Trump turns American Values Upside Down

In the past, the American electorate expected certain qualifications and behaviors of its President.The office carried a certain gravitas, a certain level of respect and decorum required in recognition of the responsibility carried by that august post. Now, to our nation's detriment, the GOP candidate, Donald Trump, is turning those values upside down.

Morality: Ronald Reagan, considered a Republican icon, had a serious smirch on his record when he ran for president in 1980: he was divorced from Jane Wyman and a few years later married Nancy, in one of the most touching relationships of our time. Yet divorce suggested that one couldn't breach differences--which was a qualification especially important during the Cold War.

Divorce also suggested a disrespect for the family, a lack of concern for children, and a failure in one's past. How can we escape the comparison with Donald Trump's braggadocio, demurring in The Art of the Comeback to detail his experiences with "often seemingly very happily married and important women"? Two of his three marriages ended distastefully in divorce, one after philandering with Marla Maples, whose rapturous headline about it blared across the New York Post: "Best Sex I've Ever Had," with a smirking Donald-head as the full-page graphic.

At their 1993 wedding, Marla and Donald's daughter Tiffany was already two months old. Trump exited that marriage after six years upon catching Marla and her bodyguard in a roadside compromising position. 

Ronald Reagan looked at the many immigrants who'd come to our country without paperwork--often because their own country's system was corrupt--and who worked dedicatedly in an array of jobs upwardly mobile Americans increasingly eschewed. What did he grant them? Amnesty, a word now reviled by the right, and derided by Trump.

Compassion for those fleeing untenable conditions in their countries seems missing with Trump. He'd apply (an unconstitutional) religious test for entry, barring all Muslims, and spend $200,000 in taxpayer funds to deport each of 11.3 million undocumented residents, ripping them from their jobs, their homes (a third of the undocumented own homes, up to 46% in several states) and their families. Clever businessman Trump seems to think the huge taxpayer cost to rid our nation of entrants with immigration infractions is a better course than receiving billions of dollars for our flagging Social Security and Medicare coffers. Between 1996-2003, the undocumented gave $90 billion to those two programs, an amount that's only escalated since then.

The Statue of Liberty must be cringing.

Incivility: Parents used to inspire their children with the phrase "You could grow up to be President!" but what parent wants his child to emulate the coarse speech of the GOP candidate? His language is childish--in South Carolina he boasted, "I know words. I have the best words."

But far worse is that the words he seems to know are rude, vapid and bullying. We teach our children not to insult others, particularly on their physical characteristics, and then laugh and even support one who spouts the most crass denouncements, particularly about women. This is no help to teen girls struggling to value themselves for their potentials rather than their physicalities. And it abets boys' worst inclinations.

A Google search for "most offensive Trump quotes" brings 1.1 million results.

International Relations: In the past, the crucial criterion for US President was foreign affairs knowledge and experience. After all, the primary function of the federal government is to protect the safety of our United States.

 Take a look at some of Trump's foreign policies and see how well-considered they are. For example, on Syria: "I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could go to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from." Easy-peasy.

Domestic Issues:  Since Trump decided to purge the US of undocumented immigrants, Mexicans in particular, (ignoring the facts that 40% of the undocumented arrived legally, and that half of illegals came from countries other than Mexico), he's made several questionable proposals. First is his insistence that Mexico pay for an 80-foot wall along the border. His means toward that is to forbid the transfer of funds into Mexico by anyone without proof of legal residency, depriving poor families of sustenance.

On the economy, he advocates continuing the soon-to-be bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems (and also replacing Obamacare) though he mentions neither of these among the six topics he covers in the "positions" section of his website. His trade proposals, according to many including a New York Times analysis, would not create more American jobs and could result in Chinese retaliation, though many of his plans appear to violate international trade law.

On Race Relations--well I dare you to read the entire transcript of a March 21 interview with the Washington Post. In it Trump is repeatedly asked how he would heal racial divides, and he gives redundant, evasive responses that with great tenacity can be reduced to increasing "spirit" in cities like Baltimore and Detroit, and providing jobs for unemployed Black males by bringing work from China "back" to the US.

