Be an Active Senior!

unnamed-5.jpgI participated in the Women’s March that happened in my home town. It was a wonderful, loving, empowering day. It only happened a month ago, but it was a very long month. Since then, I have been much busier than I have been in  many years. I decided to form a small group of Trump “resisters” at the senior apartment complex where I live. I have been keeping in touch on line, holding meetings where I live, and attending meetings of community groups. I have more contact and connection with my neighbors than I ever had in the six years I have lived here. I have regained a sense of purpose. In short, Donald Trump has been good for me. If we are successful in our efforts to prevent our democracy and our planet from being destroyed, what is happening now may prove to be good for our country, as well. A devious effort to divide us may end up pulling us together.

Unlike some people, I don’t think we are out of danger yet. I think it is up to every one of us to do what we can to resist the arrogance of a man holding the office of president who believes he is beyond the rule of law and the irresponsibility of representatives who won’t stand up to him. Our constitutional rights and protection by the government are being undermined. The constitutional restraints on the presidency have been ignored. Those of us who love democracy have good reason to be alarmed. It is our right and our responsibility to do something about it. As retired people, we have a wonderful resource not available to those who are still working and raising families: Time.

16473488_1374718505913917_6571003689116585654_n.jpg

Another resource we have is experience. Hey, we’re the baby boomers! We were the ones who protested the Vietnam war. Many of us marched for civil rights and nuclear disarmament. We worked for women’s rights. We were the youth movement of the sixties and seventies, and many of us have been politically active right up to the present. I admit I am one who has not. I got involved in raising a child, going to graduate school, developing a career, caring for parents, and so on. There are a lot of people like me out there. Now is the time for us to get involved again, if only in our own self interest. We seniors rely on Social Security and Medicare. Many rely, as I do, on affordable senior housing. Programs like this may be and probably are at risk along with the Affordable Care Act. There are new young activists who bring their energy, intelligence, tech savvy, and sense of the future. Together we can do this!

Some time during the intervening years I found myself sitting in a hot tub in a small coastal town with a group of artists. I think it was the early 1990’s. Sounds like it, doesn’t it? We got to reminiscing about the ’60’s and ’70’s. I remember saying, “We think that the shift in consciousness at that time was about a youth culture, but that wasn’t it at all. It was planting the seeds for us to grow into wise elders for the coming hard times.” I didn’t actually know what I was talking about, but I clearly remember saying it. My own words stuck with me. I can tell you we are those – hopefully – wise elders. The time is now.

Manifesto

statue-of-liberty-1045266__340.jpg

MANIFESTO

I AM A CONSERVATIVE…I want to CONSERVE every gain that has been made in this country from the framing of a constitution that guarantees rights to all; through the right to vote, women’s rights, social security, and the right to clean air and water to the Right to Marry Act signed by President Obama.

I am a CENTRIST…I believe we should work together for our common good and mutual interests.

I am a LIBERAL…I believe in personal liberty, free thinking, generosity toward those in need, and tolerance and respect toward those who are different than I am.

I am a PROGRESSIVE…I want to move FORWARD, not backward, toward positive change, a more just society and a world that works for everybody.

I am NOT a RADICAL… I do NOT want so much change that we throw the baby – our democracy – out with the bathwater.

And most of all, I am NOT a REACTIONARY… I am NOT so afraid of the changes in the world, including globalization, immigration, the end of white hegemony and male domination, social change, the economic rise of third world nations, global warming and the pressing need to work together with other nations to stop it, the end of the need for fossil fuels and the resulting loss of profit for some, and other inevitable changes; that I want to take a GIANT step BACKWARDS to protect myself!

I have confidence in the future.

I am a PATRIOT!

I am a Democrat.

I am an American.

The Psychology of the Vote

When I wrote my post about women in American politics, I cited the archetype of the lone hero who rides into town, rights wrongs, and rides off alone as the driving force behind the surprising number of people, including women, who voted for Donald Trump. I still think this is a major factor in the outcome of the election, Russian tampering aside. Don’t get me wrong. I am very disturbed that the tampering occurred. Although I hesitate to say so, it doesn’t seem likely to me that it made an appreciable difference in the outcome of the election. People voted for Trump because they liked him. They liked him for reasons that go much deeper psychologically than the policies he represents.

Unknown-8.jpeg

Really, the impetus for writing these new politically oriented posts has been my bafflement at the popularity of someone with Trump’s personality. If he were not the head of a business, he would have trouble getting hired, and once hired, could not hold on to a job. He is simply too rude and self-centered. That doesn’t go over very big in the workplace these days, if it ever did. But we just hired him. Why? Plenty has been said about Donald Trump’s personal psychology. My thoughts have gone more toward the psychology of the group that elected him. I have been reading articles and books by social psychologists to find out, and have some answers of my own. I have learned that liberals and conservatives have differing moral sensibilities and even different reaction to stimuli. Our moral sense is incredibly basic to us. That is why the opposing point of view is so hard to understand.

