Only a Force of Light Can Defeat Trump

These have been dark years for America.  A very personal yet social alienation and hatred has attached itself to a large percentage of the body politic, both on the right and the left.  While America had witnessed an increasing lack of political civility during the Obama years because of the intransigence of Republicans, with the nomination and election of Donald Trump the situation has morphed into a deep dysfunction which threatens our democracy.

Trump is the very essence of darkness.  Many have called him a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it is much worse than that.  Not only does he have a lack of empathy, no genuine interest in others, and exploits people.  Not only does he have pathological personality traits such as grandiosity, arrogance, and haughtiness.  Not only does he require constant admiration and loyalty.  He is the master of hatred; of appealing to the basest instincts of people; of leading people away from their humanity.  He foments division and violence for his own personal gain.  Nothing that he does is in the public interest; it is all about him.

And as has happened in other countries in the past, people are attracted to this larger than life personality, to his grandiosity, to his smashing of political and social conventions.  This happened in Europe in the 20s and 30s when countries were hit by the aftermath of WWI; economies and people were down.  And although the economy may be booming here, at least in terms of the stock market and corporate profits, the middle class, the majority of Americans, has been hurting for decades and they feel, rightly so, ignored.  America is full of forgotten people.  And so they are ripe for Trump’s manipulation.

What makes this national experience even worse is that this hatred from the right has brought forth a corresponding hatred from the left, or as they are called now, progressives.  And so we have two warring tribes in America.  Even within the Democratic Party, the warring tribe of progressives threatens to sink any nominee who  does not reflect its positions.

It is a spiritual truth that only a force of light can defeat darkness.  If one looked at the Democratic debate before the New Hampshire primary and the recent debate in South Carolina, while there were no forces of darkness there (contrary to many Republican pundits, Senator Sanders is not the left’s Trump; he may be very angry but he is not darkness), most of the candidates were filled to a greater or lesser extent with this reactive hatred or hostility to the Republican right.

There is only one existing candidate who has consistently been a source of light.  Who is a voice of reason, of unity.  Who while passionate does not let his emotions get the better of him.  Who has the political and philosophical desire and wherewithal to lower the rhetoric and heal America.  To find that commonality that Americans used to feel, even if of a different mind.  To save us from a self-inflicted destruction.

That one source of light is Pete Buttigieg.  He may not be the perfect candidate.  He does not have a stirring voice.  He is young and lacks a certain gravitas.  And yet out of all the candidates, he is the right person for this time.  And I think that with more exposure, he will only get more effective and people across a broad political spectrum will be attracted to his message. The numbers aren’t there now, but he can beat Trump.

Roger Stone’s Sentencing Smile

There was a very disturbing and creepy photo in the paper today of Roger Stone, his wife, and another woman in his party arriving at the courthouse for his sentencing.  They are all smiling!  Like they were going to a party.

And why were they smiling?  Because they knew that one way or another, he will not serve any time because his friend, Donald Trump, will commute his sentence if he is not retried and found to be innocent.  Trump has made that very clear.

So the judge’s tongue lashing was all for naught.  It taught him nothing.  He didn’t even listen.

That is the state that this president has brought our criminal justice system to.

Understanding Equality/Inequality

According to a recent article in The New Yorker, there is a great deal of difficulty and confusion with the concept of equality, both as to whether people are inherently equal and how they should be treated.  This post attempts to supply some clarity.

First there’s the question of whether, indeed, all men are created equal, as it states in the Declaration of Independence.  The author cites polls that show that a large number of Americans believe that statement to be false.  The author believes in the inherent equality of all people but can’t put his finger on where that assessment comes from.  He doesn’t find any of the philosophical answers satisfying.  And religious-based answers run up against the problem of how unequally people are treated in life, the worst example being the holocaust.