A New (scary) Priority: I've tried to open-mindedly understand the basis of Trump-supporters' zeal, reading many articles in which they attempt to explain. The take-away is that Trump is a tough-guy deal-maker who gives vent to their frustration with the political establishment and will push through his policies, as off-the-cuff (and therefore appealing) as they may be. This is a value I fear--response to feelings rather than logic; to emotion rather than consideration, and especially-- to immediate gratification rather than a broader view. Trumpsters reject the characteristics once sought in a president.

"The Establishment" was always the enemy to rebellious youth, I'm sure since before beatniks in the 50s, or hippies in the 60s, and it's sure the villain on the Trump train. But if you think about it--rising to become "The Establishment" requires the skills we need in a leader. Someone who can understand the system, start at the bottom, work his or her way up, along the way gaining experience, expertise and wisdom. The fact that Trumpsters think seasoned lawmakers--all chosen by their constituents--who've survived this process and worked with their colleagues for years should be "trumped" by a renegade, lawsuit-mired political neophyte shows the dizzy effect of so many values turned upside down.

Why A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Hillary

Results from the Nevada GOP caucuses show Donald Trump with more than 45%, nearly twice the percentage vote of each of his runner-up rivals, Marco Rubio (24%) and Ted Cruz (21%).

I do not understand how anyone could entrust our nation's future to one whose vocabulary consists of superlatives and digs.

My husband is wrapping up writing a book on Providence in American history with a chapter on Abraham Lincoln. Trump and Lincoln--polar opposites in their characters and their perspectives of the presidency. I only wish we could produce a Lincoln-esque candidate with the humility to deferentially serve God and the United States people, driven and able to absorb the intricacies of history, international relations and domestic policy.

Instead,GOP front-runner Donald Trump has demonstrated expertise in braggadocio. He exclaims in speeches that he did very well in school, is rich, very rich, and plans to use The Art of the Deal as his presidential guidebook. He emblazons his name in two-story letters on skyscrapers. He blithely insults women, Mexicans and his fellow candidates.

 Jimmy Kimmel capsulized the Trump approach in a Dr. Seuss book parody that he read on-air to the approving real Donald.



Most voters share my incredulity with this Trump phenomenon. A January Gallup poll found 60% of Americans view Donald Trump unfavorably. (The same poll found 52% viewed Hillary unfavorably.) Who are these people supporting Trump? How come I've never met any?

But it's numbers that explain why a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary: Even with her 52% unfavorable rating, Mrs. Clinton is amassing enough delegate votes to win the Democratic nomination. People who like Bernie just haven't come through in the primaries and caucuses--at the moment Hillary's sewn up 503 delegates, while Bernie earned a paltry 70. Apparently promising free stuff--like free college tuition, free preschool, and free medical care--isn't bringing in the delegates.

So, as Hillary's totals rise, Bernie's support weakens, and we can assume she'll be the Democratic nominee, just as everyone always said.

If Republicans divide on the other candidates and propel The Donald to nomination, his negatives "trump" Hillary's. More people are offended by Donald's racist-sounding anti-immigrant rants and his rudeness to Meghan Kelly than love his unplanned bursts of feeling and optimism. So, if he's the Republican nominee, the party shrivels as members defect and Independents cast their votes for the more predictable, and therefore least dangerous of the two offerings.

It's great fun to watch debates where the frowning Comb-over King lets loose his assurances we'll be the best country and fix everything. But when it comes down to our safety and the delicate diplomacy needed in this fragile world, it's clear Americans just don't want an apprentice.

Does Your Perception of God Determine Your Politics?

The cover story of USA Today about ten days ago was "How America Sees God," and certainly if so august a journal elevates this to its main front-page feature, it must be factual and important.

The piece was basically a publicist's dream, touting America's Four Gods: What We Say About God--and What that Says about Us, a new book by two sociologists at Baylor University.  The authors, Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, have often mined Baylor's annual religion surveys, packaging the idea that how one sees God determines one's political and social positions. I actually read the survey from their 2006 report, which asks everything from belief science will find Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, to whether God is "a 'He,'" to agreement that "The U.S. must establish democratic order in the Middle East."