A book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt (2012) was recommended to me. It has changed my thinking – to an extent – about conservatism, but has left me puzzled about this past election. Haidt describes an emotional and biological basis to our sense of morality. He lists six moral “senses;” inborn, literally inherited capacities to feel that something is right or wrong. They are care vs. harm, liberty vs. oppression, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal, authority vs. subversion, and sanctity vs. degradation. According to Haidt, liberals base their sense of ethics  upon just the first three, but conservatives value all six of them. Conservatives, however, score lower on the caring continuum than do liberals. There is also a difference between the way liberals and conservatives think of fairness. Liberals think of fairness as justice, while conservatives think in terms of proportionality – people should benefit in proportion to the effort or investment they put into an enterprise.
Unknown.jpegUnknown-10.jpeg

These ideas do help me to understand Republican sweeps in past elections. George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, for example, both stood clearly for God and Country. They were loyal Americans (as most of us, liberal and conservative, certainly are) and represented Christian family values. But Donald Trump is, at the very least, friendly to Russia, if not an out-and-out traitor; and although the list of his perversions so far as we know doesn’t include gay sex (not a perversion in my book, but I’m talking “family values” here), he is an admitted adulterer. His foul mouth shocks even me, and he has no appreciation for the sanctity of women’s bodies. He fails two out of three of the moral senses supposedly important to conservatives, loyalty and sanctity. That leaves authority, which I’ll give him, even though he admits no authority other than himself.

The emphasis on authority gives me another clue as to what goes on in the minds and hearts (yes, they have them) of those who voted for Trump. A different author, George Lakoff, makes many similar observations regarding the differing moral sense of liberals and conservatives to those made by Haidt. Lakoff is a Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at The University of California in Berkeley. Two of his books, Moral Politics (2002) and The Political Mind (2008) address the differences in moral thinking between liberals and conservatives. In the earlier book, Lakoff describes two different contexts for a moral world view – the strict father family and the nurturing parent family. In the strict father model, paternal authority is essential for preserving the safety and security of the family and for building self discipline and moral fiber in the children, assuring them a safe and successful journey through life. In the nurturing parent family, the belief is that providing nurturing support toward children, the family assures that the children will grow up with empathy toward others and the capacity to become fulfilled and happy in their own lives. To oversimplify this model, the salient value in the strict father model is authority, in the nurturing parent family it is caring.

Unknown-13.jpeg

Reading this, Trump’s victory started to make more sense to me. People who voted for him were not attending to his policies (which he reversed several times without losing popularity), the content of what he said (other than quick sound bites), his personal life, or his past history. They picked up on his “strict father” image. What really captured my interest, though, was something Lakoff mentioned about the strict father model of morality in America: When the child grows up and leaves home, the father is no longer the authority. The young person is on his or her own and becomes their own authority. This explains the “validity” of Trump’s admitting no authority outside of himself and the popularity he has gained by trashing existing American government and institutions. “Advocates of Strict Father show such a resentment toward any moral authority seen to be illegitimately meddling in their lives. The federal government is a common target.” (p.79)

Unknown-12.jpeg

unknown-11

Although Hillary Clinton did what she could to sound tough – and she is tough, Trump himself has said so at least a couple of times –  she failed the “strict father” test at least as much by being a liberal and speaking in liberal terms as by being a woman, and Donald Trump didn’t have to do much more than look angry and be successful to resonate with those who think in terms of strict father family values. I admit that I am simplifying something that is quite complex; however, I am making the point that we do not need to look toward Russian hacking or vote tampering to explain the results of the last election. I am not saying that these things didn’t happen. What I am saying is that for those of us who consider ourselves liberals, progressives, or just Democrats there is an urgent need to turn our famous empathy toward better understanding those who vote conservative. I do have one other thought about the psychological factors that went into the 2016 vote, and I will have to save that for another post.

The Darkness Just Before the Light

winter-landscapes-36.jpg

 

At five o’clock it was dark and I closed the shades. It was a rainy, grey day anyway. The Christmas lights were already burning. It is getting close to the shortest day of the year. The winter solstice is December 21. In the northern hemisphere it is the dark time, the long night. It is also the time when the days stop getting shorter, and the light begins to return. People have celebrated this return of the sun for ages. Our celebration of Christmas is based on it.

