Colorado's Transgender Theocracy

 

Unbelievably and horribly, the state of Colorado seems poised to enact some draconian laws based on the bizarre pseudo religion of transgenderism. The bills, which are moving through the legislature and will probably be signed by their governor, call for children to be removed from the care of parents who mis-gender, dead-name (call children by their given name), and or don't affirm the choice of a child to transition away from the sex they were born with. Additionally, there is a call to establish Colorado as a trans sanctuary state, where any trans-motivated child who ran away to the Centennial State would not be returned to any non transition affirming parents in other states.

While the state of Colorado does have legitimate power to follow any moral or religious course it wants to, at least under the First Amendment as it was intended to be used (how about we do that with other issues?), the course it seems to be pursuing is extreme, theocratic tending, high handed, openly hostile to other states, and quite simply dangerously wrong.

For those who object that transgenderism is not a religious movement, consider this. It operates like a religion, basing its principles on mere belief and not empirically demonstrable data. No trans gene has been identified. It insists that people believe it without having persuaded them, and it works to silence any contrary beliefs. Sounds pretty religious to an unbiased observer. The deep flaws in Colorado's thinking can be seen if we consider how wrong it would be if other states, using different religious assumptions, followed a similar course.

For instance, what if neighboring Oklahoma adopted a similarly aggressive policy of Christian evangelism. First of all, they, and many affiliated Christian organizations, could recruit and train teachers to infiltrate public schools, in Oklahoma, Colorado, and other states. Then, under the guise of teaching about the world's religions, those teachers could slyly persuade young children to be baptized without parental knowledge or approval. It is documented that trans activists do this in many public schools, sometimes with school board sanction.

Trans activist teachers do so based on the assertion that the kids are really already trans, and they are just helping them to become who they really are. Christians can take a similar stance, because it is a sincerely held Christian belief that each of us is predestined to have or not have faith. So by slyly proselytizing the young for Christ, a Christian activist can sincerely see themselves doing the Lord's work. Just like a trans activist who proselytizes for transgenderism.

Then, if the parents don't approve of the conversion, perhaps laws should be passed to remove children from the care of non believing parents. Just like the Colorado laws (and the laws of some other states) propose to do.

On top of that, once converted, the children can be easily enabled (via phone, email, social media) to maintain contact with the evangelistic team. Then, even if they live in another state, transportation can be arranged to get the child to Oklahoma, where there would be a sanctuary in place for believing children of non believing parents. So the runaway young believer does not have to go back to the non believing household.

Everything about the just presented scenario is honestly and directly analogous to what is being done with transgenderism in Colorado. Obviously, acting in that way would be a horrible attack on families and culture. Any Christian, whether as an individual or as a church, should not behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. But neither should those who believe in the religion of transgenderism.

In this time of great moral and social upheaval, we, as a nation would find a lot of solutions by returning to an honest use of our constitutional system of government. For one thing, that would take all the issues of sexual identity out of federal hands, because such issues are not even mentioned in the Constitution, so where, with the 10^th Amendment as a guide, do we find any federal authority to legislate in such matters? Those powers are not delegated to the feds, so they should stay in the hands of the states.

Even then, as discussed about the proposed laws in Colorado, we should hesitate to try to impose our moral beliefs on the folks in other states. Even if we do allow various religious and moral systems to be established in the states, we should not go the way of imposing unwanted beliefs on those who disagree, or on the residents of other states.

That was the mistake the Supreme Court made in the Dred Scott decision, mandating that free states could no longer forbid slavery from operating in their states, and it led directly to the Civil War. Colorado's Governor Polis should consider that, and the other issues mention here, before he vetoes the very ill advised transgender laws that are probably soon coming to his desk.

Respect or Consideration

 

There was recently a well publicized case where one high school student stabbed another student to death in Frisco, TX. The stabber let it be known that the victim had “dis-respected” him, and therefore, in the stabber's mind, the victim had it coming. The sickening tragedy of this case sheds light on a much deeper problem afflicting our culture, which can be boiled down to love versus pride.

Pride is a mind set the world encourages us to have. We are told to be proud of our nation, our state, our sports teams, our community, and above all ourselves. With pride in our hearts, the next thing is to demand respect, the kind of respect that confirms our pride in ourselves. Then anyone who disrespects us must be forced to pay the price; to in some way acknowledge that our pride is justified.

Love, on the other hand, (at least the kind of love the bible defines) is something that is not focused on ourselves, but is instead focused on uplifting others. With love, at least in Christ, our own identity is grounded in God, so we can give of ourselves to others. Instead of demanding respect from others, or even just respecting those we consider deserve it, we can love even those we don't respect. In that perspective, the opposite of respect is the long neglected virtue of consideration. Actually considering the status and situation of the other person.

Jesus gave an unexpected response along these lines when the lawyer (Luke 10:29) asked him (as a way to dodge the obligation to love his neighbor) “Who is my neighbor?” It is clear the man was looking for ways to eliminate people who did not qualify to be loved, people he did not have to respect.

Jesus ignored the baiting question, and instead told the parable of the good Samaritan, which ended with him asking, “Who was a neighbor to the victim?” The obvious answer is that it was the good Samaritan, the one who showed loving consideration to the victim. With that parable Jesus flipped the script, revealing that, at least for those who claim to follow God, it is not a question of how we can rationalize our selfish pride, but do we see the wonderful opportunity we have to live out the will of our heavenly Father?