The survey shows a bias in its Christian-centric construction (as a Jew, I was confused by some terms and would be at a loss to answer some queries).  In 2005, Gallup contacted 3,702 potential participants, and got a 46% response rate. Once the results were in, the professors interpreted the material--by deciding that views of God fall into (only) one of four types, "Authoritative," "Benevolent," "Distant" or "Critical."  The first two include an active, engaged God; the latter two, a God who started it all, but now doesn't interfere.

According to the USA Today summary, the 24% of Americans whose God is "Distant" think since creating the world, He stands back and watches. The 21% whose God is dubbed "Critical" also think God "rarely acts on earth," but might judge in the afterlife.  This is the deity of "ethnic minorities, the poor and the exploited," says the article, mainly because their lives are so hard (and therefore God must be "critical").

The "Benevolent" God of 22% of the respondents see Him as mostly a "positive influence on the world."  These folk don't blame God for tragedies, but credit Him for the good stuff in life.  The final 28% of respondents see an "Authoritative" and judgmental God, who, while loving, "can become angry and is capable of meting out punishment to the unfaithful," such as natural disasters or illness.

Basically, Froese and Bader take James David Barber's four constructs describing Presidential character, and apply them to Americans' views of God.  Barber sees some presidents' personalities as active (like the Authoritative and Benevolent God) and others as passive (like the Distant and Critical God).  At the same time, some presidents have a "positive" affect (corresponding to the Benevolent and Distant God) and others a "negative" perspective (Authoritative and Critical God).  Barber uses these to categorize Presidents (or candidates) to predict how they'll perform in office.

Presidents like Thomas Jefferson, F.D. Roosevelt and John Kennedy are "active-positive" presidents, adaptive and self-confident.  John Adams, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon are "active-negatives" who compulsively but joylessly achieve.  James Madison, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are "passive-positives" whose need to be loved makes them compliant and reactive, while George Washington, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower exemplify the "passive-negative" withdrawn style that acts out of principle.  Just as you'd expect, the best bet for president is active-positive, then passive-positive.  Active-negatives were termed "dangerous" choices by Barber.

So, who are USA Today's poster boys?  Glenn Beck is their Authoritative God icon (who prefers the "dangerous" active-negative God), with his "warnings about losing God's favor."  Their Benevolent God guy?  Why, Barack Obama.

And how does this play out in political views?  "People with an Authoritative God are about three times more likely to say homosexuality is a choice, not an inborn trait...affecting their views on gay rights, particularly marriage and adoption."  (Notice that reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman uses the word "rights" rather than "issues.") Yep, active-negative, all right.

Glenn Beck's Authoritative God, book author Bader says, likely caused tragedies like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, "directly punishing us for a society's sinful ways."  The Benevolent God fans, though, are relentlessly upbeat, and "focus on a fireman who escaped, or the people who rebuild homes..."

Says the newspaper piece, "When President Obama says he is driven to live out his Christian faith in public service, or political satirist Stephen Colbert mentions God while testifying to Congress in favor of changing immigration laws," they're expressing a deity author Froese says "cares for all people, weeps at all conflicts and will comfort all."  (How active! How positive!) But Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck represent those who "divide the world by good and evil," whose actively negative God "appeal(s) to people who are worried, concerned and scared."

I think I'll take care and comfort over worried and scared.  And active optimism over active negativity.

By the way, the Distant God (who's passive-positive, like Bill Clinton) gets good press too.  Quoted is Rabbi Jamie Korngold, since Distant is "the dominant view of Jews."  She says Distant appeals to her because "that gives me more personal responsibility. There's no one that can fix things if I mess them up. God's not telling me what I should do."  (Notwithstanding those pesky commandments in the Torah.)

So, Froese and Bader offer a paradigm where two views of God appear to be pessimistic, and two appear to be optimistic.  Two reflect the active vitality of self-determination, and two reflect passive powerlessness and resignation.  Authoritative and Critical views of God correlate with conservative (bad) political views; Benevolent and Distant views of God correlate with liberal/progressive (good) political views.  Surprise!

The research assumes--without evidence--that like one's character, shaped in childhood, views of and feelings about God are well-defined character traits, not subject to change.  That people don't hold conflicting and sometimes confused thoughts at the same time. That such variables as mood, weather and public or personal events don't influence connection or inspiration.

