Pussy in the Barnyard

Donald J. Trump is running for president. He has accused Mexican-Americans of being rapists and drug-dealers; he has denounced Muslim-Americans as potential terrorists; he has belittled blacks and gays and disabled people. Most of all, though, throughout the whole campaign, he has ridiculed and demeaned women. Yet oddly, until now, there has been no overwhelming public outcry about DJT's primitive, barnyard view of "acceptable" human behavior.

Then, last Friday, an eleven year-old videotape surfaced. In it, Trump gloats with characteristic swagger of his supposedly irresistible skill in "getting women," even married women--indeed, in actually assaulting them in any way that he wants, including "grabbing them by the pussy."

And that, finally, was too much. Even Donald's GOP pals gulped, backed off, backed down and backed out of the picture. Because that repulsive video made every male in the country squirm--and every woman shudder.

Predictably, a pseudo apology arrived the next night, but it indicated no real change of heart or of fundamental thinking. Instead, it merely pointed out that "all men" (and, notably, Bill Clinton) talk like this sometimes--and that such locker room loutishness "doesn't mean anything."

But it does mean something, doesn't it? Something pretty important, actually. Read on.

Trump is partially right, of course: an awful lot of men (usually sexually insecure and usually a good deal younger than Trump was) have engaged in or sheepishly "gone along with" vulgar, snickering braggadocio of the sort revealed in the aforementioned video. But I find the nearly universal condemnation--by men as well as women--nonetheless heartening. Even though some of the censure is merely "cover your ass" pretense, much of it arises from a recognition that DJT's mindset and demeanor, despite their persistence and our frequent bad-faith complicity, are ultimately not laudable, not acceptable, and not excusable merely because "others do it, too."

Rather, in our disapproval, we acknowledge (often shamefacedly because of things we, ourselves, have said or tolerated) such attitudes are both demeaning and harmful to the entire human family--to men as well as women. Because as our vaunted self-awareness informs us, human beings are better than that; our brains and our reason give us the potential to rise above and control stupid, brute urges. Isn't that is what it means to be civilized and "human"? In rejecting DJT's locker room (or barnyard) approach to interpersonal relations, we are demanding that our country, and indeed our species, strive to realize the potential we ourselves have glimpsed above the muck, and which the nobler minds among us have articulated as a moral imperative.

Overall, then, I view Trump's political message--his insincere apology notwithstanding--as little more than a base appeal to return to the animality of barnyard strutting, rutting and gutting. Let us resist pussy-grabbing with all the human dignity we can muster.

Make the Plantations Great Again! What Have You Got to Lose?

I think that Trump's so-called "outreach" to African-Americans is mostly a dog-whistle message to the white people to whom he gave the speech(es) in white suburbs: "Look, the Democratic policies, even under black President Obama, help no one, not even their black 'favorites.' On the other hand, MY policies (whatever they are) will help everyone on the plantation, starting with you white 'planters,' of course. Then there will be trickle-down (for the, er, black 'workers'). Make the plantations great again! What have you got to lose?"

(Truthfully, I don't have any idea whether DJT is sufficiently self-aware to actually conceive such a weaselly plan: but I DO think that it--the "black outreach"--will have the effect I described and be thus understood by his white votaries, just as it will be derided and despised by African-Americans who will easily see through its pretense.)

Lunch With Mrs. Stein: Doing My Part

So, a dozen friends and I went online and rented (from a supposedly reputable agency called the DNC) a nice, spacious beach house, where we planned to spend two fun-filled weeks together.

But horrors! When we arrived we discovered that the house was absolutely filthy and, worst of all, completely infested with giant, loathsome cockroaches. This is not at all what we expected and, frankly, the place is nearly unlivable--unless some compromises in hygiene are made and some considerable clean-up undertaken. We are utterly disgusted, but no one, including me, wants to give up the vacation entirely. That being the case, a quick inquiry revealed that the only other rental in town, owned by Republicans, Inc., just had a massive septic tank explosion that flooded the whole main floor with a two-foot-deep layer of human excrement. Obviously, then, the run-down roach motel we are currently occupying, as unpleasant as it is, remains the lesser of two evils. We will just have to make do somehow.