The answer to this first question is spiritual, not religious or philosophical.  The mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths, as well as Buddhism and Hinduism, teach that we are all born with the divine/Buddha essence inside us, that we are therefore inherently good.  This is what it means to be human.  It does not matter whether one is born into a rich family or a poor one, whether one is born with beauty or disfigured, whether one is born with an intact brain or with brain malfunctions.  So while in one sense, we are obviously not born equally, in a deeper sense we are all born equals.  Not only are we born equals spiritually, we all have this spiritual equality in us until the day we die.  Unless we forsake our humanity and turn to evil, to the devil for support.

The problem is what happens to us once we are born.  From the moment we leave our mother’s womb, we are beset by an environment which is often hostile, sometimes friendly, but one which virtually never provides the infant with the nurturing that he needs.  No matter how committed the parent, it is almost impossible not to fall short, so great are the needs of the child.  We all experience trauma in our formative years, the only question is its severity.  This creates an insecurity which only grows with time and life experiences.  It is this that forms our ego-mind, with its emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments.  It is this that causes our suffering.

The other thing that happens to us once we are born, is that we are all treated differently.  Whatever innate talent a child has … and all children, even those who have malfunctioning brains, have some innate talent … is either left to lie fallow and rot, is supported and burnished to a high luster, or something in between.  There is no shortage of people who are inherently beautiful or smart but because they were repeatedly called ugly or dumb by their parents have assumed that self-perspective.

And so the differences/inequality that we were born with or born into morph exponentially into a population characterized by extreme inequality on many measures.  The concept of equality, even deep equality, seems a farce to many.

The second question is how do you treat people who are so different.  Even Donald Trump is quoted in the article as supporting the concept that the law applies to all equally.  But that is an easy answer,  The harder question regarding the law is whether it should take into account the fact that we are different, unequal, and even why we are the way we are.  In order to be truly egalitarian, must the law be applied, or written, to account for this difference/inequality?

That gets to the meaning of egalitarian.  As is often the case, it means different things to different people.  But to me, dealing with each person equally is not egalitarian; that just reinforces inequality.  Egalitarianism must take into account our factual inequality.  Egalitarian refers to equality of opportunity, how each person is dealt with.  For example, equal opportunity in education.  To me this means that because children in poor inner city areas come to school so deficient in skills compared to children in more affluent neighborhoods, school funding provided by the state must account for this inequality; poor schools must be given far greater funding and talent.  What the child does with this opportunity is his or her responsibility, but the state has then met its responsibility to provide true equal opportunity.

This is just one example, but the same thought process applies in all areas.  The Declaration of Independence says that “to secure these Rights, governments are instituted.”  It is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … not their attainment … that is the responsibility of government.  Government, through laws and regulations, must provide the structure that provides equal opportunity.  The actualization of that opportunity is the responsibility of the individual.

But lets say that having provided everyone with true equal opportunity, some people fail through no “fault" of their own.  For example, some people will fall into homelessness because of the loss of a job.  A definition: “fault” is something one has control over; if there is no real control, there can be no blame, no fault.  Depending on the situation, one may need to accept responsibility, but not guilt.  

Because we all have traumas which impact how we respond to the opportunities presented to us, that leave us without the free will to act in our best interests … we are virtually programmed by our past … these trauma create situations and reactions for which we are not at fault, and so government has the responsibility to provide us again with equal opportunity.

Bottom line, we are indeed all created equal spiritually.  The world or genetics may have done a number on us, but we still deserve to be treated as human beings.  As for how we should be treated, egalitarianism requires that we be treated differently in consideration of our status in life so that we all end up with true equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  That is the responsibility of the state.  What we make of that opportunity is our responsibility.

Sanders Voters for Trump?

I am aware that polls show that a majority of Sanders supporters will not commit to supporting whoever ends up the with Democratic nomination.  I’m aware of the intense feelings and anger, then and continuing today, at the way Sanders was treated in 2016 by the Democratic establishment.  I am aware of the stupidity of Hilary Clinton’s recent statements criticizing Sanders on various points.

However, I was shocked to read the following today:

“Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whomever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump.”

