We are better than this

dog whistleThose of us who dabble in the occasional do-it-yourself project eventually learn a few ‘rules of the road’, so to speak. We know that you should always “Measure twice, cut once” and “If it can’t be fixed with duct tape, you’re not using enough duct tape”. And then there’s the one about the old man who explained to his grandson why he had so many tools: “If the women don’t find you handsome, they’ll at least find you handy”.

The key to a job well done is having the right tools and knowing how to use them. To build my column, my tools are my words. It makes sense to know which ones are right for the task. For this one, the important words are not pleasant but are certainly getting a lot of work these days.

 

Here’s where things get ugly

First, let’s flip through the pages of our handy dictionary and get a clear sense of the differences of three key terms: bigotry, prejudice, and racism. Now, each of these words can be used to attack based on a person’s words, thoughts, or actions. It isn’t my intention to single out anyone here, but to get a better sense of how we can define and understand the world we live in.

According to Merriam-Webster, bigotry is ‘obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices’. Words like narrow-minded or intolerant come to mind. People with a “my way or the highway” attitude could easily be described as a bigot, but general usage of the term seems to be much more harsh.

Prejudice is ‘preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge’. To me, that sounds like what you get with the previously mentioned bigot who makes up his mind without bothering to check his facts.

And then there’s the big word that is bouncing around in many current events discussions these days: racism. The language experts describe it as ‘a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race’. That’s some serious heavy lifting in a single sentence, so let’s see if we can expand on that a bit.

 

Truth isn’t always comfortable

In his book “Portraits of White Racism”, David Wellman defined racism as a “system of advantage based on race”. He went on to explain, “Race is still a deadly serious category in America; how one is designated racially profoundly affects the experience of being an American.” That is, how society – and especially, how government – defines you is a primary force in determining how much of your inalienable rights are available for you to enjoy.

Paula Rothenberg, in her study “Race, Class, and Gender in the United States”, writes: “Racial prejudice when combined with social power… leads to the institutionalization of racist policies and practices.” In other words, if you choose leaders who have strong personal opinions about people of different ethnic backgrounds and they use their position of power to negatively affect the lives of others, you are contributing to a society fueled by racism.

In 1970, Patricia Bidol-Padva wrote that racism is “prejudice plus power”. It’s important to understand that power can be as simple as holding enough influence to affect the outcome of someone else’s actions. Examples would include making hiring decisions or approving a home loan. The greater the power, the more opportunity to derail the lives of others.

Our legal system has a mottled history with race; one only has to consider the Jim Crow laws of the not-too-distant past to see how our courts have been unfairly used to disadvantage non-whites. While it’s tempting to say that things are better now, a recent study by the Brennan Center finds that 24 states right now don’t have a single person of color serving as a Supreme Court justice, hardly a true reflection of our nation’s population. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we need a mandatory quota system to force diversification. But if our courts are that much out of touch with reality, can we be assured that those justices are as impartial as we expect them to be? 

 

A matter of choice

Each and every one of us can decide: be driven by feelings of superiority over others who look different, or be accepting of all in spite of those differences. No one is born with hatred, but humans are fast learners. I once sat at a baseball stadium and overheard a young – and clearly drunk – white man shouting his disgust over an African-American umpire’s call of a close play. Turning to one of his buddies, the guy proclaimed, “And that’s why I don’t like black people.” While I’m confident that this belligerent fan isn’t currently serving in office, recent elections have taught us that anything is possible. 

Let me be very clear: a racist can be any color, from any ethnic background, and have any religious belief (or none at all). No particular demographic has exclusive rights to racist thoughts or behaviors. So if I’m pointing fingers here, rest assured. I’m not placing all the blame on one group over another. Systematic hatred of others based on their looks is not limited to one race, and one newspaper column isn’t going to give sufficient space to explain all the reasons for that hatred. 

As a Caucasian male of European descent, I only know what it’s like within my own skin. But I also know that I wasn’t raised to think that I was better than those with different skin tones. And I’m not about to stand in silence while the privileged few try to turn this nation back into a land of oppression.

You see, whether it’s our government using authoritarian means to suppress the rights and privileges of large segments of our population… or it’s the ‘dog-whistle’ catchphrases that pepper the public comments by America’s most prominent political voices…we are seeing prejudice plus power in action. And that, my friends, is racism amplified to the highest volume.

 

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald August 1, 2019.)