So it seems we must somehow renounce the worldly values, the two sided coin of pride and respect. If we want, that is, to grow out of the ongoing near riot and mayhem our culture is drifting into. We must instead pick up the two sided spiritual coin of love and consideration, and by wielding it effectively, we might slowly bring our culture back to sanity.

One word should be added about the long neglected virtue of consideration. Most folks will agree that we should love one another, and that consideration is part of that. But it must be emphasized that it is not just being sincere about offering loving consideration to others that is key. Consideration becomes truly alive, and a divine tool, when it is done in a thorough, deeply thoughtful and prayerful way. You know, like the deep and intense way we each consider our own needs. When we make that kind of considerate effort toward others, we are truly loving our neighbor as ourselves. Which is not just a good idea, it is the law.

2 B Honestly Constitutional

 

The mind boggling thing about our vicious national division is that people on both sides claim total devotion to our national Constitution, but that nearly unanimous (supposed) devotion has not, so far, led us to national unity. The fact that this nation of 350 million people can be split because we can't agree about what a six page document means is, indeed, mind boggling and hard to understand. In trying to understand it, we are driven to the conclusion that one side, or the other (or likely both) is not reading our founding document in an honest way.

By identifying one or two of the mistakes folks make in their reading of it, we might hope to move toward uniting America. Further, by conducting an honest examination of our misuse of our founding document, we will undoubtedly help educate ourselves, as a people, in how to properly embrace and use the Constitution we all claim to love.

One of the biggest issues we disagree with each other about is the functions and activities of the federal government. Many argue that the federal government has, over the decades, taken (usurped is the word) many of the powers and responsibilities of government from our state and local governments. Things like education, medical care, welfare, elderly care, drug laws, farm policy, and even such sacred cows as national forests and parks don't seem to have any proper constitutional basis to exist as federal agencies.

Folks on that side of the debate will point to the Tenth Amendment, with it's language that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the federal government is limited to engaging in things the Constitution empowers it to engage in. Since those listed issues, and many other powers now exercised by the federal government, were never properly delegated to it (which would require a new constitutional amendment to affect), those programs are unconstitutional. It is assumed in their argument that our Constitution was always intended to give us a limited federal government.

Those on the other side of this argument will bring up what they call the “supremacy clause” which is included in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution. It reads, in the second paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Those folks who are in favor of the federal government involving itself in anything it pleases point to this paragraph and say, “See, there it is, federal law is supreme over state law.” This is one of the misreadings that we set out to identify, so let's take a closer look at their position. Theirs is a two fold misreading of the Constitution, based on ignoring one important word. That word is “Pursuance.”

Let's introduce an analogy to explain. Pretend you are watching an automobile chase scene, cops pursuing robbers, in a movie or real life. When the criminals, hoping to elude capture, take a right turn at an intersection, and then the police cars come along and take a left turn at the same intersection, would you say the police cars are still pursuing the criminals? No, of course not.

The word “pursuance” means going in the same direction, or in the sense of a legal meaning, going in an agreeing direction, or even being in compliance with. In other words, when it is used, in Article VI, the founders intended that it limit the actions of the federal government to those things the Constitution empowered it to be involved in. They intended to found a constitutionally limited republic, which is how we should understand it. What's more, they capitalized those words which they intended to carry precise, and profound meaning, such as Law, and State. This faithful to the original quote shows that they intended “Pursuance” to carry extra weight when we interpret the document.

Those who still want the Constitution to say what it doesn't say will likely continue to gloss over that one word,(it IS slightly difficult to understand) and still argue for an unlimited federal government. They will usually then assert that since Article VI is in the main body, and the Tenth Amendment is merely an amendment, it should take precedence.

They could not be more mistaken. Here I must insert some special knowledge, gained by independent research. Years ago, while investigating the wording of the First Amendment, I was reading through the “Congressional Record” from September of 1789. (Very interesting reading in general: there are found the debates in Congress after Madison introduced the “Bill of Rights“).

I stumbled upon the first reaction to the idea of the Tenth Amendment. One of the members objected that the subject of limiting the federal government was already covered in Article VI, so why was there a need for another such limitation? Others responded that the language in Article VI was too sparse, and that some folks might later misread it, and thus we needed further clarification. That, as subsequent policies proved, was a reasonable concern.

The Tenth Amendment was ultimately adopted, so we know how that debate ended. We also know that the 10^th wasn't intended to contradict Article VI, but rather to clarify it. And the 10^th came later, which would actually give it precedence if there WAS a conflict between the two.

That approach, simply ensuring we take every word seriously, ought to settle much of the division around our Constitution, providing us a way to move froward with it together. Sadly, that is not likely to happen, because the fall back position of those who want a powerful, unlimited federal government is to then assert that the Constitution is a “living document.” By that term they mean that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. So since the Supreme Court has never ruled, at least since 1937, that the Tenth Amendment limits the range of federal powers, then those limitations, although actually written in the document, no longer apply.

This issue, of who interprets the Constitution, has been around since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson. Since that power largely has to fall, in the interest of orderly government, to the Supreme Court, the question becomes how far we should let them drift from the original meaning in their reading of it.

Abraham Lincoln, who had been incensed by the Court's ruling in the Dred Scott decision, said this at his First inauguration, in front of Chief Justice Taney who had written that odious and racist decision.

”The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

With that quote in mind, let's conclude with two key points about how we, the people, should embrace our Constitution, and how that approach might lead us back to unity. While we must usually accept the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court, we should always remember that they can and do get it wrong on occasion.

