Tag: Opinion

RECOGNIZING THE EMOTIONAL DIMENSION OF A POLITICAL MESSAGE

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

One of the things I’m seeing the Bernie Sanders camp get right is a recognition of the importance of short messages that appeal to the emotions. I’m seeing a lot of memes (those online posters many of us like to reblog) to that effect, and I suspect many of them are created and distributed by his supporters rather than his staff.

I’ve previously posted my lament that liberal candidates in this country typically sound like they’re giving a lecture – reading everything but the footnotes – rather than speaking passionately from the heart. Great analysis but it’s hard to reconcile that with your feelings when you’re trying to balance the family checkbook. The right-wing, in contrast, well, just listen to Donald Trump riding roughshod over reality. Which would you rather hear in a locker room or a bar? And which are you more likely to remember and repeat? Well, maybe not Trump unless he was performing live mic comedy. Seriously!

Hillary Clinton has her reasons for sticking close to her “talking points,” and I do respect her for that. But the short takes are backfiring for her, as Bernie’s backers are demonstrating.

Just look at how he’s countering the “socialist” label. The graphic of a Social Security card says simply, “Got one of these? You’re a card-carrying socialist.” Bingo! Eight words. And unless you’re in the One Percent, it’s obviously important to your future. What can the so-called conservatives point as their accomplishments? Nothing so dramatic, for sure.

HOW MUCH WEIRDER CAN THIS GET?

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 4 Comments

After the political campaigns moved on from New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, I haven’t blogged much about the races themselves. In part it’s a reflection that there’s no front-line experience to convey, not from my perch in the Granite State. In another part, though, it’s a fact that I can’t keep up with the escalating developments, which are becoming increasingly surreal – unimaginable things you’ve already read in the news. I mean, Bernie Sanders having a good shot at winning Utah in November? Has Hell frozen over?

Well-heeled Jeb Bush crumpling, and then Marco Rubio malfunctioning as a robot or Ben Carson losing his virtue creds by endorsing Donald Trump and now unlovable Ted Cruz accused of multiple extramarital affairs? And when all of the GOP candidates promised to support Trump, the man they’d just accused of being unfit, as the TV cameras witnessed, well – so much for their integrity.

(The possible Cruz retorts could get even weirder. I’m not even going there, not in public.)

And then Mitt Romney’s clumsy but brief ricochet into the spotlight? Anyone remember him?

If anything, what’s apparent is that the Republicans have no viable candidate. Their well’s dry. Caput. Empty. They’re zooming toward a stone wall or even their own train coming from the opposite direction. (Well, after all of their denial over global warming, we just had our warmest winter on record. For what that’s worth.)

The Democrats can’t get too complacent, either, not with some pundits seeing frontrunner Hillary Clinton “a hairline away from federal indictment.”

Months ago I raised the possibility of the Republican Party’s actually splitting, and that talk’s now common – however speculative. Will it actually happen or will everyone simply fall in line behind Trump, even if it means walking off a cliff?

And I also wondered about winding up with a brokered convention, albeit with Favorite Son candidates. The latter part hasn’t jelled, but the former just may be in the works, if party establishment can pull enough strings. And that raises the possibility of House Speaker Paul Ryan stepping up as the white horse. Or white elephant, depending. (One rumor has him writing his acceptance speech as you read this.)

Now come rumors of mounting a desperation third-party run headed by Retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, which presents all kinds of fairy tale appeal at this point. Well, as they say, Dwight Eisenhower came late in the political season and look what happened.

A three-way race? Well, that also points us back toward the possibility of the winner being decided by the House of Representatives, as if that body can agree on anything these days. Very scary indeed.

As would a tied up Supreme Court, thanks to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Since when has the National Rifle Association — a special interest group if there ever was one — had the right to choose a high-court justice? Want to talk about protecting the Constitution? (As I recall, the Founding Fathers were also aware of the threat of a tyranny of the minority, as well as a tyranny of the majority. McConnell should listen to their wisdom, rather than his own self-deluded ego.)

As would the scenario of having events spiral out of control altogether, leading to a (hold our breath) military coup. Keep this up, I’ll be afraid of going to bed. The nightmares could be truly spooky.

Meanwhile, the punch line comes back to the promise of making America great again? It’s a bad, bad joke, indeed.

NOT JUST A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 6 Comments

Each week I go to the post office to get the Quaker meeting’s mail. A while back, I wound up going after regular counter hours (the lobby’s open longer) only to find a notice that we’d received a package too big to fit into our rental box. That meant a special trip early the next week to pick it up.

I assumed the mystery mailing would be a big envelope for our finance committee or maybe a box of books for the library or religious education.

No, it was smaller than that, from the apparently richly funded Liberty Counsel Project in Orlando, Florida. I opened it to find a DVD addressed to

PASTORS
&
PATRIOTS

and must admit to being offended.

It’s not that I’m opposed to defending “faith, freedom, and family,” as they put it, but I do take Ephesians 6 seriously. No carnal weapons, only those of the Spirit. Besides, I see no awareness of the impact of corporate employers and economic forces and even popular entertainment culture in the “systematic assault on our liberties” – meaning, if you read between the lines, an imposition of their standards upon the rest of the populace.