Symbolically, the birth of Jesus fits well with the time of light coming back into the world. Hannukah is also a festival of lights. This time of year is cold and dark. Many people experience loneliness and despair around the holidays. However, the days, by December 24th, are already getting longer. Psychologically, there is also an analogous process by which a time of personal darkness precedes an awakening. Our difficult times often help us find our strength, courage, and open heartedness. On the spiritual path, the “dark night of the soul” is a stage the seeker must pass through before realizing enlightened awareness.

This year, 2016, is a year that presents a particular time of darkness on the national and world scene. Hope for the well being of the planet seems to be at an all time low. And yet, or maybe because this is so, holiday cheer seems brighter than usual this year. I have always been visited by the “Christmas Spirit,” a feeling of love and goodwill toward others that comes over me like a state of grace at this time of year, and it has always been closely connected with the solstice, even before I knew the word. I never really felt the holiday mood until the 21st, then suddenly – there it was.

This year it came early, about a week ago. Friends who are aware of what I’ll label “New Age” philosophy have told me there is an unprecedented quantity of light surrounding earth just now, associated with the recent election. My hope and prayer is that we are undergoing a collective dark night that will somehow bring us to a much happier time for the good of our nation and the planet. I know that this doesn’t mean go back to sleep about what is happening. I know it means to stay engaged. Our task is to bring our love and wisdom into the darkest hour.

 

 

One Nuclear War with China (or Korea) Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Unknown-6.jpeg

Back in July, I read an article in The New Yorker about Tony Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz was the coauthor of Trump’s best selling book, The Art of the Deal. He spent considerable time with Donald Trump and was one to raise the issue of Trump’s temperament making him unsuitable for office. He described Donald Trump as extremely narcissistic and as having a short attention span. He also described him as belligerent. We have seen these personality traits on television during the campaign. He also knew next to nothing about how our government works or about foreign relations. By now he has been briefed and would know a little more, it must be assumed. Schwartz pointed out that it is not a good thing to give someone who so easily takes offense and is so ready to attack sole responsibility for authorizing a nuclear war, as will be the case when he becomes president.

Since the failure of Communism, the threat of nuclear war has faded from our imagination. Global warming seems to present a more clear and present danger. We really can’t avoid that now, but we could ameliorate the situation.  But nuclear war is still possible and only a countdown away. In some ways the danger is greater than it was in the 1950s. More countries, with less to lose, possess nuclear warheads. Most of the people living today don’t remember the terror in the period after Hiroshima. I still remember air raid drills from my school days. A siren would sound and we were told to get under our desks and cover our heads. I crouched there shaking all over my body. I knew you couldn’t survive an atomic attack. I was never sure it wasn’t really happening at that moment.

Trump’s temperament has been mentioned less often recently. He seems to act more civilized. I doubt, though, that his personality structure has really changed. Nor do I believe it was all just an act. Even with advisors he won’t have the experience to interact with foreign leaders in a non-incendiary fashion. He has displayed an interpersonal tactic of winning by intimidation. I don’t think this is a strategy he has developed intentionally. I think it’s his basic personality since early childhood. I can’t know this for sure, but I’m guessing. I happen to have a background in psychology. Apparently, intimidation has worked for him in business, but it won’t always work in diplomatic relations. Donald Trump’s recent phone call to Taiwan may have been deliberate and strategic, but it was ill advised. It can’t be in the best interest of the United States to alienate China.

 

Divide and Conquer

images-2.jpeg

There is a reservoir of covert racism in the United States, perhaps more than most of us would have expected. The same can be said of sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia.(As Lenny Bruce, the midcentury stand-up comedian used to say, have I left anyone out?) In this country, we have been ambivalent at best regarding diversity. The Native Americans debated whether or not to accommodate diversity by allowing white settlers to live here. By the time it became clear that wasn’t really a good idea, it was too late. On the part of the colonists, treaties were made and then broken with the Indians. This has kept happening up to the present day. At the time the Constitution was written, only white men were able to vote, and it was a radical idea even that  poor, uneducated men would be allowed to vote. New immigrants came in waves to settle the country and do the grunt work. Each group was subject to bias and resentment, then gradually assimilated.

Populism and racism have been linked in the past. Welcomed to California and Oregon from China, Japan, and Southeast Asia to cook and clean in the cities and in mining camps and on the railroads, Asians were soon labeled “the yellow peril” by white labor leaders who resented their willingness to work hard for lower pay, similar to the situation that Mexicans find themselves in today. By the way, much of this country was part of Mexico prior to the Spanish-American war. We literally moved into their country. Through all of this, white settlers from Europe have always been assimilated more easily. People of color, even if they were here first, have been subject to the most bias, derision, and out-and-out hatred.