“Those who cannot remember the past…

are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

the time machine

Buckle up, buttercup

Let’s talk about those who hate. Now, you may not be comfortable using that term to describe those around you (or yourself), but you might recognize a few things in the following paragraphs. And what you discover may make you squirm in your seat. That’s okay: self-realization isn’t a bad thing, especially if you work to change.

Now, you’re probably not among the worst and you may not be actively pursuing a life of hate, so there’s hope. But by being willing to accept the words and actions of others, whether by agreeing in full or in part, means that you are enabling the spread of hate.

And you certainly don’t want that on your conscience, right? 

 

Fiction, not fact

If you haven’t been living under a rock for the past few years, you’ve certainly noticed that people are growing angrier at the world around them. Egged on by talk radio, social media, politicians, and even preachers, it’s safe to say that Americans are generally more upset with each other with each passing day.

Sure, there’s plenty of reasons (or excuses) for this downward slide of personal behavior, and there’s no one cause. But it isn’t hard to find a few instigators, those who are actively spreading the disease. One of the more prominent of these Typhoid Marys of Hate is Alex Jones, the star of the website InfoWars. You may know him as one of the primary corrupters of truth on the internet. Jones eagerly pounces on tragedies like mass shootings, labeling them as “false flags” – a government-run covert operation intended to mislead – and insisting that what we see on the news is not real. Jones has repeatedly insisted that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School were fake and that the children murdered in those events never existed. Taking advantage of the rising tide of anger in this country, Jones has made a career out of fueling that hatred, convincing many of his audience to fully believe every word he says despite the obvious facts available. 

I will note here that Jones has, somewhat reluctantly, admitted that at least some of these mass murders are not staged events and that the victims are real. Of course, he only changed his tune after he was named in a lawsuit by families of the victims, so I would question his sincerity.

 

No easy answers

Part of the public acceptance of conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones has to be the willingness of more and more people to take as truth whatever they hear from the people they like, know, or trust. That’s an unfortunate level of indifference that I’ve discussed on these pages many times before. And I’ve also highlighted the growing eagerness of many Americans to shed the shackles of what they call “political correctness”. People are more comfortable being public with their prejudices. I don’t hesitate to say that many are proud to show off their true selves after hiding their feelings for much of their lives. 

Such levels of intolerance are not new, of course, and are not limited to the USA. Although we have a disturbing history of institutional racial and religious bias with the targets being of many different backgrounds – Native Americans, blacks, the Irish, Eastern Europeans, and many others – we eventually find a way to overcome the differences and, at least officially, grow to be more accepting. Smarter, cooler heads will prevail – they always do – and we as a nation will be better as we move forward.

For now, unfortunately, we have become less than we should be and there are indications of a worsening trend. Take, for example, the results of a recent survey that points to an alarming rise of intolerance in which one’s own religious belief is used as a defense. We’re familiar with cases of business owners who have refused service to gay couples. This survey found the percentage of Americans who support that form of discrimination rose from sixteen percent in 2014 to thirty percent this year. While that’s still a minority, it’s also a near-doubling of approval in just five years, a tendency that could easily climb much higher.

That same survey found similar spikes in the number of Americans who are comfortable with these businesses also refusing service to Jews and African-Americans. What’s notable and troubling is that this support is rising along nearly every political and religious demographic. It may come as somewhat of a surprise, sadly, that those who consider themselves Christians – specifically evangelical and mainline Protestants – are leading the way in this wave of intolerance.

The people who declare to be followers of the Prince of Peace, the Bread of Life, and the Light of the World are more and more becoming less of a reflection of the Man they worship.

 

I think you can see what’s next

At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I can’t help but draw comparisons to the Nazis’ policy of Untermensch, a term to describe people whom they deemed as unworthy and inferior. (The word is a direct translation of ‘under man’, a description employed by T. Lothrop Stoddard, an American journalist and author – and Klansman – whose writings on eugenics and race are seen as a major influence in the establishment of the racial purity politics of the Nazi party.) Much as whole races were devalued in the eyes of those in control back in those dark days, we can see parallels today. 

As Holocaust survivor and Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel once said: “…indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor – never his victims, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten…”

We need to find a way to convince our friends and neighbors to reverse the trend of hatred and intolerance before we repeat the mistakes of the past.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald July 5, 2019.)

