If one assumes that “divide and conquer” remains the ruling class’s favorite weapon, many leaders must be applauding Donald Trump for having done such a thorough job of polarizing the populace. Trump’s vicious rhetoric has encouraged people across the political spectrum to turn on each other with extraordinary ferocity and contempt. Racist stereotypes abound; study political cartoons of African-American youth or clueless, tubby Joe Six-Pack.

Such blistering attacks not only make it harder to create common ground to better protect ourselves, our families, our nation, and our planet, but also generate so much emotional static that it is difficult to think clearly. For example, blaming the election outcome on the “white working class” is a variant of “white trash baiting.” That analysis conveniently ignores how many middle class and upper middle class whites supported Trump. It also enables some smug liberals to blame the victims.

It is equally misleading to equate an average voter’s beliefs with the most odious members of their Party. Neo-Nazi support for Donald Trump does not make every Trump voter or supporter a fascist. The same applies to viewpoints about religion. Anti-religious atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are intellectual provocateurs, not to be equated with skeptical agnostics who try to pursue a spiritual life of kindness while suspending judgment on such great questions as the possibility of God, science-defying miracles, and life after death.

On the other hand, it is hard to stay polite when so many are so vicious. You become a softy in a harsh world. Outrage is necessary when our nation is acting so recklessly and cruelly. As someone who has long been disgusted by the devolution of our land from a flawed but hopeful, wealthy republic into an anxious, poorly informed herd prodded by billionaires and their hench-people, I have developed guidelines to prevent me from habitually falling into the divide and conquer trap:

Be very wary of political and economic leaders, whatever their purported ideology.

Republicans versus Democrats is often a tribal con. The economic and political elite run both Parties, permitting the citizenry to fight over Culture War crumbs. Be skeptical of any polemic that starts “Republicans are…” or “Liberals think…” Unqualified political analysis is often insultingly overbroad. Madison said that a republican citizenry remains virtuous so long as they never blindly trust their superiors.

Be equally wary of intellectual leaders and media figures, whatever their background.

The priests of power residing in the media, think tanks, and academy are rewarded for developing arguments and slogans that legitimate the status quo. The five major corporations that own most of the mass media constantly regulate the scope of acceptable argument. How often has the New York Times or any other major news source published articles describing NATO expansion and aggression in Eastern Europe?

 Don’t have double standards

A lot of Democrats understandably got very upset because children would be adversely influenced by detailed revelations of Trump’s sexual predations. But where was that disgust among the Democratic elite when Bill Clinton introduced the concept of oral sex to another generation of youngsters? If you supported Trump because you thought Obama was unwilling to enforce the law against corporate criminals and Hillary would be equally pliable, demand that Trump drain the swamp. Many Democrats loved Wikileaks when it exposed Republican war crimes but are outraged now.

Develop sympathy for most followers

Most people aspire to be decent, performing an often-tedious job, helping family members, being with friends, and enjoying some aspects of life. Not everybody who disagrees with you about important political issues suffers from greed, fear, racism, sexism, or false consciousness. Many divisive issues are polarizing because “partial justice” exists on both sides. We need each other to form a supermajority to avoid environmental and/or nuclear catastrophe. Most Americans have been poorly educated. Pervasive advertising helped mold their cultural consciousness, while their schools mandate Test-driven regurgitation of abstract concepts like “division of labor” which have been stripped of history, context, qualification, and critical analysis. These distracting, isolated concepts and facts are worse than useless.

Criticize extremists and avoid trolls

There are always some followers worth criticizing. If someone joins the Ku Klux Klan or any other organization that romanticizes terror and bigotry, they truly are an “enemy.” If a fanatic acts violently, they deserve severe punishment. The white supremacist murderer Dylan Root and the four African-American sadists in Chicago have deeply hurt our society. If you reject the electoral system, as flawed as it is, you need to change your viewpoint.  Do you really think an even more unaccountable political elite would be more responsive to the average person’s needs and interests? Trolls are at best worthless, at worst an emotional drag.

Try to find some common ground with friends and family who are on “the other side.”

This is the most important point, because these people are the emotional center of our private lives. Try to prevent public issues from destroying domestic tranquility. While often failing, I attempt to avoid political discussions with those close to me unless they express quite a bit of interest, don’t want to get into a shouting match, and don’t play intellectual “gotcha.” First, try to find issues you agree on. There should continue to be elections. Domestic political violence is bad. Political dissent must be protected. If they don’t accept these basic democratic principles, there is no reason for further discussion.