I'd speculate that even the most faithful have doubts, various levels of clarity, and frequent revision in their religious perspectives.  And those perspectives are a complex amalgam of views on all sorts of spiritually-related subjects--not a single concrete block of simple beliefs.  Similarly, political views cover a range of topics--and views on any given subject can change.  (Can a conservative be a tree-hugger or condone first-trimester abortion?  Can a liberal favor second-amendment rights or oppose the death tax?) And how does God-perception predict the political views of the third of the electorate self-identifying as "independent?"

Just look at Barack Obama's polling--the country was overwhelmingly supportive in January, 2008, when his approval rating was 69%; Gallup's ratings for this month (Oct. 2010) show his disapproval rate higher than his approval, 48-46%.  Does that mean the electorate changed its views of God?

Could it be that these academics have a political agenda?  Oh no, the pristine halls of ivy are populated only by seekers of truth, who would never overlay personal perspectives on research outcomes.  Maybe they're just hoping to copy James David Barber's literary success.  And perhaps if God is truly Benevolent, they will.

Identity as a Democrat...or a Jew...Can Make or Break a Marriage

I'm listening to the radio, a talk show on which the subject of my previous post is being discussed--the NY Times article by the woman embarrassed to admit her husband's not of her liberal ilk. Can a Republican and a Democrat coexist in marriage? What if you're in the same political party, but differ passionately on one issue? Say...abortion? Immigration?

Is this akin to two people of different religions marrying? Can an observant Jew and a Christian--or a Reform Jew--live in the same house? I'd suggest it's easier to ignore political differences than conflicts in religious observance that just get more contentious when children are on the scene. This connects to my fears about militant Islam--with absolute certainty that you're doing God's will, you cannot be dissuaded. You can't sweep differences under the prayer rug. (or the Rosh Hashana kneeling rug, for that matter.)

Similarly, there are events in a relationship that people just can't ignore...like when an unfaithful husband says he's completely re-dedicated to his marriage. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, even if you both squeeze it the same way.

That's why it's crucial to marry someone who is consonant with you on self-defining issues; it's not a good idea to marry a Republican if you're a rabid Democrat. It's risky to marry a ham-eater if you're convinced of kashrut. It's a bad bet to choose a guy whose first marriage included dishonesty if you expect him to be faithful to you.

Back to the article: It concludes with the Republican spouse coming around to support Obama, for them, the great unifier. They may coo together now over Obama's message of love, hope and "yes we can," but I'd wager that if the candidate comes out with a position (ANY position--which he has yet to do) that the Republican can't abide, he might look with affection at his wife and admit, "No, I can't." But even in that situation, they can just smile and agree that their votes will cancel each other out.

Still, I wonder what does constitute a deal-breaker? Is the straining point a matter of who is most adamant in his/her position? I married a Republican, but politics didn't shape my identity. The family I create and maintain is the center of my world; my religion the overlay on everything I do and see. A Jewish religious lifestyle would be my make-or-break factor. Politics come and go; opinions on issues change, but if you believe your religion is the truth, well, there's little wiggle room in such a close relationship as marriage. However...I've known couples to break up over exactly how close they are in their Orthodox views. (Modern Orthodox? Black Hat? Chasidic? Which Yeshiva?) That could be a pity.

Of course, if Democratic or liberal politics IS your religion, as it is for many Jews I know, then party affiliation does trump all else.

Funny, when I first started going with my husband, I had to tell my friends in fast-paced L.A, "He's Orthodox: There, I said it." And now, they're even more yeshivish, more black-hat-religious than me. Life is certainly bizarre.

Politcal Gender Differences, & Someplace in the Southwest....

It's Tsunami Tuesday and it's pretty exciting around here. The Alpha Male in our home is glued to his computer, checking out the incoming totals, and hoping that McCain trounces his competitors.

I'm packing, off in a couple hours to the Big Apple for a wedding. Why is it that generally, women are less invested and emotional about politics than guys? Is it that Alpha thing, where they need to compete and hope to dominate? Is it because policies and politics are more global, and most women are consumed with local--their homes and families? Not that we're uninterested--I go downstairs to check the status of the Tsunami every so often--but I'm not tied in knots over it. Instead, I've got that pre-travel nervousness--the last minute scuttle and chaos that keeps echoing in my brain, "I wish I didn't have to leave!" even as I anticipate the celebration to come.