No matter what

A road sign with the word Choose and arrows pointing left and right

In America, we like to choose sides. We make a decision and then stick to it. Nothing you can say or do will convince your buddy to change his ways.

Take for example the Cola Wars. There’s been a rivalry between the drinkers of Coke and Pepsi for generations, with both sides insisting that their favored beverage is better. While I’m sure you know somebody who has no preference, most of the people in my circles are dedicated to one brand over the other. One side insists that Coke is the only soda worth drinking, while the other will select water rather than accept a cola other than Pepsi.

It’s the same thing with sports teams. Or Ford vs Chevy. Or those old commercials with a bunch of guys yelling “Tastes great!” and “Less filling!”

In most cases it’s all in good fun. But often we invest so deeply in our devotion toward one side over the other that it’s no longer trivial. Eventually, these disputes become much more heated when the loyalists on the two sides face off on a political issue.

The Truth, the Whole Truth

If you’ve been following this column for any period of time, you know that I have no patience for liars. If your argument is built upon a foundation of falsehoods, I want no part of it. I wouldn’t want to stake my reputation on something I know not to be true, and I can’t conjure up the desire to have a conversation with someone who deals with fantasy rather than facts.

We have a world of knowledge at our fingertips. Our computers and smartphones can lead us to the answers to just about any question imaginable. But we have to be willing to use discernment. We have to take precautions, to make sure that what we hear and what we read is honest and trustworthy.

Sometimes the lies are obvious. Others, though, are partially shadowed. Whether these are half-truths or unspoken realities, we can count them as lies because of how they’re presented. We may be told a less than complete story or, quite often, we just don’t listen well enough. We hear the things we want, and ignore the rest.

If you always believe what you’re told without doing a bit of investigating on your own, you’re taking a big risk. You could end up putting your trust in a person or an ideal only to be greatly disappointed in the long run.

Take for example the woman in Indiana who counts herself as a supporter of President Trump. She voted for him because, among various reasons, she liked his tough stance on undocumented immigrants. But she didn’t think that her husband, who came to the States illegally from Mexico nearly twenty years ago, would be deported. She heard Trump talk about kicking out criminals, but never suspected he was talking about people like her husband. And yet, he was detained, then sent to Mexico on a one-way trip.

Or the mother in Tennessee who told the Washington Post that it was tax credits from Trump that made her unemployed son’s health insurance premiums drop by nearly 85 percent. In reality, those savings were the result of subsidies from the Affordable Care Act, which is still the law. Ironically, repeal of the ACA – a key talking point of Trump’s campaign – will cause those subsidies to end, thus causing her son’s insurance premiums to skyrocket.

In both cases, and a multitude of others, overwhelming loyalty prevented these people from seeing and understanding basic truths.

It becomes part of you

Dan Pfeiffer, who served as Senior Advisor to President Obama, recently said, “Being for Trump becomes part of someone’s identity.” While he is clearly partisan, Pfeiffer’s words ring true. Trump himself made the claim that he could shoot someone and not lose support. Based on the enthusiastic attendees at Trump’s rallies, he’s right. There are a lot of people who are willing to accept anything Trump says or does and remain on his side.

It didn’t matter to them when Trump reversed his campaign promise to label China a “currency manipulator”. They seem okay now that Trump has changed positions on NAFTA and NATO, and that he has flip-flopped on several health care issues. They stand by their votes for him, and they eagerly sign up for tickets to his rallies where they laugh at his jokes and feel good about the choice they made.

They refuse to be convinced otherwise, perhaps because they just don’t want to admit that they fell for a con.

I wonder what it will take, what abuse of power or act of greed, before they see clearly.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald May 4, 2017.)

Lately it occurs to me…

kaleidoscope

…what a long strange trip it’s been.

One year, eight months, 3 days. That’s how long this presidential campaign has been. From the first candidate to officially announce his run for the office on March 5, 2015 — Republican Mark Everson, for what it’s worth, and you’re forgiven for not knowing his name — until Election Day on November 8, 2016… 614 days of what is undeniably the strangest trip to the White House this nation has ever witnessed.