Perhaps you can move to more contentious issues. Systemic torture is vile, counterproductive, and a threat to our troops. Americans should not be left to starve to death. Clinton and Trump both have flawed characters. Florida should not go under water. Nuclear war is a bad idea.

If you run into a political bully from either side, politely inform them in private that you prefer to discuss something else. If they continue, point out that they are causing you emotional discomfort even if their motives and intentions were good. You might deter continued harassment by describing how they are not respecting your wishes. If they persevere, calmly exit. You might even wait a couple of minutes, so they won’t get the pleasure of thinking they rattled you. There is no reason to put up with such abuse.  Of course, you may have to do this many times with certain family members.

Preserve patient hope

Some of you may have not been all that interested in politics. It often is a dirty business. Now that you have become involved, you may expect things to change quickly. Good luck with that. Patience is a political as well as a personal virtue. You must maintain hope that we can improve, but you might want to reduce expectations that major advances will happen, much less happen soon.

We can be quite certain that things will get much worse if decent people capitulate. The good news is that the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders indicates that the neoliberal, imperialist ideological monolith may be cracking up. This is an interesting time. For decades, millions of us could not find a single politician or television program reflecting our viewpoint.   But we should remain wary of all politicians, including Warren and Sanders. Will they join or oppose the Democratic leadership’s promotion of a second Cold War with Russia?

Be kind to yourself and others

It may not seem like much, but smile at people who appear to be on the other side. There are a lot of anxious Muslims and defiant white males walking about. A non-political joke goes a long way. Whenever you encounter an internal wave of misanthropy, despair, or bitterness, don’t lacerate yourself with shame or self-hatred. Otherwise, you turned these recommendations into another debilitating version of “political correctness.” Nobody is perfect. For instance, you may have noticed that I already violated these strictures by castigating “some smug liberals.”

Sadly, both sides have so much fury in common. Perhaps we can address that shared reaction by asking each other “Why?” and then actually listening to the answer with an open heart if not a completely open mind.

The post Political civility during the Trump administration appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You may recall that in one of the earlier Republican debates, all candidates were asked if they could support a debt reduction plan that involved $10 spending cuts for every dollar of revenue enhancement (taxes). None raised his or her hand. This is not the only issue in which the Republicans walk in lockstep. When it comes to reproductive choice, all the candidates are against it. When it comes to gun control, all the candidates are against it. When it comes to strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment, all the candidates are for it.

They all feel that the key to economic growth is reducing taxes and eliminating regulations. They all trust the private sector to manage health care.

Differences of opinions among the Republicans are minimal. However, there can be moments of interest. Michele Bachman and Rick Perry battle one another for to see who makes the most faux pas. Herman Cain is truly a character – so much so that he says what he would bring to the White House would be humor. He might be right about that. Ron Paul is appalling. Without emotion he expresses a preference to maintain the free enterprise system at the expense of providing health care for a young man or woman in a coma.

What the Republicans don’t provide is either thoughtful dialogue or solutions to our problems. There is no incentive to do so. Their debates might be characterized as “pandermonium” as they try to outdo one another in pandering to the Tea Party, their so-called base. The televised debates should not be called broadcasts. They are actually narrowcasts in which each candidate tries to slice and dice his or her comments to satisfy the small percentage of voters who only drink tea.

But the Republicans are the only party in town for now, and probably until after both party conventions are concluded next summer. President Barack Obama is unopposed in the Democratic Party and thus there are no debates with Democrats until after Labor Day. For anyone interested in promulgating the Democratic agenda (assuming that there is a clear one), it may be a year before it goes face to face against the Republicans.

So here’s a thought to remedy the problem. Suppose we established a “sweet sixteen tournament” between Democrats and Republicans and start it now. Republicans would not have the luxury of parroting one another and assuming that no one likes Social Security in its present form. Each Republican would have to face off against another Democrat. You might have two consecutive nights, each with four half-hour debates. President Obama would be exempt from the competition since his chance will come later and he has a tougher day job than any of the other participants.

Republicans would have to explain their views on Medicare while being challenged by Democrats who support it. Democrats would have to explain their views on the E.P.A while being challenged by Republicans.

The system could be structured so that the opponents for each Democrat or Republican would be different in each debate. Here’s a graphic representation of what it could be:

Week 1, Night 1

Democrat	Republican
Dennis Kucinich	Ron Paul
Amy Klobuchar	Mitt Romney
Dick Durbin	Michele Bachmann
Emanuel Cleaver	Newt Gingrich

Week 1, Night 2

The next week the deck could be shuffled so that no candidate faced one who he or she previously debated. The issues may be similar to those from the first week or they might be different. Frivolous (Coke or Pepsi) questions would not be allowed. The moderators would be creditable journalists such as Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, or Judy Woodruff. There would be no silly YouTube or Twitter questions.

