statement from the 90’s I would have continued to grapple with understanding what these things meant and why they were said, committed, and promised.  They were put out by the liberal White House to tickle the ears of liberals everywhere while actually meaning nothing.  They were symbolic at best.

Even though we now have a conservative in the White House, the Liberal Left continues to make the same type of allegations against conservatives and this practice has become their “new” normal.  (as compared to their “old” normal)  Misquoting conservative politicians in news, editorial comments, statements made on talk shows and at public meetings, and making “factual” statements that are anything but factual have all become normal and therefore passe.  And as ridiculous as this may seem to conservatives, it seems that for liberals to make false statements in public along with allegations against the President and other conservatives is quite all right.  Why?  I can only surmise that they have very little if any regard for their own integrity or they have total contempt for the liberal followers they wish to affect with their claims.  In other words they feel their liberal followers are so stupid they cannot determine which statements are lies and which are not.

Examples?  There are several in my blog post titled “Fake news….(or is it?)”  Read there where Dan Rather — former CBS News anchor — purposely misquoted Trump’s charge that fake news media are not his enemies, but the enemies of the American people.  Rather failed to include the word “fake” in Trump’s statement about the media.  The media seem to make it mandatory to state anything they can find (or make up) about President Trump.  Reports of Trump’s alleged misconduct long before becoming a presidential candidate are still being bandied about:

There was a report by one news agency that Ru Paul stated Donald Trump made unwanted advances to him years ago.  But it had “good” liberal intent — “Symbolism over Substance,” the alleged substance being that Donald Trump is a misogynist.

On the day of Trump’s inauguration, CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” with the fact that the president and first lady’s inaugural dance would be to the tune of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way.” The problem? Nancy Sinatra had never said any such thing. CNN later updated the article without explaining the mistake they had made.  The alleged substance of the story was that the new President was so audacious as to dance to one of her father’s biggest hits and was going to do so knowing how much music stars disapproved of him.

But the most outlandish, most unbelievable, most absurd acts and statements that illustrate “Symbolism over Substance” are reserved for politicians.  And there are many.  Where do we begin?  Hmm………..  We could not illustrate any of these uttered by politicians without first quoting former POTUS Barack Obama — and his are many!  Let’s begin with these  declarations about his “legacy” legislation, Obamacare:

“After implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 129 million people who could have otherwise been denied or faced discrimination now have access to coverage.”  That was his Symbolic statement.  The Substance? there is no proof that 1/3 of America’s population with the ACA now have access to health insurance that did NOT before the ACA.

“Under the Affordable Care Act if you want to keep your health plan, you can keep it.”  That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  Millions of Americans have had their health plans cancelled, some more than once. And the Obama administration knew this would happen.

“If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  As a result of Obamacare’s narrow provider networks, millions of Americans are unable to see their own doctor.

“The Affordable Care Act will reduce premiums $2500 a year for the average family.”  That was his Symbolic claim.  The Substance? Millions of families have seen their premiums increase by double-digits every year since the law passed.

In his two presidential campaigns, Obama made quite a few outlandish and symbolic statements.

Regarding Mitt Romney:  “Mitt Romney would deny the right for gay people to adopt children.”  That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  Romney in his own words stated he thought everything regarding gay rights should be relegated to the States INCLUDING adoption laws governing adoption and also gay marriage.

These actions are not politically exclusive to Obama.  U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined the fray.  Baldwin declared: “It’s the constitutional duty of the president to select a Supreme Court nominee, and the Senate has a responsibility to give that nominee a fair consideration with a timely hearing and a timely vote.”  Those were her words after Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.   Those were her words of Symbolism.  President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court.  Two days later, Baldwin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she would support a filibuster to block the Gorsuch nomination, would vote against the Senate action required to block a filibuster and would vote against Gorsuch if he made it to a final vote.  That retort was her statement of Substance.

While not liberal, President Trump has participated in this travesty as well.  Remember then Candidate Trump stated he watched thousands of Muslims partying in the streets after the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11?  That was Symbolism.  The Substance of his statement?  There was worldwide joy among some Muslims and others who considered the U.S. their enemy and were glad to see the horror in lower Manhattan.  And there WAS a news report released that stated partying did occur by some Muslims in the U.S.  But….President Trump did not see them as he stated.

Here’s the bottom line:  we all have experienced “Symbolism over Substance” in our lives many times in many different ways.  No matter “we” have experienced it, most Americans are uncomfortable at seeing the practice becoming almost commonplace among elected officials.  It is becoming more and more difficult to separate “Symbolic” statements from pure lies.

And isn’t it ironic that our elected officials are actually comfortable forcing Americans to pull out our b___s___t meters to check every statement every politician makes?  That question was NOT Symbolic — pure Substance!