I’ve written here before about the flaws of the two major party candidates and, I admit, I’ve spent a great deal of that time pointing out the wide range of negatives swirling around the Donald Trump campaign. Let’s be honest, Mr. Trump is deeply flawed on so many levels, most notably on matters tied to his personality. The fact that the media spotlight on Trump’s campaign has focused so much more on his antics — past and present — than on a more serious discussion of policy is a good explanation for the success of his campaign. Trump entered this race as an entertainer and treated every speech and debate as an episode of an unscripted reality TV show. We, the audience, watched and listened with amusement and disgust… and we never truly believed that he would take it this far.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, a statistical genius with a highly successful track record in the realm of political predictions, admits now that he didn’t take Trump seriously from the beginning. Failure to do so caused Silver to ignore the very polls that he otherwise swears by and, as a result, now is hesitant to be as bold a predictor as he was in previous elections. But who can blame him? Never in our lifetimes — perhaps, never in American history? — has a presidential election boiled down to two candidates who are so incredibly disliked by such large shares of the population.

Hillary Clinton has run a much lower profile campaign, a strategy involving fewer public events than her opponent, but that hasn’t made her immune from trouble. In fact, choosing to spend less time in public view may have caused Sec. Clinton more woes, since it meant she gave herself less chances to counter bad publicity. Considering that she has been a non-stop target of an aggressive media since her husband’s first national campaign in 1992, you would think she would have developed a better plan. Time will tell if she has any regrets.

But this much is certain: no matter the results, this year’s Election Day will not signal an end to the hostilities. And I’m not talking about the harsh barbs traded back and forth between candidates.

Two weeks after all votes are cast and counted, Americans will sit down to Thanksgiving dinner tables that could turn into battlefields, with family members at odds over their political preferences. Wouldn’t it be nice if arguments at the holiday feast were limited to who gets to battle over the wishbone… or which giant balloon was the parade favorite? But not so likely this year, thanks to an election so polarizing that relatives have stopped talking to each other… that has turned Facebook into a war zone… that has even caused regular churchgoers to skip services in order to avoid people with opposing views.

I have used this space to bemoan the lack of civility in our society, brought on primarily by our political partialities. It doesn’t have to be like this.

In the Eighties, President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill had vastly different views on policy. But both men were smart enough to realize that they needed to find a pathway to agreement on enough issues to make our federal government work for all of its citizens. The two men would have regular, private lunches… and more than a few social drinks… and talk in a manner that was respectful and mature. They didn’t have to end up completely on the same page, but they knew that the country was better off with leaders who could work together.

Some will point to the lack of such private engagements between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. Yes, Obama isn’t prone to the same degree of socialization as Reagan and others who preceded him in office. That could be because, unlike many recent presidents, he had two young children living with him and chose to spend more free time with them. It could also be due to those Republicans not wishing to be on friendly terms as that would be frowned upon by their constituents and donors.     

Once thing I think is certain: this election is destined to result in even more disharmony, unless we the people choose to rise above our differences and act like adults once again.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald November 3, 2016.)

I hate labels

shirt label

Recently I purchased a few tee shirts. Nothing fancy, I just needed some new ones for casual wear this summer. They’re cheap and comfortable… but they’re also irritating. That’s because they all have a large white tag on the inside of the shirt, sewn into the seam that runs down the side. It’s not as soft as the shirt — it almost seems to be made of a blend of plastic and paper — and it’s positioned close to the hem, right near my waist. Because of where it’s located, the tag often causes the hem of the shirt to flip over, as if the whole point of its existence is for everyone to see it. Since the shirts have another tagless label inside the back of the collar with the size and washing instructions, I don’t see the point in having to add this extra annoyance.

I could always cut it off, but I know better. When you remove tags like that, there’s always that one heavy thread left behind, one that looks and feels like fishing line. (I swear, someone in that factory keeps a tackle box next to the sewing machine.) That one thread, while not visible most of the time, will feel like I’ve got a Ginsu steak knife poking me in the side. No thanks, the label stays put.

My guess is the same genius who put that label in my shirt had something to do with the design of my blue jeans. Why? Because there’s a tag in my jeans that is constantly peeking over my waistband. While this tag is soft and doesn’t cause any physical pain, it does lead to some embarrassment. I feel those judgmental glances from other shoppers as I walk down the aisles of the grocery store, so I reach down and try to discreetly tuck the tag back inside my waistband.

I could remove it,  but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s that one razor sharp thread lurking nearby, ready to strike. Besides, this tag is marked with the jeans’ size, an important detail now that I’ve reached a point in my life where I have to have jeans in different sizes depending on whether I had dessert the day before. Nope, that label is going nowhere.