So first and foremost, we should familiarize ourselves with the Constitution, understanding what it actually means, and then behold how far we have strayed from it (To our great peril). Getting back to an honest use of it will take a great deal of effort, but we should be grateful that somehow, miraculously, such a revival is still within the realm of possibility. With that understanding, and the conviction that we should return to a strict originalist reading as much and as soon as possible, we as a people will be able to put effective pressure on the Court to read it as honestly as possible.

Secondly, for all of us who have to take an oath to the Constitution, from enlisted military personnel, to local and state officials, to presidents, and senators: ask yourself one question. Are you taking an oath to defend the Constitution, or are you taking an oath to defend the Supreme Court? If you want to pretend that they are the same thing, then you should read some more history, from Dred Scott, to Plessey v Ferguson, to as recently as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court has often shown itself to be imperfect. The Supreme Court of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, are not synonymous.

So we must present ourselves with one last proposition. Since we all, as citizens, and as oath taking officials in particular, are actually the first and last line of defense of the Constitution, something almost all of us profess a reverence for; How can we, with any degree of integrity take an oath to defend it if we never even read it and certainly don't understand it. Or worse yet, if we are eager to allow it to be clownishly twisted into incoherence by the dubious doctrine that it is a “living “ document?

In other words, isn't it high time, and way past time, that we once again studied it for ourselves and thereby started overcoming the mediocre education we have been subjected to about it for decades? By doing this we can start using our sincere and mutual love of our Constitution to regain our unity and rebuild our nation. That will undoubtedly work better than what we've been doing, which is throwing it at each other as a meaningless, infuriating insult.

Spiritual Humanism- A New Philosophy

 

This essay is presenting a new philosophy, one that might provide us the means to work our way out of the mind numbing, soul sapping dysfunctional corner that our current philosophy of government has painted us into. This new philosophy is called Spiritual Humanism. It is not, as some might fear, a religious philosophy, but carries the title of “Spiritual” to distinguish it from the “Material Humanism,” that we have now. It employees the term “spiritual” in a secular, or psychological sense, as will be explained in a bit..

While this is a philosophy, for the most part the terms and language of formal philosophy are not going to be used while explaining it. That is because this concept is about the people, all the people, and especially the common people, so it is best if it is presented in language that the common people can understand.

First, we must examine how we got to where we are. The philosopher Karl Marx borrowed from the philosopher Hegel and along with Engels developed what is called the dialectical materialism. This is a way of analyzing the status of the people by looking at the material conditions within which the people exist. Here they used the idea of thesis= stating the way something is, antithesis= stating some other idea of how the thing could be, and out of the resulting conflict developing some new synthesis, some new, and hopefully better, way of doing things. That synthesis then becomes the new thesis in a never ending process of development. The thing is, the only evidence admitted into this dialectical process is material evidence, that is, evidence that can be weighed and measured in the material world. Hence the name, dialectical materialism.

The Marxist thinking that followed has largely swept the world. That mode of thinking, that dialectical materialism, has, since coming into power with the rise of secular humanism, must, for lack of a better term, accurately be called Material Humanism. That is, when thinking about what is good for humanity, what is good for the people, Marx and those adherents who came after him, all focused on the material world which surrounds the people, as individuals and groups. The later adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and actually even Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin Roosevelt. They all used that dialectical process, and confined it to material factors.

FDR is mentioned in this company because the welfare state he brought into being is focused like a laser beam on material factors. America since his time has paid empty lip service to things like freedom and religion. The real benchmark of our civilization, the thing which most of us think marks us as a superior nation, has long been our standard of living. In other words, our material well being.

With Material Humanism, governmental decisions, usually made at the federal level in America, are based almost exclusively on material factors. Following the guidelines of this philosophy, officials concentrate on ensuring the people have enough food, clean water, medical care, housing and clothing to have an adequate life, materially. While these policies do generally satisfy the requirements of Material Humanism, they are inadequate to deal with non material problems.

If any non material issues come up, such as mental illness, they are either dealt with in some material way, such as with some medications or by providing “professional” care, or they are largely ignored. This is just the way it is, because non material problems are difficult to measure, in a material way, and therefore defy the ability of Material Humanism to solve.

More disturbingly, with the officials in power guided by these standards, policies can become inadequate at dealing with real human problems, or they can become worse than inadequate. If the bureaucrats, sitting in front of their computers, and making all the decisions for everyone, think that their only obligation is to make sure everyone receives X amount of food (calories and protein), X amount of heat, clothing, water, and medical care, then the living situation could become bleak, hollow and desperate.

Issues like happiness, freedom, meaning, purpose of life, emotional and cultural well being are easily ignored. Such things can be hard to measure, and therefore, they almost never enter into the deliberations of Material Humanism. What's worse is the way Material Humanism HAS dealt with the non material aspects of culture. It usually comes to the dubious conclusion that such things are merely social constructs.

Things like, family, love of place, religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and other forms of self identity are, according to Material Humanism, merely social constructs. What's more, if such social constructs are interfering with the optimal system of Material Humanism, they can and should be reconstructed, by the elite authorities, to render humanity itself more conducive to efficient management. Thus the true threat of the Marxist so called “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the long hidden real agenda of Material Humanism, becomes clear. Material Humanism allows distant officials to decide what we should feel and think, and then empowers officials to change us, leveraging their control of material resources, according to their designs. We are to be remade and controlled, according to the dictates of distant, anonymous officials, to render us more easily controllable economic units.

