If a majority of people in our community were convinced that witches were the greatest danger we faced, we are likely to see a famous witch hunter elected mayor at the next election. And probably, if the problem of the hour were vampires, we would be voting for a vampire killer.
One simple lesson of political science: identify a problem and stir up a lot of fear and then run for office claiming to be that problem’s solution. I think we all see the downside. Sober analysis, not hysteria, is a better way of identifying and managing threats.
On the battlefield we practice triage: treat first the most serious injuries where a life can be saved. Not the Captain’s hurt toe. Human communities face similar but even more complicated choices. And calling “fire” when there is no fire, can often take lives. We have many resources, and we can do more than one thing at a time, but we have to trust the right people as we listen to answers.
And who might that be? Too many of us trust cable news. I think we know the primary stations are not neutral. Some say they listen to both. Two wrongs making a right? I grant you that MSNBC has the more credentialed and intelligent guest experts. I had no reason to doubt the credentials of the Yale historian interviewed about the history of the 14th Amendment on Lawrence O’Donald the other evening. He was refreshingly articulate. But his was a political case. Part of the overall argument is that Donald Trump is the great threat we face and that fortunately there is a witch hunter’s tool available, the 14th Amendment. Call in the Courts!
And, yes, I am equally aware that a flood of people seeking political asylum and a better economic future on our Southern border is a problem that has been pitched as the last stand of the American Way.
So, it’s an election season. It used to be that young boys at a certain age “graduated” from shorts to trousers (as they were called). So the expression, “put on your big boy pants.” That’s really what we ask of citizens in a democracy. It’s what citizens have to do every four years (and sometimes in between).
It is just a first step, a step back from hysterical drumming. But it is a necessary FIRST step. If you seriously invite them some really will come down and enter the tent of reason. It is a big tent and actually a relief from shouting once you find your way. It’s where we agree that migrants are a problem and a President with the age and/or the pathology of Trump might be a problem, but that there is a larger picture.
We need to discuss the construction of our economy, the beliefs and laws that structure the flow of financial instruments. We need to find new ways to cooperate with other nations that we can no longer lead by our unchallenged wisdom and brute force. We cannot allow millions of people to die in war, from hunger, from natural disasters (which are often of human origin). We are debating the placement of chairs on the deck while “our Titanic” is heading toward the ice.
By the way does it trouble you that many people see Trump as not suited (now perhaps rather than before) to be President, but think his “policies,” his time in office was spot on. It is just these policies that we need to be considering, analyzing and evaluating. I for one don’t think they were, but I am more than willing to discuss this with my friends. Trump and Migrants are giant billboards lining the road to the elections. Many seem incapable of seeing past them.
We can debate whether Biden deserves impeachment for his actions at the southern border (he does) and his profiting off his office from China and Ukraine (though perhaps not to the extent of Clinton), but he sure as hell doesn't deserve re-election. If you can't stomach voting for Trump then don't, but what on earth has Biden done to earn your vote a second time?
I am interested how you come to the conclusion “that MSNBC has the more credentialed and intelligent guest experts.”
If you are referring to the “opinion programs”, (Maddow, Hannity, O’Donnell, Watters) then I can’t debate with you as I refuse to watch those shows on any networks as their opinions and take on issues is so easy to predict and repetitive.
In the news programs I have seen the following on Fox recently:
Jonathan Turley - Constitutional law professor.
Alan Dershowitz - Constitutional law professor.
Andy McCarthy - former Federal prosecutor
Jack Keane - former general and vice chief of staff to the Army
Tulsi Gabbard - former Democratic Presidential candidate.
Some pretty strong credentials and intelligent sounding individuals in that group which in the humble of this former political
science major, would certainly match the credentials or intelligence of anyone appearing on MSNBC