Discernment is Unacceptable in Authoritarianism

Sadly, the so-called "culture war" has invaded my neighborhood. The events of recent months - and especially recent weeks - haven't divided us, they're only magnified why we're divided. 

It comes down to acceptance of The Big Lies. By definition, authoritarianism works when a large enough number of followers knowingly accepts the lies of the leader and then disbelieves all others. So when an authoritarian leader, immediately following the November election, declares to his followers that they cannot trust the Vice President, the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, dozens of Republican-appointed judges, Republican governors and secretaries of state -- and those are just the Republicans! -- an insurrection can be both shocking and unsurprising at the same time. 

And that, sadly, is why relationships with family members and friends are now fractured. For weeks I've tried to come to terms with how to interact with neighbors and family members who hold these beliefs: 

1. The former president is deserving of our loyalty. 
2. The election was fraudulent and should be overturned. 
3. The COVID virus is a hoax. 
4. The Capitol insurrection was justified. 

These are just the main beliefs of staunch supporters of the former president. There are more (including the neighbor who "reported" to me that his "news source" said the Capitol incident was fake and that it didn't actually happen). 

Some of these previously friendly people try to claim that they believe in some, but not all, of the Top 4 Big Lies. What I can't come to terms with is that if #1 is a belief, then you're accepting the others. I shake my head at the hypocrisy of on one hand buying into the "virus hoax" narrative and at the same time eagerly awaiting your vaccine so you can travel to your second home. 

So I'll keep praying (because I'm also a Christian and I also happen to vote) that we'll return to our sensibilities and that actual Republicans will ultimately prevail. 

Digital literacy for older adults is a two-edged sword

Apparently the efforts to enlighten older adults can cut both ways. 

Perhaps in reaction to being branded irrelevant and out-of-step, many older adults have received, under the banner of "digital literacy," technical education about using modern technology tools ... which should be a really good thing, right? 

Well, sorta. 

Unfortunately, our educational efforts have focused primarily, if not exclusively, on the tech side of the equation, meaning that throngs of older adults are flocking to an array of online "news" sites. 

Which brings us to the missing element of digital literacy - discernment. As a result, in the excitement of their expanded horizons, many are being fooled by the slick, persuasive "chatter" of self-anointed "analysts" who "tell it like it really is" - except for when it's not. 

On a recent walk in my neighborhood, a kindly gentleman - a long-retired professor- "reported" to me that his favorite news source told him that the Capitol insurrection didn't really happen. Even worse, he and his wife (a former educator) have misinformation inculcated into their belief system. 

Trying to have a rational discussion in that context is a tough test for a journalism undergrad who has studied mass communication and public opinion. I hope that all with greater discernment skills can be patient and helpful in the other crucial element of digital literacy. 

Will the "Good Republicans" come back ... please?

For many years I could count on Republicans to hold true to their tenets of limited government, lower taxes, strong military, and traditional social values. Agree or disagree with individual policies spawned by those principles, at least they were debatable by rational people on both sides. 

Could we please have those Republicans back? 

Look, some of them will need to fall on their swords and admit it was wrong to hand over the party to a single person and turn it into a cult of personality. But ya know what? I'll accept the mea culpa, and we can move on. 

But the definition of "moving on" does not include minimizing the atrocity that occurred at the Capitol. Sorry, but that's just not debatable. Please leave that position to the Extreme Right. 

And hey, Extreme Left, don't think that Portland was a good look for you. It surely wasn't. So as people are held accountable for criminal behaviors in the insurrection, including the failed leader, it would be a good idea to avoid rubbing every Republican's nose in it. Some of them are needed for a successful prosecution in the impeachment trial. 

And by the way, if either the Extreme Left or Extreme Right think we, the Radically Moderate Middle, can put up with more election cycles of extremist voices and ideas, then you've got another thing coming.   

Moderates, having been "failing followers," must now be Radically Moderate

The problem with moderates in America? We’ve been content to allow polarized rhetoric to dominate election cycles and then spend our time grumbling as we try to clean up the mess. 

