You never know what we'll churn up in cleaning a stall
Listening to Donald Trump, I keep feeling I’ve heard this before. And then it hits me: George Wallace, 1968.
Only I never, ever, thought I’d be hearing such hate and despising and pettiness from the Party of Lincoln.
Or what was once the Party of Lincoln.
It used to be the Party that Freed the Slaves. The Party of Lincoln and his idealistic, compassionate vision with its drive toward greater equality. The party of yeomen, essentially.
These days, in the long shadow of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, it’s looking more and more like the Party to Re-Enslave, with the working classes as its target. No matter our race, creed, or ethnic origins, Pharaoh’s watching us from his palace. Or more accurately, his high-rise suite or private jetliner.
Remember, the only entrance to that ancient stratosphere was through birth, just like most of the One Percent today. (By marriage is a new twist, incidentally, for what, one percent of the One Percent?)
From our end, just imagine what eliminating the minimum wage would do, especially if a job’s required to get any public assistance, as some are proposing. Right to work? What about the other half of that exchange, implicit in the work ethic, the right to a livable wage?
Where I’m from, the work ethic is an essential component of the American way, a cornerstone of liberty and well-being. Curiously, its primary support in the public arena has come from a self-described democratic socialist rather than those who claim to support free enterprise. Seems to me there’s a serious disconnect somewhere.
You may remember reading a story that ends on a complete surprise, yet as you reflect on the details of the plot, you realize it makes perfect sense. In fact, the shock of the conclusion echoes backward, causing all of the revealing details to retell the tale with fresh urgency.
I have a sense that’s where we are with the rise and fall of Donald J. Trump’s political chimera.
For months we’ve watched aghast as he blustered through a remarkably inept and scattered field of White House hopefuls whose biggest mistake came in failing to take him seriously enough to challenge him directly. Had any of them done their homework, they would have had the ammunition to demolish Trump’s claims of business success – the sort of thing Warren Buffett is doing with his quip that a monkey throwing darts to pick stocks would have had a 150 percent return on his investment at a time when Trump’s namesake company lost 90 cents on the dollar. They could have pointed out all the years Trump paid little or no federal income tax, all the contractors and would-be students he stiffed, his string of failed businesses, from Trump Airlines and Trump Casinos to Trump University and Trump Vodka.
But they didn’t. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all squandered their time and treasuries trying to take down each other while letting Trump skip through unscathed.
Even then, though, behind his bullying and bluster, Trump’s thin skin was showing as his Achilles heel. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor, though it rather overlaps.) If only they’d baited him rather than wither in his sarcastic fire. Shown some backbone and muscle. Some true resolve. If only they’d been courageous when it counted.
Many Americans have been appalled by the string of slurs and outrageous – patently, factually false – statements Trump made heading into Cleveland, alienating group after group, yet nothing has pierced that flood of hatred and bile until now.
I’m speaking, of course, about Khizr Khan and his wife, Ghazala.
Much will be written in analyzing how their steel-willed bearing, self-discipline, self-control, authentic emotion, and pointedly brief statements pricked the aura of assumed invincibility around Trump. Daily now, he has burst forth with new brazen volleys that turn back on him as that shell collapses. How many of us are rising each morning with a morbid obsession to learn of his latest idiotic blunder in what’s looking like a death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts? Historians will likely view these few days as a turning point not unlike that at Gettysburg in the Civil War.
Remember, especially, how much the Khans differ from Trump when it comes to character.
Together, they’ve turned the controversy from any debate over right-or-left political issues to Trump’s utter lack of moral integrity – his basic nature of “undisguised sadism” as the Wall Street Journal’s Brett Stephens has written, even the “permanent dishonor” he’s bringing upon the Republican Party.