Most disturbingly, the flaws of Material Humanism should be considered alongside the growth of centralized government. It is easy to then foresee a central world government using this flawed philosophy to enact its policies. Then we could find ourselves under the thumbs of distant bureaucrats, self satisfied that their work complies with every stricture of Material Humanism, as they administer a system which has essentially brought about slave ship earth.

Spiritual Humanism is a philosophy of government which might enable us to get out of this trap. It was first inspired by the writings of Simone Weil 1909-1943, a French philosopher, mystic and activist. In a relatively short passage in her book, “The Need for Roots,” she explored the spiritual aspects of work, bemoaning the alienated nature of modern work. She even mentioned that Marx touched on this subject, but that that part of his thinking got ignored by those who rule in his name.

She started by looking at the system of apprenticeship French chefs had been put through in olden times, what was called the Toure de France. In that system, the young cook would go to some various restaurants in other parts of France, working at each one for a year or two. After some years, the now accomplished chef would return to their hometown, to either work in an established restaurant, or start one of their own.

The now somewhat older culinary master would know how to set the business up, how to make a menu, and all that. Also, they would know how to make arrangements with local farmers to provide the basic ingredients for the food.

Additionally, and the most pertinent part for our purpose, they would see the importance of their work. They would see themselves as a vital, needed and appreciated contributor to the local community. In other words, they came to see meaning, purpose and fulfillment in their work, and in their place in the human community. Work then became not an alienated drudgery, as it is in most of our lives today, but rather an engaging and joyful part of their holistic lives. The spiritual aspects of work were enhanced and appreciated.

On reading this passage thirty or more years ago, this writer was immediately struck by the idea that her use of “spiritual, a use that means something more akin to feeling, or sense, than it does to anything religious, could be expanded to encompass all of human existence. Thus the idea of “Spiritual Humanism” was born, and left to simmer for decades.

Spiritual Humanism is first of all another school of Humanism; therefore it will always focus, by definition, on the greatest good, for the greatest number, of humans. It shares that basis with Material Humanism, but way the two diverge with respect to the natural world reveals how great the difference is. Environmental decay is of no concern to Material Humanism, unless such decay threatens the immediate material well being of humans. Spiritual Humanism does not, however, share that contemptuous attitude toward nature. That is because having a sense, or feeling, of being connected with nature is one of the tenets of Spiritual Humanism.

In fact, our sense or feelings about almost everything (our attitude or spirit about them) is the core tenet of Spiritual Humanism. With it we can take into account all the feelings, sensibilities, attitudes and spirits of all aspects of our lives. Instead of focusing on a never ending dialectical materialism, it will always ask, “How do the people actually feel about something, do they have a good sense of it, what spirit, or attitude is in the people about it?”

It asks; do people feel connected with each other? Do they feel a sense of material well being?(this can cover everything contained within Material Humanism) Do the people feel connected with nature? Do the people have a sense of connectedness with their work? Do they see their work as worthwhile, and their lives as being full of purpose and meaning?

Most important, it would ask the questions of: Do the people have a sense of self determination, as individuals and as a community? Do the individuals feel that their ideas, dreams, aspirations and concerns are really being taken into consideration by authorities and officials? Finally, (for this moment, because the list of subjects to which Spiritual Humanism will apply is inexhaustible), it would ask; Do the individuals in the system feel a sense, a spirit, of their own autonomy, their own agency, of being in control of their own lives?

When we start putting together governmental structures to carry out this philosophy, it will necessarily change our entire structure of government. If policies are to be based on how the people, as individuals, actually feel about things, then there has to be a way to determine what those feelings are. Simply launching more government studies, which is what the bureaucrats in Washington DC will likely propose, would never generate the kind of honest and in depth knowledge Spiritual Humanism would need.

The better way to attain that kind of information, to discern what goes on inside the head and heart of millions of people, is to simply ask them. Let their voices be encouraged and heard in the deliberations of government.

This highlights the key difference between Material Humanism, and Spiritual Humanism. With Material Humanism, people are seen primarily as economic beings, with both their oppression and liberation conceived as economic in nature. Thus material, economic analysis is all that is needed. With Spiritual Humanism, people are seen primarily as communicative beings, with communication (or lack of it) being the greatest factor in their oppression, and open communication being the key to their liberation.

When we take the philosophy of Spiritual Humanism seriously, and determine that the voices of all the people must be heard in the deliberations of government, we are driven by simple logic to turn to a form of government which will place almost all those deliberations in local or community governments. It is irrefutably true that the only way to engage the hearts and minds of the people in their own governance is to have their lives lived within vibrant communities. What's more, the only way to generate the kind of community spirit that will make that system work is if the local communities have real powers of self government.

Then the little people, the citizens in their communities, can feel that vital connection to their own self governance. Then all aspects of a thoroughgoing Spiritual Humanism can be brought into play, building a society which actually delivers the greatest good, for the greatest number, of all people.

There is no immediate suggestions for how we can bring this about. This is just an initial assertion of a new philosophical perspective, and should be received as such. It is left to others, or to all of us together, to determine how best to give political embodiment to this philosophy.

Time for Revolution

 

With the election of Donald Trump to his second term, many of us conservative, Constitution loving Americans are tempted to think we have finally won the day. We have but to sit back and let Trump and his administration, and the Republican dominated legislature, fix what ails our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because while Trump's election has given us a reprieve, our national decline is so extreme, and been going on so long, that what we really need is a revolution.