In his brilliant and important book, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn says that racism in what became the United States was deliberately created by the ruling class in order to keep the black slaves and white indentured servants from banding together to overthrow the establishment. This was done by initiating laws which differentiated between the two, such as prohibiting people of color from owning property, which white indentured servants could do once they earned their freedom. Initially, such distinctions were not made between the two groups. Although I believe racism is unfortunately much older than the “new world” and lies deeper in the collective mind, I have no doubt that it was used for a long time on this continent and elsewhere to keep people from banding together for a common cause.

Unknown-5.jpeg

As the recent election has shown, race is still being used in exactly the same way. As people are becoming more informed, it is getting more difficult to sell a majority of the people on less taxes for the rich, discontinuing social security, and defunding public schools. It is easier to engage them by tapping into their fears and the projection of those fears onto faceless groups of others. When changes that are difficult to understand threaten the way of life, the well being, and the livelihood of people, they start looking for someone to blame. Donald Trump had his intuitive, money-making (by which I mean his instinct for marketing) finger on the pulse of a certain segment of the citizenry. He only needed something less than a majority of the voting population, as it turned out. Then all he had to do was point in the direction of those they were already blaming.

images-3.jpeg

I am hardly the first to point out that there are some similarities here with Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. In the nineteen twenties and thirties, Germany was reeling from the effects of the First World War. They had not only lost the war and the prestige of being a conquering nation, they had been required to make reparations and were suffering from a terrible economic depression. Hitler blamed the Jews, many of whom were bankers, for the depression. This seemed to be a notion that sat well with many Germans. Hitler did quite well in a democratic election, was appointed to high office, and eventually gained power in his country. In our country, although we are not in a depression, many manufacturing jobs have left the country or been replaced by robotics. The root cause of this may be “corporate greed,” but that has been with us as long as corporations have been. The point of a corporation, after all, is to make a profit. The recent cause is globalization. A global economy has taken the jobs, not Mexicans or any other immigrant group. Trump can’t turn back the clock to a more local economy by building a wall.

Women’s Place is in the House. And the Senate. (But not the Oval Office?)

Unknown-1.jpegimages-1.jpegUnknown-3.jpeg

Among the jumbled, troubled feelings I had when Trump was elected was one of betrayal. I felt betrayed by my own gender. How could so many women vote for Trump, who displayed a cavalier and disrespectful attitude toward women? How can we fail to elect a woman president at this late point in history?

Many countries have elected or appointed female heads of state. By my quick count of Wikipedia’s list, since 1940 there have been no fewer than 160 female heads of government and heads of state throughout the world. Thirty-five countries have female leaders right now. The United States is lagging far behind, in spite of the fact that we have a two hundred year old women’s movement. Countries that have a far more oppressive attitude toward women overall none the less have elected or appointed women to the highest government office. Why can’t we?

For one thing women in this country tend to vote along party lines rather than voting based on gender. I can attest to this. I never would have voted for Sarah Palin. Probably few people voted for or against Hillary based on her gender, at least not consciously. I think that to understand the failure of this country to elect a woman president or even vice president, we have to look deeper.

I was overjoyed when Barack Obama was elected president. I am very proud that our country could elect a black man, but I was not surprised that a black man was nominated to run for president sooner than a woman. I was more surprised, though glad, that Hillary  did so well.  Black men were at least nominally assured the vote on February 3, 1870, with the passage of the 15th amendment, which states that no one can be denied the vote due to “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Women were denied the vote until passage of the 19th amendment which prohibited sex-based restrictions on voting in 1920. That is 50 years later! Women had been fighting for the right to vote for one hundred years by that time. I hope that this country will nominate and elect a woman of color four years from now.

Unknown-4.jpeg

This country is very patriarchal and male-dominated. The sleek car and the hand gun, two phallic symbols and symbols of power,  are among our status symbols. They capture the imagination of young people and are often associated with American life. Endemic to our culture is the image of the Lone Ranger, the heroic rugged individual who rides into town to fix everything and rides off alone into the sunset. The individual is celebrated, not the group. This is a masculine oriented point of view. Women are more associated with the archetype of the collective. The male assertion is “look what I can do!” The feminine version is “look what we did!” Other cultures, though male dominated in other ways, value  the collective much more than we do. We have a history of pioneers striking off on their own to settle the wilderness, and this image is deeply embedded in our national imagination.

Trump projects this archetype, as have quite a few previous presidents. He styles himself the plain talking self-made man, although of course he is neither. He is a college educated son of privilege who says many things that aren’t true. He wants us to think that he is the lone hero who can come in and fix it. Hillary showed a lot of toughness in her policies, her stamina, and her stance, however her slogan, “we are stronger together” was all about the feminine principle and the collective.  These are not yet strong in the national imagination, although they should be. Even though I understand this, I find it shameful and embarrassing.