I think this is yet another gender difference--guys want to go conquer the world, and I want to conquer the contents of my suitcase.

In any case, the photo above was taken in the Southwest at a location associated with a famous person. Can you guess where? I hope to be able to update my blog in a couple days, and let you know.

Anti-Immigrant Racism at Issue in Presidential Campaign

We are a home steeped in politics. We are also a Jewish family whose lives intertwine with both legal and illegal immigrants.

In observing Republican politics at the moment--which is not always pleasant, to say the least--I keep hearing pledges and promises that sound to me to be, unfortunately--racist. I hear things like Huckabee's vow yesterday that under his presidency, the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants now working among us will be booted out of their jobs and out of the country within 120 days of his oath of office. And never allowed back. Even if they have citizen children; even if they've been here 30 years and own their own homes and businesses and pay taxes and have sent sons and spouses into our military.

I see angry denouncements of people who come here under great peril and duress, leaving their young children and their aging parents because they have no way to make a living. And America has plenty of jobs, enough so they can quickly begin to send their paychecks home.

I've known some of these people. They work hard. They wish with all their hearts that there was a legal way to be here--or, even more, that they didn't have to be here, consulting "abogados" and finding some way to get a green card. If they could have come here to work legally, they would have--but their countries run with bribery and corruption. With bureaucracies that "lose" applications for years on end. I know of a case where a hopeful immigrant was told three times that his application was "missing," but could be found if he paid $2000. Meanwhile, families are starving; there are no jobs.

The anti-immigrant politicos are reacting to a small but vocal fringe. These voters don't like pressing "2 para espanol." They don't like seeing ballots printed in Chinese. They are uncomfortable with foreigners who have different ways; whose idea of a nice Sunday afternoon is a big family picnic in the park; a park now crowded with such families. They feel invaded and threatened.

The positions candidates are taking are not just reactionary but impossible to actualize. Employers from restauranteurs and hoteliers to construction companies and landscapers can't suddenly reach into a waiting pool of workers should the backbone of their support staff disappear. And many illegal immigrants have risen in their fields to positions of authority, and carefully established themselves in ways that conceal their lack of paperwork. Rooting out twelve million people integrated into the fabric of America cannot and will not happen.

We've got plenty of jobs, plenty of space and have accepted these millions over the years with the warm-heartedness that comes naturally to a nation of immigrants. There were no "closed borders" or restrictions on immigration until 1924. And I maintain that fear and prejudice shaped many of the rules and laws that have come since.

I'm worried and sad that such un-American sentiments can influence citizens at this time in our history. But I'm even more distressed that our politicians have listened to them and played along. Because this is the way they'll lose the election, and lose the heart of America.

Is America Willing to Watch a Woman Age in the White House?

Are Americans so obsessed with physical perfection and female beauty that they don't want to see a woman age in the White House? This question was posed by radio talk host Rush Limbaugh and drew much comment. I think it's a real question--his point was that unlike England (Margaret Thatcher) and India (Indira Gandhi) or Israel (Golda Meir), America in the 21st Century has become so focused on physical beauty, and has set the bar for acceptability so high, that where men can scrape by with an "interesting" face but towering intellect, a woman can't.

I think he's scrambling a bunch of questions, each of which is worth contemplating. In our Botox environment, where Boomers don't really have to look whatever "their age" once was, we do somehow, unconsciously, equate public figures' exteriors with their interiors. Is it fair? Is it correct? Obviously, no. But is it TRUE?

The photo above, by the way, has circulated all over the Internet, supposedly portraying Hillary on the campaign trail. It's been suggested, however, that some non-friend photoshopped it.

But I think another question is really the issue here, and that has to do more with politics than feminism or superficiality. The issue is Hillary: if she were perceived as selflessly and sensibly conveying honest proposals for the betterment of the country, her "kankles" and folding face would mean far less. We loved Barbara Bush; granted she was not the candidate. But we loved her because she was sincere; she projected niceness, and the Bushes clearly had a love and a marriage all admired.