The dictionary informs us that a revolution is a rotating or turning around some other object, such as a planet has a revolution around the sun. It can also be used in regard to a machine cycling around, such as a car's engine can run at some revolutions per minute. That same sense of the word applies to political revolutions; it merely means a turning, from one government to another. It can be a turning from the entire system of government and attaining a new one, or it can be simply exchanging one leader for another, a non violent revolution.

Even with that harmless sounding definition, the idea of having a revolution is still very frightening. That fear of revolution is easy to understand because so many times of violence and war, calling themselves revolutions, have totally failed to turn their societies in a better direction. This has happened in so many nations that they are too numerous to list here. They generally call themselves revolutions, but are in reality just one local dictator, or war lord, overthrowing and replacing an older dictator.

Some of the larger, and more well known of these kinds of revolutions were the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution under Mao, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. What all of those revolutions have in common is that they began in a time of great crisis, and because of that chaotic birth, never developed the kind of social dynamic which marks successful revolutions. They were born in times of great social and material upheaval, and consequently when the people turned away from the existing order they had to make that change while chaos and disorder prevailed. The foundations of a new order, chosen in such conditions, proved to not be stable and enduring.

The American Revolution had a different genesis. While it undoubtedly started with a war for independence from Great Britain, the leaders who launched it were not under immediate physical threat when they did so.

Even in 1776 they could take the time to consider the best way to form together as a nation. Later, after the War of Independence was over, they could take even more time, although they did have to move with deliberate haste, to put a truly workable system of self government together.

Thus was our constitutionally limited democratic republic born, out of a time of orderly revolution. Since the Founders could take time to incorporate many lessons from history in their plan, it has proven much more durable than other revolutions.

So as we think about revolution, it is good to note that revolutions which start for ideological reasons, in times of relative peace, tend to last longer and have better effect, than revolutions that start in rushed chaos, with a need to patch something together quickly. The rule of thumb seems to be that crisis driven revolutions are bad, and ideologically driven revolutions are good.

With that in mind, we should proceed with our revolution, because we are not in a time of immediate crisis. Things aren't coming down around our ears, and if we do conduct a successful revolution, there won't be a crisis. We simply have to ensure it is the good kind of revolution, the ideological kind.

Now we can come up with a new definition for revolution, or at least a new technique with which to conduct a good revolution. Basically, it should consist of taking a long, honest look at history; Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it: Figure out what we did right, and do more of it, and then carry on. By carrying on is meant that these deliberations have to go from just the merely ideological to actually being implemented in the real world.

The most important thing about having a discussion to separate the good from the bad in our history is that it has to be both honest and thorough. Take, for instance, how we must address that most difficult of subjects: “racism.” If we allow a superficial opinion to dominate, we will never come to a good result. The quick, easy and wrong opinion would be to say that racism is something really bad that White people do. The solution, if we adopt that view, is to squelch and discriminate against White people.

That will never work, because it is not the truth. The truth is that racism permeates all of humanity, and has been manifested in every group in this nation. While it is true that it manifested as a worse problem among White people, it wasn't exclusively their problem, so curing that disease can't focus solely on that one group. Rather, the problem of racism should be dealt with like a contagious disease, and attacked with equal honest fervor wherever it manifests.

That then is an example of the kind of thinking our new American revolution must employee if it is to be successful. It has to be, and can be, a thorough and honest long term conversation about what kind of nation we want to be.

Some might scoff and say that if we don't have a time of a real shoot em up, violent war, it isn't a revolution. Think about it though. If we can arrive at that time of an open hearted, honest dialogue, would that not accomplish a true turning in another direction of our society, even if we got there without a lot of people dying.

On the other hand, if we did have some kind of major bloody struggle, and never actually got to that time of honest dialogue, would it really turn us in another direction? Would it not probably just install some even more corrupt regime on us, and we continue on the same down ward path. Needless to say, we would have to continue with even more death, maiming, resentment, and hate.

In a lot of ways, we should realize that this is just calling us back to being true Americans. Our revolution merely commenced with the Declaration of Independence, with its call for liberty and justice for all, and for governments to have the consent of the governed. Those were undoubtedly revolutionary sentiments, but our revolution actually got fired up later, in 1787. At that time our Founding Fathers got together to formulate our constitutional government. Admittedly, some of them were rich enough to be considered potential oligarchs, as some accuse them of, but they were oligarchs with a difference. The difference was that this particular group of oligarchs knew that their necks were on the line. If they didn't formulate a government that was strong and stable enough to endure, the British were very likely to return and gather back up their empire, one state at a time. The Founders would then have undoubtedly been hung for their troubles. What's more, this particular set of oligarchs also knew that any government they devised would have to gain the acceptance of the people. The American people at the time were the most astute and politically engaged people on Earth. So the Founders knew they had to do a good job.

Therefore, they started our Republic on a revolutionary basis, looking at the long sweep of world history, as they could see it, and incorporating what had worked well in the past, and rejecting what had not worked well. Truly revolutionary thinking.

Then, the American Revolution really got started, once the people as a whole began to wrestle with the concepts of self government. Not only did we decide to end the scourge of slavery withing our first ninety years, but we ended property requirements for voting, established schools and universities, and accomplished many other revolutionary goals. In fact, while we have lost much of that early revolutionary zeal, it is still with us, and needs merely to be infused with new life.