Most conservatives have watched, often choking back laughter at the antics of the Democrats post-presidential election.  Many still do not accept the Trump victory over Clinton.  I will never forget the shock on the faces of Hillary followers in New York expecting there to be a coronation of the first female President.  Instead they got slapped in the face with their first dose of flyover American reality as Donald Trump rolled to victory due in large part to voters from Middle America who the Democrat Party largely ignored.  From the top down in the Democrat Party the consensus for months was that not only would Hillary win the election, but estimates of her winning margin were from 4 to 10 points over Trump.

The shock and awe of the huge loss has engulfed all Democrats who find themselves looking for direction and answers while waiting for someone to step up to take leadership of the party.  The last two DNC heads have left in disgrace.  The party is in total disarray.

While the G.O.P. is still basking in election victory, the thrill of snatching that win from the jaws of defeat is waxing thin as the realities of the political war have made chest thumping and nose thumbing of Democrats passe.  Republicans vs. Democrats:  some things never change.

But 30 days after the inauguration, and as both parties fight to learn how and why the Democrats lost and the Republicans swore in their guy, I have begun to wonder if having two parties is even necessary.  The two party system has been around for a long time.  But has it worn out its welcome?  Do we really need two parties?  The Constitution does not require two.  There are no federal laws that require two.  So why do have two?

Proponents are quick to say having at least two parties allows voters to hear, see, and understand through debate the differences between candidates running for office and their political ideals.  That is an admirable idea that was principle in the original two party establishment.  But unfortunately for Americans, denizens in party politics have turned that wonderful ideal into a slug fest.  And during the fight the “discovery of ideals” principle is pretty much lost at the hand of the major task of parties:  raising money.

Before television, politicians were forced to sway voters through newspaper stories and interviews and personal appearances.  There was no internet, no television or radio, so in-person meetings were critical to attract voters.  With the advent of electronic media, speaking to voters became much easier and much more effective.  In fact many politicians spend more time and money finding ways to impact voters through media than meeting with voters face to face.  Would these processes change if there was one party or NO party at all? Candidates would be forced to stand on their own and to sway voting opinion based solely on their principles, ideals, and presentation of those to voters.  I think so.  Why?

In the last 20 years, elections have become angrier, more contentious, and more hateful in election than previously. Partisan political issues are seldom discussed or are actually debated by candidates less and less.  Candidates instead opt to allow their parties raise tens of millions of dollars much, of which is spent to dig up dirt to turn into vicious radio, print, internet, and television ads attacking opponents.  Instead of having civil debates on issues, these non-stop attacks force opponents to respond in kind.  There is no time and no longer any desire for civil debate.  Instead in the two party system the drive is to find a man or woman who parties can push to victory in each election.

In this atmosphere of non-stop rancor, we watch in horror as peaceful demonstrations that 40 years ago would end with speeches now turn into full scale riots.  Anarchy is actually now on the U.S. political horizon.  Many feel that totally doing away with two or more political parties will immediately stop this.

It is at times like this we all turn back the pages of time, scavenging for scraps of speeches and writings of our forefathers to get their perspectives on all things political.  What about the two party system?

George Washington said this:  “I have intimated to you the danger of parties of the State. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of REVENGE natural to party dissension, which in different countries and ages has perpetuated the most horrid of enormities, is itself a frightful despotism!  And this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.  The disorders and miseries of what results causes the minds of men to SEEK SECURITY AND REPOSE IN THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF AN INDIVIDUAL….and sooner or later a chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more   fortunate than his competitors turns this disposition toward the purpose of his own elevation….on the ruins of public liberty.”

No matter what your personal feelings about Washington, you must agree he was concerned as evidenced in this writing about the danger of abuse of power and the escalation of individual power, hate, and control in the party system.  It is almost like he was looking ahead a couple of hundred years and spoke to us prophetically.  Were Washington’s concerns valid?

I think they were.  And as we watch and listen to the vitriol from both parties in this post election cycle, it is apparent that little that has been or will be accomplished during the Trump Administration will be effective because of the public fighting about each from both parties.  What would the landscape be if there was just one party?

Getting elected would require effective and thorough communication of ideals and principles by candidates to voters.  Instead of today’s preferred method of converting voters — intimidation — voters would hear and see real debate in a public forum, something our forefathers established.  Certainly there would be angry words, outlandish allegations, and raucous debates.  But in actual debates, allegations made can be confronted, discussed, and resolved.  In today’s endless news cycle, news never dies.  It only turns a page at midnight.

I have no idea if moving to a single party would work in the U.S. or would even be possible.  I suppose Congress could pass such a law (if there was a consensus for it) and with a presidential signature make it happen.  I’m not sure it would be successful.  Maybe we are too far gone.  Maybe there are not enough Americans who would agree with it.  But one thing is certain:  the U.S. election process is full of cracks that must be addressed and repaired.  It will take hard work and consensus of those 535 folks who work in the Capitol Building.  And it will take a President who will set aside personal feelings to promote the common good of America.  I think we should give it a chance.  To quote then candidate Trump,”What is there to lose?”