The mailing’s title phrase reminds me how much our understanding of the Bible teachings  (and I include Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren in this stream) differs from many other denominations. To me, “patriot” carries too much of the nationalist strain, denying what one Mennonite minister expresses simply as, “We believe Christ came for all people, not just Americans.” The patriot image also inevitably carries a musket, and no intention to “love thine enemy,” much less feed one. And then there’s Samuel Johnson’s observation that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Ahem!

How much I’d prefer instead to see

PASTORS
&
PEACEMAKERS

as a recognition of a higher path and calling.

The subheading, “Silence is not an option!” is also troubling from my perspective, one that embraces silence as strength and speaks quietly in Truth. Shouting (as the exclamation point suggests) too often seeks to drown out all others’ … including the Holy One. Well, the group does keep talking about “doing battle,” but from everything I’ve read, Jesus takes up a cross, not a sword, and urges us to do the same.

Curiously, I was not the only one to first read that line as “Science is not an option” … but then, real scientists don’t shout, either. Still, in the overall scheme of their argument, this may be altogether fitting in their larger stand.

As I continue to reflect on the mailing, there’s no way of escaping many of the ways people and institutions keep trying to wrap God and Jesus (among others, depending on the place and its populace) in flags and partisan causes, rather than opening themselves to the Holy One’s larger mission.

It’s enough to have me thinking of a new bumper sticker:

LET’S SAVE JESUS!

Amen?

WHAT ABOUT THAT “BROAD CONSENSUS” IN THE CONSERVATIVE CAMP?

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 3 Comments

My introduction to the news site Politico came in being handed some of its articles for our newspaper to republish. The problem was in refitting them to our available space – they were way, way too long, and very difficult to distill. For the record, I love long, closely reasoned reports, even though I’ve also been an avid briefs fan for much of the daily news budget.

From the pieces our publisher had selected, I perceived an underlying leaning to the Republican establishment. Still, having such connections can allow access to unique insights and information. I’ll listen, as long as it’s grounded in fact.

More recently, I was surprised to learn that the organization includes not just the oft-quoted Politico.com website, either, but is more crucially built upon a Capitol Hill newspaper that is published anywhere from once a week to five times weekly, depending on the political insider news happening. (Oh, how I love that flexibility. Just imagine being free to say, “Let’s hold off another day.”)

As we sink into the big money at play in the ongoing Republican presidential primary season – and the congressional and statewide elections to follow – Politico’s investigations into the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, become especially intriguing. I’d thought, as conservatives, they’d all be in the same camp.

Instead, Politico is ruthlessly on their trail. It makes for some fascinating – and frightening – reading.

For some of the latest, click here.

AWAITING THE WISDOM OF SERPENTS

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 4 Comments

Failed Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s recent endorsement of Donald Trump is disturbing on several fronts.

First, Carson was seen as morally pure, if nothing else, up to this point. Maybe even as innocent as a dove, as Scripture puts it. Not so anymore. He’s cast his lot with, well, dare we say those of ungodly ways?

Second, though, is his reasoning, that Trump is saying one thing in public but something quite different in private.

(Huh? Which one can we trust? Carson believes the words in private, but coming from a con man, can you ever be sure you’re not being sold only what you want to hear? A private conversation can be awfully seductive.)

If this is the case – and Carson’s not the only one perceiving the public/private dichotomy – are Republican voters not being set up for another of the kind of candidacies that have been fueling their anger, the politicians who promise them what they want to hear and then do something quite the opposite in office as they do the bidding of their biggest campaign contributors? Is Trump cynically plying this into the biggest betrayal yet? Is his “telling it like it is” nothing more, as he knows, a big lie?

Of course, the alternative, his public pronouncements are equally terrifying.

Either way, this can’t have a happy ending, not with all the anger and hate that’s brewing.

ABSOLUTELY, THAT HIGH COURT DECISION WAS CORROSIVE

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

How can we have political equality when one voice can pay to drown out all others? Or buy off all the candidates?

The flood of campaign spending from the super-rich has already corrupted our democracy. At what point does it destroy it?

Conservatives like to quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Now it’s time to look in the mirror.

Repeal Citizens United.

One way or other.

For some of the latest, click here.

THE WIKILEAKS INFLUENCE

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 2 Comments

When it comes to the cloud over Hillary Clinton’s emails, a natural question would ask, “What was she thinking?”

In light of serious Wikileaks involving other diplomatic matters, I wouldn’t be surprised if she feared the official site would be compromised, targeted, already hacked, or simply betrayed by a disgruntled employee. Confidentiality, like it or not, is part of international diplomatic maneuvering.

Hillary learned early that not even the White House was safe from intrusions by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who somehow left notes on the guest room pillows.

You’re not paranoid if there’s a reasonable expectation of attack. Had somebody suggested to her to go another route? It could have been viewed as prudent, perhaps.

Just a hunch. We’ll see.