This has the potential to be beneficial for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats would get a message (or more likely a combination of messages) out at a time when they are not being heard with the exception of the president. Republicans would have to stand up against the type of opposition they will face in Fall, 2012. Their supporters will see which ones can successfully parry arguments from Democrats.

How could it be worse that Republicans trying to distinguish themselves from one another when they essentially agree on everything. It’s worth a try and certainly would come closer to “must see TV” than what we have now.

The post Republicans need Democrats in their debates appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Picture this fictional scenario: a telecommunications representative knocks on your door trying to sell you television and internet services. Part of the sales pitch is that the service works only half the time, is subpar when it does work, and forget about customer service. The rep would more than likely get the door shut politely in his/her face. Who would knowingly spend hard-earned money on such a shoddy service? What kind of salesperson makes such a pitch?

Consider that career Republicans and their media representatives are constantly beating the bad-government drum. “You want the government running your health care?” they scoff. “Government can’t do anything right,” the pundits joke. Now consider that they are the government. And they want your campaign contribution dollars so that they can continue purposely running the government poorly, self-fulfilling every bad government prophesy ever told.

This Hitchcock-like universe is the one we currently live in, according to retired career Republican Mike Lofgren who says of the Republican agenda:

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

When Republicans win elections, they consider themselves victorious in some fictitious war against big government. This, even though they spend most of their time in office throwing wrenches into government cogs and the rest of the time making government bigger in individual lives–or non-existent where it is vital.

Lofgren summarizes GOP logic:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

And while we bemoan the failure of the mainstream media to “catch on” to these self-incriminations, they are doing the same thing. In their case, they are considered successful failures due to high viewer turn-out. Fox consistently wins the ratings war though they are arguably the least trustworthy (and most biased) source of news and information in the mainstream media lineup.

The talking heads on Fox regularly warn viewers about the so-called liberal bias in mainstream media while they are so obviously being biased in the other direction…and part of the mainstream media they pretend to reject. They perpetuate the GOP stratagem that both parties are equally awful, that the only good government is an invisible, unheard, and benevolent government.

The Republicans, as well as their corporate and media cohorts, have successfully violated information security. This breathtaking hypocrisy has so permeated the political landscape that some voters either fail to see it for what it is or dismiss it as part and parcel of the system. People are now quick to assure others that they don’t watch cable news or that they think “both parties” stink. They have bought the Republican snake oil and thirstily drank it down.

Mike Lofgren calls these folks “low-information voters”:

There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

Good news for progressives

Republicans are great at convincing people to vote against their self-interests and that free market money-handlers have the best interests of this nation well in hand. Lofgren explains how they accomplish it and in doing so offers the only solid piece of advice in his exposé:

How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the per jorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

Language is a powerful political tool and we are finally getting it. President Obama named his 2011 jobs bill the “American Jobs Act” and polls show enormous public support for it. The phrase “earned benefits” instead of “entitlements” is getting a lot of play with online media in light of Rick Perry’s attacks on Social Security. And Stephen Colbert satirizes the use of language to manipulate voters by hiring Frank Luntz to sell his Super Pac to the public.

While we [liberals] generally oppose the use of slogans and catch phrases as condescending “dummy-speak”, members of the GOP are using them to evade real answers and lie. Sometimes we are loath to call a good idea a good idea because it is being used in unethical ways. Understood. Lofgren boldly explains why this approach isn’t working for us and how we can harness the power of good ideas–in an honest and positive way–to accomplish great things. I agree. I think the President does too.

The post Powering up progressive political language appeared first on Occasional Planet.

According to The Hill, The Republican Study Committee (RSC) declared Monday [March 1, 2010] a “Twitter Day,” encouraging its members to tweet about their “commitment,” or favorite issue in Congress. Fifty members of the RSC, a group of conservative House Republicans, are reported to have joined in.

Example:

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) tweeted: My commitment is health reform that empowers patients and not Washington.

No doubt, Democrats–already reported to be lagging behind in social media marketing–will launch counter-measures. Republican Twitter Day is likely to be an early salvo in an escalating battle in the mini-blogosphere. With a limit of 140 characters per message, such is the sad, truncated, bumper-sticker nature of political “dialogue” inside the Beltway these days.

The post U.S. Congress: Where lawmakers meet to “tweet” appeared first on Occasional Planet.