The next American revolution, the one we must initiate now, also promises to be a years, if not decades, long process. Let it be. It is long past time that the people, the citizens of this nation, reclaimed their revolutionary zeal, and started to engage in the revolutionary debates that this nation, indeed this whole planet, so desperately needs.

Say No to Jingoistic Herdability

 

There is a human malady, newly come to light. This one is worse than Nazism, Communism, racism, religious bigotry, wokeism, lynch mobs, or any other examples of group hysteria. This malady is a deeper problem than those because it is the one that enables all those other problems. The malady in question is our human propensity to be herd-able, our willingness, indeed eagerness, to allow ourselves to be herded around. I recently came to realize the importance of this problem during a discussion with a friend at a local coffee spot. During the same encounter it became clear how much of a role jingos play in enabling this human herding.

Before relating the incident at the coffee spot, let's take a closer look at jingos, and the jingoism that has long affected our thinking. There is nothing new or old fashioned about jingos, but the name has been changed over the years to protect the crafty. These days of the internet we call them memes, or the slightly older terms, T-shirt sayings, or bumper stickers, or sound bite logic. Political slogans of all stripes fit this description. Jingos. They are pithy little phrases which are used as a kind of shorthand, to sum up a position, to let other people know where we stand. They can be used for or against any particular cause.

In olden times jingos like “manifest destiny” or “that's progress” were a couple of favorites. “Fifty four forty or fight” was used to insist on American territorial expansion, while “free soil”, “peculiar institution” and “states rights” were used around the time of the American Civil War. Many dog whistle code words are also jingos. Of course, a thorough look at jingos would include some racist phrases, such as Sheridan's “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” or phrases more common folks used like, “I don't mind colored folks, it's N-words I can't stand.” All were jingos in older times, and all used, in their times, to keep folks in easily controlled herds. Consider how effectively folks could be kept in line by hinting that they were “N-word lovers.” That jingo usually ended any discussion and ended many germinal friendships between Black and White.

Which brings us to the discussion I had at coffee the other day. I mentioned a recent New York Times article which asserted that President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship might have a leg to stand on in court. This had surprised me, since it came from the normally left leaning (anti Trump) New York Times. I mentioned it because I favor such a ban, although I can see the case against it has merit. My conversation partner said that the proposed ban was wrong because, “it is in the Constitution.” I responded to her that it wasn't so cut and dried as all that and started going in to the particulars of the article.

She responded, not with anything substantive about the Constitution or birthright citizenship, but with a string of anti American jingos.

“Well, we didn't let Natives be citizens. We held Japanese Americans in internment camps,” and such like remarks. Courageously fighting long ago battles. All delivered with an attitude of you have to accept what I am saying or I am on the verge of losing all hope in the country, and it will be your fault if I do.

Instead of being a dialogue, I realized these jingos were being used to herd me, to silence my thinking and make me stay in line. It was the end of the discussion, as she “had” to leave, but I felt, as I often do in such cases, defrauded. I wanted to ask her if she was saying, as she was implying, that the United States of America does not have a legitimate right to exist. I see that implied in her remarks, and the jingos she used to deflect the conversation. The idea seems to be (and I hear it implied a lot) that we really shouldn't control immigration because we really shouldn't even be a nation.

There are a slew of similar negative-toward-America jingos around these days, and they are often used to keep the herd together. Jingos like “White supremacy,” or “Misogyny” or “capitalism is evil, or “stolen land.” On the other hand, there are more positive sounding jingos in use today, such as “inclusive,” or “tolerant,” which are also used to end discussions and either reject the other person, or keep those on one side in line.

On the conservative side, the jingos start with the word MAGA, Make America Great Again, with the addendum being the assertion this is “the greatest country ever” and that those who complain should just “buck up, and get jobs.” Once again, these, and similar jingos serve to cut short any real discussion, to keep the herd (or at least one side of it) in line, and to reject those on the other side.

This is all very disturbing to me personally, because I have seen, and been the victim of, the herd mentality gone bad. My first experience with it was in the second grade, playing four square, a playground game played at recess. The first time it happened, I must admit I was in the wrong, kind of.

We were playing the game, taking turns. I saw that some of the kids were cheating (popular kids it turned out) and getting away with it. I got into the game and hit it slightly out of bounds. Since I had seen others arguing their way back into the game, I tried it, firmly standing my cheating ground. Before I knew what had happened, I was surrounded by the rest of the kids pointing at me and chanting, “the majority rules you're out.” Their jingo. So I retreated to the back of the line.

However, on subsequent days, when I would enter the daily game, every time there was a close call, (I was never again in the wrong) the same group, led by the same chubby girl, would surround me and herd me out of the game with the same chant. I realize, in retrospect, that they must have felt so good in doing that. It must have felt so powerful acting as a mob, with that same chubby girl leading the way each time, that those moments became more important than the game itself. I got to where I found something else to do at recess.

I ran into the same mob mentality in the sixth grade, at a different school. In the middle of the first semester, a new kid came into the class, which was a magnet class for gifted students. His name was Doug, and I got along fine with him. One day, one of the popular kids (it is always them, isn't it?), who must have been in a conflict with Doug, was asked if he would fight him. He answered, “No, I ain't going to fight no N-word.”