So after some quick thinking, I made this (quite reasonable, I felt) proposal to my friends:

"Gosh, this place is certainly a mess, isn't it? Haha. Well, we'll all just have to pull together and each of us will have to contribute to making things better. Now, listen; I've really put my mind to it, and here's what I think we should do:

I figure that, unlike me, most of YOU don't mind getting dirty and killing bugs, so it makes sense that the 12 of YOU should be responsible for getting the house in shape. YOU should mop the floors, wash all the bedding and cookware and, of course exterminate all the roaches. I know you won't mind if I excuse MYSELF from this dirty work, and besides, you really don't need me, do you? MY contribution (it's only fair since I am better at talking than cleaning) will be to go next door to chat up our nice old neighbor--her name is Mrs. Stein, I think (she raises organic vegetables)--and solicit her thoughts and ideas about how to keep beach houses from becoming infested with cockroaches. I certainly hope we won't have to surround the entire building with raw cucumber slices! But you never know. Someone has to find out.

Anyway, in order to lay a good foundation for this anti-roach revolution, I'll undoubtedly have to be absent all afternoon (Mrs. Stein and I will probably have lunch, you see--maybe even organic green tea), so I won't be here to supervise. Please, please, therefore, do focus on your task! Just roll up your sleeves and make every effort to have this nasty mess cleaned up by the time I return with my long-range pest-proofing plan. I'm counting on you, people! Don't screw this up! Do your duty and I'll do mine! We are better together, as I always say.

P.S.: No, of course you can't join me at Mrs. Steins'. If too many people go over there, who will be left to do the dirty work here? Be responsible, people! Come on, now, get out the mops!

The Social Contract and Free-Riding, Third-Party Voters

Petulantly throwing away your vote on a hopeless third-party candidate is a form of bad faith within the social contract. It's asking for a free ride, refusing to pay or to take any responsibility for the "messed up system," but self-importantly expecting that same system to convey you to your personal destination anyway.

Dan Savage is right: the only people who reason this way are "assholes" (to use Aaron James' term)--i.e., those deluded by an entrenched sense of entitlement to believe that they--because of some presumed superior intelligence or wit or morality or wealth--have a natural right to special opt-out privileges (euphemistically called "voting one's conscience") not accorded to ordinary "little" people--people who, in their inferiority, remain bound by the social contract and obligated to ensure (by voting for a candidate who has an actual chance of winning) that the asshole gets his free ride. Quite dishonest and egotistical reasoning, that. I don't like it.

Whataboutism

I've been thinking a lot lately about several related fallacies of reasoning, all very popular in our current political debate: whataboutism (well, what about that awful thing Y did?), relative privation (well, X is even worse off), tu quoque (well, you do it, too), not-as-bad-as (well, that's certainly not as bad as what you believe), appeal to hypocrisy (well, how can X say that when just last week he did this?).

What we tend to overlook is that none of these arguments can be legitimately used to prove the objective rectitude of any position. (The fact that Hillary Clinton erred in deleting emails does not prove that Melania Trump did NOT err in plagiarizing Michelle Obama; Trump's fraudulent business schemes do not justify Clinton's questionable money dealings). All that this reactive finger-pointing can do is call attention to inconsistency and hypocrisy in an opponent's behavior or thought.

We all engage in this kind of visceral, relativistic thinking, and it's undoubtedly a pretty normal evaluation process. Still, we should be aware of what we are doing. Whataboutism can help us prioritize and choose the least bad among possible alternatives--all of which (all sides, intriguingly, agree) are flawed. In other words, with reference to our personal rubric of expectations, whataboutism allows us to assign and compare DEMERITS for failures. But it can never prove that the performance of one of the alternatives merits our approbation because it is NOT flawed. Some other form of evidence-based assessment is required for that.

You're So Vain: You Probably Thought This Election Was (Just) About You

Dear Bernie or Busters,

Perhaps it is time for you to consider the upcoming election in a new light: is it really about the country, or is it in fact just about you?

Yes, I know that you are thinking of voting for Jill Stein. You feel that you simply have to do this; it's the only way you can maintain your integrity, the only way you can remain faithful to your high-minded principles.

Which, by the way, are very high-minded, aren't they? Well, of course they are.