Hillary emphatically does not. Her "negatives" are as high as her forehead because she comes across as hard-edged (those pantsuits don't help) and sharp-tongued and even at times, mean. She comes across as morally questionable, given the Rose Law Firm and the "deal" she has going with her husband. She seems to me an opportunist trying to capitalize on her husband's popularity and wants the nation to "count" being married to Bill as "White House Experience."

Then there's Bill himself. With the Mrs. behind the desk at the Oval Office, we're reminded what went on in that august space when she wasn't in the room. It's downright skanky. And yet, millions of people still hold a torch for the guy--who will definitely upstage his wife unless they have some iron-clad arrangement not to appear within camera-shot of each other.

And all THAT, I think, is what feeds into the question of our nation's willingness to see "a woman" in the presidency in 2009. If she were Margaret Thatcher, sure. But as the wife of Bill, as the pathetic "I love him anyway" wronged woman who, tabloids continue to remind us, watches as her husband enjoys a series of extramarital affairs--she ages before our eyes

Women feel for her--cheer her on--because they want her to survive and prosper despite her cheating husband. But not as our president. Hillary is pathetic to women because in the area we wives, mothers and daughters care about most--a happy family and solid marriage--she's a failure. To see her wrinkly and bleached-blond and stammering and poorly dressed in her public appearances is disheartening. Even if we share her political beliefs, we don't want to see her age in the White House. Because, perhaps, she's too much like we're afraid we could be.

Call me Progressive

Ben and Jerry, the ice cream guys, convinced me that I'm progressive. While savoring a double espresso chocolate chip and coconut-almond chip double-dip cup of thousand-calorie perfection this evening, I started reading a poster prominently displayed in the shop. The poster proclaimed their position in favor of the poor, helpless, disabled and disadvantaged, and called that "progressive."

Well, count me in. I love all those people; give me your poor, your downtrodden, your huddled masses yearning to be free! I support the Salvation Army, and all the churches and charities who step forward to help with social programs, housing and work. No, I don't throw dollar bills at the pathetic guys and women sitting by the freeway offramp with the cardboards announcing "I need money," or "Single mom." Sending them paper airplanes folded from George Washingtons doesn't do much for their permanent improvement. But job training, or a shelter with shape-up rules, well, that could give the down-on-their-luck a new start.

Yes, I'm all for progress. Let's shore up marriage, give parents a say in their kids' educations, and help women with unwanted pregnancies to see the value of each precious life, including their own. Let's simplify the tax system so everybody pays 20%, the top rate suggested by the Bible. Let's make progress toward the safety of our cities, by enforcing loitering and thievery penalties, and let's progress toward the security of our country against the Islamic fanatics who would terrorize the world and topple our democracy.

I wonder: who would say he's NOT for progress?

The Islamists who want Afghanistan and Algeria to adhere to restrictive religious law--under which women undergo genital mutilation and never learn to read--want to go backward. But even they could spin their desire by saying it's progress to live the way Allah wants, rather than according to a modern culture they consider perverse. Yes, everybody's progressive.

So, I'm progressive, too. I think it's progress when here in the US, the market system of free competition prevails so that individuals can prosper. I consider it progress when the government gets out of the way so that everyone can have equal opportunity. After all, minimizing welfare has allowed thousands of formerly dependent people caught in a cycle of poverty to regain their dignity in honorable jobs.

The New York Times certainly loves the term. In fact, they often use it when in the past they'd say liberal. Ever notice that? Nobody is liberal anymore; now he's only progressive. Sounds so forward-thinking, so modern, so with-it. So NEW.

That's to contrast with conservative. Which means "I don't want any change." Stay the same, the same-old, same-old. Progressive is the opposite of stuck. The opposite of, pardon me, John McCain (above). Conservative is old man with white hair in a suit. Progressive is young guy or gal with cool hair and jeans.

So, here's what I propose: all the candidates, no matter their party affiliation or age or positions should call themselves "progressive." Especially Republicans. It's not so difficult: Repeat after me: "I'm a progressive. I'm cool. I care." We can't let liberals be the only ones for progress. Now, have some espresso chocolate-chip Ben and Jerry's.