This shocked me, because even though Doug was slightly dark skinned, I didn't realize until that moment he was African American. Without thinking about it, I let the popular kid know that he shouldn't have that attitude. Doug withdrew from the class just a day or two later, undoubtedly due to racist harassment. I ended up being the enemy of the cool kids for the rest of the year, who would chase me around the school yard, and ostracized me from their company. They also influenced (herded) the rest of my classmates to do the same. I then had almost no one to talk to, except for a couple of nice girls.

This essay is not, however, about me. Don't cry for me Argentina, especially over long resolved childhood trauma. Rather it is about the propensity of us humans to use half thought out ideas, communicated via catchy jingos, to allow ourselves to be herded so easily. Especially because that herd instinct can so easily morph into a mob mentality.

That is what went so wrong with the Nazis, and with Mao's Red Guards. We saw it in operation during the BLM Summer of Love, where mobs felt emboldened to harass and humiliate strangers on the basis of their race, all in the name of ending racism. The wilding and larceny gangs have to be included in this herding gone wrong problem as well. Black Lives Matter is, in fact, another jingo used in the way they all are, to herd humans, reject the other, and possibly justify violence. The same could be said, with less accuracy, about the January 6 rioters with their chants of “stop the steal.” In those, and many other instances, (lynch mobs, etc) normal people can feel a great empowerment in a mob. Especially with agreed upon jingos dancing in their heads.

I think about my friend in the recent coffee conversation. She was on fire to win the battle of the Cherokee “trail of tears,” now that it is safely in the past. But at the time, when Davey Crockett spoke out against the illegal actions of President Andrew Jackson, I wonder if she would have spoken up. The folks back in Tennessee, his constituents, voted him out of congress for his straying from the herd in that way. His last words to them were, “Y'all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas.”

Similarly, when Abraham Lincoln spoke out (with his “Spot” speech) against the Mexican American War, a war which many today see as unjust, he got voted out of congress in 1836. Not many normal people, obedient members of their herd, approved of his truth telling.

Keeping us in tightly controlled herds is not, however, the work of the elites who would rule us. Even though they probably facilitate the herding by using their media power to open the window about what is acceptable to use in our jingos. It is called the “Overton Window”, and it is a highly controlled opening in what is acceptable public dialogue. But the herding is done by us, in our little gatherings, ostracizing, ignoring, huffing the oddball off.. Making it to where only certain opinions can be viced if one is to be admitted into polite company.

This phenomenon goes across all peoples, groups, nations and times. Almost all nations can be defined by whatever consensual delusion (jingos) they agree on, and herd themselves with. Their Overton windows, and their local jingos. God save the Queen, Deutchland uber alles, Viva la France, Viva Mexico, God bless America. Our king, our land, our culture. This thinking reigns over the entire planet.

It is not that this social cohesion is all bad, but that it is easily misused to keep us in tidy, obedient herds. What we must always keep in mind is that it is all always on the verge of mob rule and riot.

The antidote is not to just hate Nazis, or racists, or Wokeism. Rather the antidote is to look to our own souls, and minds. The antidote is to make ourselves, as individuals, not herd-able. To no longer accept the soft oppression of silencing, of ostracism, of ourselves or others; to not allow the popular kids, or influential adults, to set the agenda, and subtly ensure no other point of view is voiced in our groups.

In other words, the way to avoid this malady is to become truly human. To work toward building a truly humane, reason based society,. We must nurture up, educate for and develop the strength to stand alone as individuals. To stand for the truth as we see it, and not allow any thing other than a stronger, deeper truth, arrived at through open debate and discussion, to change out stance. Certainly don't allow the social ostracism of some fools who refuse to even look at the truth, who hide behind half thinking jingoism, to in any way dissuade you from seeking it. Not in school, not at the coffee group, not at church, or work, or at a political rally. Be willing to stand alone for the truth, as you see it, regardless of the latest jingo. If you don't do that, then realize that you will probably, eventually, find yourself swept up in some new form of Nazi like mob rule.

William Seward in Black History

 

When the name William Seward is mentioned, most people remember him as the guy who bought Alaska from the Russians. If they know a little more history they also know that he was Secretary of State in the Lincoln administration. While those two achievements give him historical significance, they come far short of a full accounting of the man. With a more full understanding of his life, William Seward emerges as one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever known. What's more, it is entirely appropriate to recall his life during Black History Month, because as a national leader, he arguably accomplished more than any other leader to uplift Black people.

To start to get a feel for the man, let us hearken back to March of 1846. A free Black man, one William Freeman, recently released from five years in prison after it was learned he was wrongly convicted, went on an insane rampage, murdering an entire family in Seward's hometown of Auburn, New York. There was no doubt as to the man's guilt in this case, and the prisoner barely made it past the lynch mob to jail.

In court, no lawyer was willing to take the case, probably since the citizens of Auburn let it be known they would kill any who dared. In the courtroom, when the judge asked if any would defend him, William Seward, a practicing attorney (by then a former governor of the state, not yet elected to the senate), stepped forward to volunteer his services. At great personal and career risk and against the advice of political allies, William Seward chose to defend the obviously guilty Mr. Freeman on the basis of his insanity.

He lost the case, but in making it he gave a rousing defense of the humanity of Black people, and argued that if the defendant was White, the jury would would have found him insane and committed him to life in a mental institution. In many ways, therefore, William Seward actually lived out, in 1846, the heroic roles portrayed in the movies “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and “A Time to Kill.” Such courage and compassion should never be forgotten.