For example, you espouse the admirable notion that politicians and citizens alike must be conscientious, responsible, and--above all--caring. ALL of us must do everything we can to advance the common good, to help our country and our fellow humans.

And so, of course, you intend to vote for Jill Stein, an individual (like yourself) of high moral standards, someone devoted to the notion of making a better world, and...but wait, but wait.. also, alas, someone who has absolutely no chance of winning any political office whatsoever or of changing the world in any way. No chance. Absolutely none.

Hence, I must ask again: on behalf of whom are you taking this confidently noble stand? Are you sincerely thinking about the country and the common good (which Stein can never influence)? Or are you actually thinking somewhat more selfishly--of yourself, of your self-respect, of your "honor," of what you like to call your "personal integrity," of your self-image, of how you would look (or smell) to yourself and the other members of your high-minded fraternity if you let down your Righteous Guard? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I mean, how could you face yourself in the mirror if you actually allowed yourself to vote for someone like Hillary who, well, is just not as beautifully conscientious, responsible, and caring as you are? Mercy, she has made so many compromises, so many thoughtless blunders; she has so many political zits. No, no, clearly you must vote for unblemished Stein, the good person (like you), who does not calculate, misrepresent, scheme, break promises--who does not, in fact... do anything at all! There is such ease, such safety in stasis and pimple-free selfie-righteousness, isn't there?

Safety, at least, for your vaunted self-image. Perhaps not for the country or the common good--since your wasted vote for Stein might very well help deliver the presidency to Donald Trump, his acolytes and their poisonous programs and pogroms.

Yes, Hillary is a flawed candidate, one who--if elected--might fail to deliver many--or even all--the worthy changes you have been so hoping (somewhat naively perhaps?) Bernie would miraculously effectuate. But as much as you dislike her carelessness, her mixed motives and her lackluster liberalism, surely you do not consider HRC a threat of the same magnitude as Donald Trump. Do you? In your deepest progressive soul? Surely not. You've been excoriating him for months now.

So let's face it. You have repeatedly asserted that you want to do the conscientious, responsible, and caring thing for the country. And you have yourself said many times that this election is about the country, not about you. Well, then, BernieBros, are you just spouting insincere formulas or do you actually mean what you say? If so, then you simply cannot shirk your responsibility and waste your vote on Jill Stein--a vain, petulant gesture--intended merely to enhance your personal self-image, not to advance the common good of America. Vanitas vanitatum says the Preacher, calling you on your inauthenticity and bad faith. I agree.

You and I should both be with her.

Twitter Solutions: 140 Character Thinking

Isolationism, protectionism, nativism, wall-building--all are pretty trendy these days with those at both ends of the political spectrum, particularly those who favor "Twitter Solutions" of 140 or less (fewer) characters for all problems confronting us.

Now, I realize that circling the wagons can provide some useful immediate defense when one is actually under attack. But in the long run, if we want to get anywhere (wagon trains had a destination--no one wanted to just "sit tight"), we have to un-circle ourselves, venture out into risky territory, encounter our supposed adversary and either a) fight him (losses on both sides), b) negotiate non-aggression treaties with him (no gain, no loss), or c) cooperate with him in a mutually beneficial way (both sides win).

Note to Bernie Sanders and other anti-free trade Democrats: we can, without sulking in stasis or retreating into resentful protectionism, make legitimate demands on our wagon-masters about how negotiations should be conducted and how benefits should be distributed.

Note to Donald Trump and his crowd of rabid, anti-outsider Republicans: staying walled-up in your little jerry-rigged fortress will never get you anywhere and, moreover, killing all the "savages" (the only other option you seem to like) is undoubtedly the cruelest, costliest and stupidest way to move toward your coveted goal of Greener Pastures Over the Hill.

As medieval Europe, Ming Dynasty China, Tokugawa Japan all demonstrated, walled-in feudal societies tend to stagnate, rigidify, self-mutilate. Anglo-Americans have traditionally rejected such whiny, unimaginative navel-gazing. Therefore, shame on us 21st Century Little Englanders ("Brexiters") and Fortress-Americans ("Trumpsters" and "BernieBots" alike) for our pitifully lazy 140-character thinking.