As I was saying about that table-turning flash, this is it. Everything Trump had apparently evaded is now rising anew, and everywhere he turns, there’s a fresh flank to face. One by one, new commanders are leading their charge. Just look at how Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Eric Cuban deflate Trump’s capabilities in business. We have military and their families lining up on their own, and a four-star general who knows far more than Trump about foreign policy. Add to that former secretaries of state along with the specter of Trump’s Russian shadow. As for “law and order”? His court cases and fear of releasing his tax returns suggest a crook. The public flight of Republican bigwigs is just starting, largely on the character issue. You can add to that a growing chorus of offended women and minorities. Put another way, Trump’s spinning and trapped. He’s finally vulnerable and wounded.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s finished. Any number of things can come up between now and November 8. Even Gettysburg was far from the final days of the Civil War.
For anti-abortion voters, this has already been an especially troubling election, one they see as having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Or more accurately, among four – they have no advocate at the head of a ticket in this race. Can Mike Pence keep them in the Republican camp? We’ll see.
Another factor to consider is Gary Johnson and whether he can woo dissatisfied conservatives and pragmatic Main Street Republicans to his Libertarian ticket as a refuge. To do so, he’ll have to focus his firepower on Trump rather than Clinton and establish himself as something other than a pot-smoking, mountain-climbing lightweight. Would enough Republicans, convinced that a vote for Trump is already a lost cause, be willing to cast their ballot elsewhere as a matter of conscience – of registering their protest? This may be the Libertarians’ golden moment, if they can seize it. Otherwise, they face fading into the sunset or the dust, depending.
As for Jill Stein? She seems to be Trump’s last, best chance as of now.
In light of Donald Trump’s stubborn unwillingness to release his federal income tax filings, it’s fair to ask. Did he even file them in the first place? (Failure to file, I’ve read, is a far less serious offense than filling out something wrong or patently false.)
Without any evidence to the contrary, it’s an open question. The best we can come up with is his claim he’s being audited. Not that other candidates under audits didn’t release theirs anyway. Even Richard Nixon.
It’s also fair to assume that if Trump did file, he paid little or no taxes – embarrassing numbers in comparison to everyday Americans.
Without any evidence to the contrary, it’s an open assumption.
Now, though, support for that claim grows. As the Washington Post reported on Aug. 1, “What we know about Donald Trump and his taxes so far,” he paid no federal income tax in 1978 and 1979, and little or none in 1984, 1991, or 1993. That from a man worth an estimated $4.5 billion by Forbes or $10 billion by his own bloated claims.
Think about it: you or I paid more than a billionaire! Wanna talk about fair? Or sacrifice?
The Post article, among others, cites court cases where Trump claimed deductions without documentation. Another case of “believe me”? The judges weren’t impressed.
I’m beginning to believe we’ll see state secrets thrown open in the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails long before we see Trump’s shady taxes – and remember, the Clintons had no reservations in making their filings public.
Why haven’t the Republicans been howling about Trump’s cover-up, then? And that’s just what it is. Not that they mind howling “Crook!” and “Liar!” over far lesser matters. at least when it’s not one of their own.
~*~
While we’re at it, consider his mockery of self-made billionaire Michael Bloomberg while boasting of his own business success. The mayor of New York City manages a budget of $82 billion in the full glare of public scrutiny, vastly overshadowing Trump’s private operations. Bloomberg, the sixth richest person in the United States, served three terms in that capacity.
And as fellow billionaire Warren Buffett said Aug. 1, challenging Trump to sit down with him and compare their filings, a tax return reveals a lot more about a person’s finances than financial statements do. “You’re only afraid if you’ve got something to be afraid of,” Buffet explained. “He’s not afraid because of the IRS. He’s afraid because of you,” the public.
No wonder investors love Buffett and respect his $63 billion worth. He tells it like it is, whether it’s stocks or politics.
And Trump’s response? A petulant, “I don’t care much about Warren Buffett.”
Oh, Donald, Mr. Buffett is unquestionably one of the most successful investors ever and one of the world’s wealthiest men. Trump, you really should be listening — and that includes listening to your superiors.
For now, I’m forced to agree with the story making the rounds: Trump knows releasing those returns will kill his campaign. And that’s what Buffett and Bloomberg are smelling, shrewd money men that they are. So, is Trump ready to prove them — and us — wrong? The ball’s in his court and the clock’s ticking. Or, should we add, the courtroom of public opinion?