Even earlier in his life, his wife and he, while not in favor of slavery, decided, in his typically open minded and congenial way, to go down South and see things for themselves. Barely into Virginia in their southbound carriage, they encountered a group of slave boys being driven to market, chained and naked. The sight so repulsed both Mr. and Mrs. Seward that they immediately turned around and never again visited the South. They were passionate abolitionists from that day forward.

When elected to the Senate, Senator Seward was the leading voice for abolition and lifting the Black, or what was called at the time, the Negro population. This earned him the undying hatred of slave owners. Once, in the heat of battle leading to the Civil War, some Southern Senator, letting the false mask of civility slip, used the N-word in a speech in the Senate. Senator Seward, in his response, let it be known that no one would ever be president who spells “Negro with two g's.” Statements like that, and he made many in favor of freedom for Negros, did not win him any friends in the South.

By 1860, with the North turning away from slavery, and the Republican Party uniting around the issue of abolition, it was assumed that the greatest advocate of emancipation, William Seward, would be the nominee. No one, however, had reckoned on the political acumen of the obscure country lawyer from Illinois, so Abraham Lincoln won the nomination for President.

Although undoubtedly disappointed, William Seward bore the loss well, and in his typical noble manner, campaigned vigorously for Lincoln, and for the cause of emancipation. After the Republicans won, Senator Seward was anticipating completing his term in the Senate and retiring to his home in Auburn. It was not to be though, because Abraham Lincoln was not only a canny politician, he was a truly wise leader.

Seward was expecting a pro forma invitation from Lincoln to join the administration, and it was expected he would, in similar pro forma fashion, turn down the offer. But Lincoln sent a second letter with the pro forma one, and its sincerity and wisdom convinced Seward to accept the appointment as Secretary of State. It was probably the best decision either man ever made, as it brought together two of the greatest minds in the country, at the very moment the nation was in its greatest need of wisdom..

Even before Lincoln's inauguration, then still Senator Seward proved his mettle by helping to thwart a Confederate plot to take over Washington just before the inauguration and thereby win the war without a shot being fired. Edwin Stanton, also later in Lincoln's cabinet, was in Buchanan's cabinet, privy to the treasonous conversations going on in the Oval office, and secretly relaying that information to Senator Seward. Seward's actions helped preserve the Union before the war even started. Once again, he acted, at great personal risk, with courage and diplomacy.

From day one of his administration, Lincoln and Seward had a close and trusting working relationship, going so far as Lincoln allowing Seward to modify the language his inaugural address. Their on going collaboration was vital in fulfilling the goal of keeping the border states in the Union.

What's more, Seward had previously traveled extensively in Europe, with his strong abolitionist stance opening many doors on the continent. He now effectively used those contacts to help prevent England and France from recognizing the Confederacy. The Europeans staying neutral in the war deprived the Confederacy of a vital source of revenue, and was one of the main reasons the Union won the war.

The night Lincoln was assassinated, another member of the team of assassins tried to kill William Seward and his son. He used a knife and stabbed the Secretary repeatedly in the face. The only reason it did not kill him was that he had recently suffered a broken jaw in a carriage accident, and had a metal brace on his jaw which deflected the knife from hitting his jugular vein. His son was even more grievously wounded but both men survived the assault.

Sadly, their families did not survive the ordeal. His beloved wife Frances, a fine woman who supported her husband in every issue, died six weeks later. Undoubtedly, her demise was a result of the strain of caring for his wounds, and the stress of the times. His daughter Fannie also died shortly thereafter.

Seward recovered and stayed on as Secretary of State under Andrew Johnson, which is how he was in a positions to arrange and conclude our purchase of Alaska. He died in 1872 at 71 years of age.

Much of the information in this essay was gleaned from reading “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin (the book can't be recommended highly enough). On the cover of that book is a posed photo of Lincoln and his cabinet, with Lincoln and Seward seated and facing toward each other. After reading the book, one is struck by the idea that arguably the greater man in that photo is William Seward. Admittedly, both men had failings, but both men were undoubtedly great leaders of a righteous cause.

The question becomes, “Why isn't he already highly remembered?” The answer is that history has a way of being written by the winners, and the survivors. In the chaos of war and reconstruction, and the national grief at President Lincoln's death, a lot of Seward's deeds have been forgotten. What's more, virtually none of his family survived the tumultuous times to keep his memory alive.

So it is time that we remember him, today. Additionally, even though he and this author are both White, it is totally fitting for his life to be remembered during Black History Month, because William Seward deserves as much or more credit for preserving the Union and ending slavery as anyone, including Abraham Lincoln. He had a huge effect on Black history. He was not only one of the greatest Americans ever born, he was one of the greatest humans. Such inspiring figures should never be lost to history.

On a related note, let me add. A lot of White folks don't much like Black History Month, with their yearly refrain being “Why don't we have White history month?”

I rather enjoy learning of Black leaders and exceptional figures from the past. I had never heard of folks like Roberts Smalls, or Harriet Tubman before Black History Month began, and I am better for learning of their heroic lives and courageous contributions. Rather than ending this yearly history lesson, maybe it can be transformed to include more truly great people, like William Seward, from all quarters of our national history. I know Native American leaders like Crazy Horse should also be remembered, as should Ceasar Chavez, and other exemplary leaders of various ethnic groups, Whites included.

Maybe instead of Black History month, or focusing any other particular group, let us transition to a never ending history minute every day that reminds us of great figures from our collective past. This will be a way of reminding us of who we are, where we came from and how we got here. Further, such remembrance might even inspire us to consider what kind of future we want to build together.