Sometimes they don’t have a purpose. Sometimes they hold vital information. So, like it or not, some labels just have to stick around.

But not all of them. There’s a few labels we could live without.

Take politics, for example. We apply labels to ourselves and each other all the time, and not often for useful, constructive reasons. I mean, what’s the benefit of calling someone a liberal or a conservative, as if that one word completely defines who we are and how we think and what we believe. We’re humans, fully capable of changing our minds, so who’s to say that we can be categorized with a simple one word description? Can we be thought of as a liberal on Monday and, depending on some random experience, suddenly be transformed into a conservative by Wednesday?

But, you say, people DO change their opinions about important topics, so why not give them the label that makes sense at the time? Again I say, because we are complex creatures. No one word can truly and accurately capture every thought, urge, or belief, so why bother?

It’s the same with those among us who call themselves Republicans or Democrats. Really, when it comes to the two major parties, there’s no point in saying that you “are” one or the other. Yes, you can tell people that you are a member of a party, but registering as one or the other should be seen as merely a step you take in order to vote… not as if you’re joining a special fraternity.

Remember, political ideologies change. It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats dominated the Southern states. In the days of desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement, it was primarily Southern Democrats who were in opposition. Decades earlier, the Ku Klux Klan tended to build its ranks with people who were more aligned with the Democratic party. And, after all, it was a Republican who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, encouraged to do so by liberal Northerners from his own party.

But that was then. Today, the South is overwhelmingly Republican, and not because all the Democrats moved away. Nope, it’s the same people with the same views. They just switched parties after a Democrat in the White House signed some documents and told them they had to start treating everybody as equals.

You know what’s funny? Those Southern Republicans like to say they are from the party of Lincoln, the same guy who freed the slaves. I doubt that Abe would recognize his party today.

I wonder what label Lincoln would give himself.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald July 7, 2016.)

Don’t call it political correctness

manners

If you’ve ever watched the Disney classic animated film “Bambi”, you certainly remember the title character’s friend Thumper, the young rabbit who laughed at the newborn deer’s first, unsteady attempts at walking. He was quickly shushed by his mother, who reminded him of his father’s lesson on manners: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all”.

Pretty good advice, don’t you think?

As I was growing up, my father taught me a lot about manners. Not so much with the direct instructions that Thumper received from his father, but more from the way he acted toward others. By watching him I learned that you should hold doors to allow others to pass through, to be willing to provide a helping hand if someone is struggling with packages, and to treat others with a level of politeness and respect that you would want in return.

These gentlemanly arts, and many others, shouldn’t be viewed as extraordinary. On the contrary, they should be as commonplace and automatic as saying, “Bless you” when someone sneezes.

My father wasn’t perfect. He had his share of bad days. But he did his best. Same with me, and I can take pride in knowing that it really doesn’t take much effort to be nice. Or does it? Anymore, it seems like such common courtesies are a thing of the past.

Before you think I’m too nostalgic, longing for a simpler time… it’s much more than that. I’m not naive enough to suggest that everything was better in the past. To do so is to ignore both a history filled with disappointments as well as the improvements that have come with the passing of time. The last thing I’d want to do is turn back the clock. But that’s my viewpoint.

In recent years, I’ve been hearing more and more talk about how some people would like to reverse a few of society’s trends. They seem to feel that changes have been imposed on them, changes that somehow subtract from their personal enjoyment. Actually, that kind of floral language is a bit too gentle. What people are really doing is complaining, a lot, that they’re losing their rights. And that, to me, makes no sense. Unless…what they are losing is their “right” to be selfish. That may sound harsh, but let’s take a look at one of the most common complaints expressed by the grumpy crowd: the growing hatred of political correctness.

In my lifetime, government has provided a few mandates that have improved so many lives. There’s the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia ruling, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and many more. Each of these actions were designed to end hardships faced by many Americans, though not without controversy. Each of these advancements continues to be challenged by those who seek to revert back to a time before these fairness laws existed. It’s as if they feel that life was better when people were free to prevent others from enjoying the same rights and privileges, that the only way they could rediscover happiness is to be able to deny the same to someone else.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You think I’m being mean. But hear me out.

We’re experiencing a wave of discontent right now. People are lashing out. Some of them are goaded along by politicians, or newspaper columnists, or like-minded people on radio and television. The common phrase we are hearing now is, “I’m tired of being politically correct.”