Looking at the American economy of the past half-century, with its continuing erosion of the middle-class and the implicit right of a livable income in the exchange of the work ethic, I keep hearing a warning for us to avoid selling ourselves into slavery.
I can’t find an exact passage in Scripture, but we can see the way it happens after Joseph invites his brothers to Egypt. Over the years, they fall prey to bondage. As the story of Moses demonstrates, the pathway to freedom is quite a struggle.
We have warning signs in the growing inequality in wealth (as American pharaohs hunger for more), the rising percentage of have-nots, the burden of student-loan debt many graduates have no hope of paying off (not on the wage levels being offered, should they even find jobs in the fields they’ve prepared for), and so on.
Well, Ronald Reagan once said, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
I doubt he expected it could be a rallying cry for the Left, much less the Center.
By definition, a billionaire has at least a thousand million dollars. There are, by one count, 492 billionaires in the U.S. They and their families would fit in a single hotel, if they’d settle on something less than a suite. Think about that. They own more than half of the nation’s wealth.
Hey, WikiLeaks. When are you releasing Donald Trump’s income tax filings?
Why don’t you go for the gold?
One of the breakthroughs we’re finding in this world of blogging is the emergence of original voices that would otherwise never appear in the larger commercial-media market. Many of them are quite better than some of the nationally syndicated newspaper columnists we’re seeing these days and definitely those vacuous suits on Fox News. Or should I start with my surprise that my own postings get reactions from so many other countries rather than just the USA, as my previous training would have anticipated? That, in itself, is a revelation.
Add to that the range of perspectives that become available, especially through the WordPress Reader as we follow fellow bloggers. Each day, I tap into a world of fellow spirits, from beginner writers to the highly advanced. It’s quite a community of discourse!
My wife has her own circles of bloggers she reads more or less daily. As she says, “I’m very interested in interesting people who think differently than me,” and that ranges far beyond her thoughts of gardening, cooking, and – well, let’s leap ahead to radical education and home-schooling. It’s become a joy to sit together each morning as we peruse the Web and then read aloud to each other passages we find especially insightful.
One of her favorites is the bearing blog by a devout, conservative Roman Catholic mother in the Twin Cities who would initially appear miles apart from us in our daily lives.
But two recent posts have my utmost endorsement.
The first introduced me to the term “cultural bundling,” in which people assume if you take position X, you favor or oppose a whole stream of other issues. In this case, it was her reluctance to put a bumper sticker on her car – any bumper sticker – even if this one was Black Lives Matter. For her, such brief statements lead to stereotyping that has prejudicial consequences and that, in turn, hampers efforts to resolve issues in public. Put another way, a lot of blind intolerance can flash into play, and I know it comes from both the right and left side of the political divide. As I’ve felt all too well, my liberal circles can be embarrassingly close-minded and even nasty in some of their assumptions. It’s not all “them,” after all.
E.G. Arlinghaus presents her rational in her post, “A Little Knowledge.”
A more recent post tears into a subtle flaw in the argument of “voting for the lesser of two evils.” To my surprise, her deft and conscientious examination takes its stand from a nuanced argument in Roman Catholic ethical and political thinking. Take a look at what she has to say about “Intrinsic” matters.
Her own observations on the importance of nuanced thinking resonate with me. Throughout my career as a newspaper editor I fought for longer articles, whenever possible and deserving, even if that meant cutting many other dispatches into briefs. For me, the “why” and “how” could be more important than the who-what-when-and-where specifics or posturing.
For example, from my side, pro-life does not necessarily mean pro-abortion but rather an acknowledgement that back-alley abortions lead to the deaths and mutilation of desperate pregnant women without any similar consequences for the men who put them in this condition.
It’s a huge difference, one that looks at the consequences of policy.
Arlinghaus’ detailing, based on a piece by Bishop Flores of Brownsville, Texas, admits the nitty-gritty realities of politics and conflicts of conscience but turns the argument in new ways.
Hope this helps.
In this election cycle, Woodpecker doesn’t sound nearly as angry or outrageous as I’d expected. The tone of conversation has definitely shifted, and maybe its drift.
HOPE
OR
GOP?
Jnana's Red Barn 