Here we are, the level-headed 3Ms (mushy middle moderates), holding the cards for a winning hand in the high-stakes game of presidential politics … yet always getting fooled by the bluff of the latest candidate promising, with a wink and a nod, to be a centrist who governs from the middle. 

Here’s the line we’ve fallen for with every candidate since Carter: “Hey, look … I have to say certain things to lock down the base. Then when I get in there, that’s when we’ll really pull it together.” 

In recent times, it just hasn't worked out that way. We moderates wasted valuable time allowing the shrill rhetoric of The Far Left ("Trust us! We're the smart ones!") and the angry rhetoric of The Far Right ("Down with the sissy elitists!") to dominate the political arena. 

I used to think that the ratio of liberal/moderate/conservative thinking was 20/60/20. But to hear the shrill voices of The Left and the angry voices of The Right, it sounds more like 45/10/45. 

Nevertheless, whether it’s our passion void or blind faith in a passive-aggressive strategy, we’re always left with a White House sweepstakes winner that we find wanting. We don’t muster enough strength to place the right candidates in the finals, so for decades we’ve been left with the task of adjusting the rudder, time after time. And as we executed that chore, we grumbled and groaned, sputtered and moaned. 

But we did our course-correcting duty, all the while muttering to ourselves, “Next time, we’ll show ‘em, by golly.” 

Regrettably, adjusting the rudder has shifted to a violent tug of war with each election cycle. The combatants on either end of the political rope are bigger, stronger and more intense now, so moderates, previously accustomed to applying modest tugs on either side of the flag in the middle, now must take longer leaps back and forth and use vicious yanks of the rope in an effort to establish any semblance of equilibrium. 

And the muscle strain is beginning to show, with moderate fatigue setting in. It isn’t that party politics isn’t working; it’s that party politics is working too effectively - against us. Can a third party in the middle - official or unofficial - figure out how to have a real voice in politics? In this generation, the moderate voice is barely audible, and when it's heard, it's condemned. 

We have only ourselves to blame unless we start listening more carefully and responding to reasonable leadership with much more energy and a much higher decibel level.

A Political Prayer Answered: Revisiting a post from 2012

(NOTE: This was posted in 2012.) 

I know someone who prays fervently and equally for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. She prays for them to have and to show strength of leadership. And that’s all. 

Hers isn’t a demanding grocery list style of prayer, asking for a specific outcome. It’s more about asking that leaders be given courage to be authentic. 

In the election season’s first presidential debate, her prayer was answered. Today, the day after the debate, I’m grateful to President Obama and Governor Romney for their comportment, their conduct. For the first time in months – in fact, years – I felt I was regarded seriously as a thinking voter. For 90 minutes, the two leaders expressed their visions and plans free from vitriol that has marred the campaign season until now.

 

To his credit, the President didn’t resort to jabbing at Romney for the “47 percent” sound-bite slip. To his credit, Romney didn’t retreat to Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” fundraiser foulup. Instead, they spent the 90 minutes being specific about policy and accenting their differences. And though Jim Lehrer has been soundly criticized as a moderator, his unusual questioning technique of asking the candidates to describe their differences proved valuable. 

As a result, listeners were able to make a rational comparison of the clear choices in this election. What a refreshing break from social media sound bite madness. 

Look, I’m as guilty as any when it comes to the immediacy and constancy of the new normal in news cycles. So is my daily management of several social media and incessant channel hopping among CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. But for 90 minutes – and only those 90 minutes – I enjoyed the freedom to listen and think. I didn’t bother with the all-too-predictable pre- and post-telecast spin that I usually crave. 

Admittedly I did monitor tweets during the debate, but soon became bored with those, as they were far too silly. So now it’s back to “real life” in the campaign, with a barrage of negativity that I just don’t need. But I really wish the respective campaign teams were not slaves to the digital marketplace of ideas, because the ideas there are largely shallow, self-serving and hate-filled. Instead, I wish the campaigns had the ability to respect us and give us more of the actual discourse we witnessed in the Denver debate. That, to me, would be a political prayer answered. So may it ever be.