They think that government and society have gone too far; that they’ve lost something because others have gained. But look deeper. What they’re really saying is, “I’m tired of being nice. I want to say what I want and do what I want whenever I want and if that hurts someone else… I just don’t care.”

They want to fly their rebel flags, use offensive slang terms to attack someone else’s race or religion, to stand in the way of someone else’s happiness… and they want to do so without being told that they’re wrong.

It used to be that these people were cast off by society as troublemakers. We used to see rejection of such abusiveness. Today however, those thoughts and actions are embraced, even encouraged. We’re seeing politicians for the highest office in the land taking advantage of this growing discontentedness. Even some faith leaders are joining in.

Is this the kind of country we want? Where hatred and discrimination are allowed to take control? Maybe you would say “yes”. Maybe you think that we’ve gone too far to be nice to each other, that we need to reverse the trend.. But I think otherwise. I think we can do even better.

And I think my dad with agree with me.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald April 6, 2016.)

If it quacks like a duck

white-duck

As I wrapped up this column, the early results of the March 1st Super Tuesday primary/caucus states were coming in. While it’s still way too early to say that any one candidate has it in the bag, it’s also very clear that Donald Trump continues to hold a commanding lead in the battle for the Republican nomination. Think about that: a man primarily known for product huckstering and reality television is actually being considered as a contender for the position of Commander in Chief of the most powerful military known to mankind. That right there should be enough to keep you up nights clutching your security blanket.

Over the course — so far, that is — of his run for the presidency, Mr. Trump has relied on little more than his brash persona to rise to the position of frontrunner. He consistently outperforms his rivals in public opinion polls, a fact he gleefully shares with every open microphone. In the debates, he has used a combination of insult, innuendo, and interruption to further dominate the field.

Trump has used his time in the spotlight to attack not just his opponents, but also members of the media, Hispanics, Muslims, the disabled, and puppies. (Okay, he hasn’t attacked puppies yet, but the campaign isn’t over.)

Okay, fine. That’s his style. Trump likes to get in your face, to put you on the defensive from the start. If it takes a personal attack, he’ll go there in order to gain the upper hand. Maybe that works in the most cutthroat aspects of the business world, but is that what we should expect from the leader of the free world?

Sadly, Trump’s style is rubbing off on his opponents. They’re peppering their own speeches with insults and crass one-liners. People who want to be taken seriously in the race for the highest office in the land are reduced to making jokes about the size of their opponent’s… hands. What’s next… “Your mama’s so fat”?

We expect to hear candidates taking the low road when talking about the opposing party. But these frenzied attacks within the Republican party are absolutely juvenile.

I find it hard to believe that clear-thinking members of the Republican party want a man like Trump as their nominee. And yet, many do. Maybe you’re one of them. And that’s your right. You can and should vote for the person you think is right for the job.

But be sure you know what that vote means. You see, when you vote for a candidate, you’re endorsing everything they say. Everything. Oh, sure. You may not agree with every comment, every position, every fiery insult. But when you plant a political sign in your yard or slap a sticker on the back of your car, you are saying that you are 100% behind that candidate… no matter what. Even if that candidate can’t bring himself to immediately and unequivocally reject the Ku Klux Klan. But that’s exactly the type of person who is leading the way for the Republican nomination.

How does the GOP expect to be seen as a party that welcomes people of all races and faiths, yet the head of the pack fumbles something so easy as disavowing the Klan? Maybe Trump’s not a bigot. Maybe he’s just willing to accept support from anyone no matter how despicable.

Republicans like to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. I never voted for Reagan; I disagreed with many (but not all) of his policy stances. But I thought he was a good man, loyal to his party yet pragmatic enough to know that sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want. Ronald Reagan would never have stood for the shenanigans we’ve seen in this campaign. You never heard Reagan insult and ridicule his opponents on the debate stage. You never saw Reagan mocking others for their disabilities. And you absolutely did not see Ronald Reagan hesitate to condemn those individuals and groups who espouse bigotry and hatred.

In fact, when the KKK publicly endorsed him in 1984, he wasted no time in slapping them aside:

 

”Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.

”The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood.”

 

But that was over three decades in the past. Ronald Reagan probably couldn’t get elected in today’s Republican party.

In this election, support whoever you wish. Just remember that the sign in your yard, the bumper sticker on your truck, the name printed on your ballcap… tells people a lot about you as well. Choose carefully.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald March 3, 2016.)