I have never even heard rumors of this nature, let alone seen these numbers.  Although this data were from a column I respect, I checked and found that NPR and various news outlets have reported the same findings, based on the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.  Roughly 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

Obviously a Sanders supporter would not have voted for Trump because they believed he was the best choice.  He is against everything Sanders stands for, except his objection to NAFTA and similar free trade agreements.  But the data shows that was not a factor.  That only leaves one with one rationale:  These Sanders supporters voted for Trump out of spite to deny Hilary the presidency!

Forget about whatever Hilary or the Democratic establishment did during the 2016 primaries that was ill-advised or downright anti-Sanders.  I could see them sitting out the election; that would be harmful enough.  But that any significant number of Sanders supporters would be so spiteful that they would vote to put our country in the hands of someone like Trump truly boggles the mind.

From what I read, Sanders supporters are just as angry and vicious as ever.  Will a significant number do the same in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?  It is a scary thought but one which realistically one has to consider a possibility, especially with Hillary continuing to make ill-advised remarks.  

This does not mean I would vote for Sanders in the primary even if I thought he could beat Trump.  Because I don’t like his anger and I don’t like the absolutism of his ideology.  Anyone who is that sure of himself is dangerous.  

But if he were the nominee, I would certainly vote for him.  That wouldn’t even be a question.  If Sanders does not win the nomination, he needs to speak to his supporters loud and clear, and not only urge them but instruct them to vote for the nominee.  That their being responsible for another 4 years of Trump would be a sin that they could never atone for, a ticket to hell.

Existential Inequality - To Abide in Peace or Not

There has been much focus on the glaring income inequality in the U.S.  On the immorality of some people having so much, more than they could ever possibly make use of, while so many people have so little, not being able to make ends meet, homeless, even while working, while many others barely keep their heads above water.

Clearly, income inequality has a huge impact on the lives that people are able to live.  The extent of creature comfort and financial security they are able to obtain.  The education their children are able to get.  And the list goes on.

But does income inequality impact whether a person experiences peace and happiness in his or her life?   The answer is no.  Acquiring material things, while they may satisfy ego needs and desires and make you feel good, does not in practice equate with peace and happiness.  Nor does the lack of material security equate with the lack of peace and happiness.  Ask any psychologist or therapist, watch bio-documentaries, and you will find this is true.  

This seems counter-intuitive.  Certainly if you live in poverty, how can you have peace and happiness?

Before going any further, we must first define peace.  Peace is the absence of fear, anxiety, hatred, guilt, shame, doubt and confusion … or better put, it’s not the absence of these emotions but not being controlled by them. It’s also being free of an intense desire for things you don’t have or to be someone other than you are.

Without question, most people who live in poverty do not have such peace.  But then most people of affluence also don’t have such peace.

The answer to this riddle is the following.  The only way to achieve peace and happiness is through a spiritual practice that frees you from the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments of the ego-mind.  Whether rich or poor, the only people who experience true peace and happiness are the ones who have rediscovered their true selves and freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind.

“So?” the reader may ask.  Since there is nothing more important to the human soul than experiencing peace and happiness, the greatest inequality in our country, and in the world, is between those people who have achieved a spiritual practice that provides freedom from the control of their ego-mind, or who have made progress in that direction, and those who are bereft of a spiritual life and are subject to the control of their ego-mind and thus to the whims and vagaries of our culture and their immediate surroundings.  It is more damaging to suffer psychically than materially.

What happens when you free yourself from the control of your ego-mind?  

1. When your buttons are pushed, you will have no emotional reaction.  You will be aware, but you will not react.  
2. You will know that you have everything inside you that you need to be at peace and happy and allow nothing to disturb that peace and happiness; you need nothing outside of yourself.  You will undoubtedly desire other things, whether its someone special in your life or material things, but those are all icing on the cake; their absence or presence does not impact your peace and happiness.  You will not attach to them.
3. You will know that all you need to be at peace and happy is to offer yourself and others joy, respect your mind, respect your body, be in touch with nature, and live within your means.  And if you have loved ones and friends, to be in contact with them.
4. You will know that you will be ok, safe, regardless what life throws your way because you have returned home to your true self, free of your ego-mind.
5. You will as a result experience true freedom, the ability to do what is in your true best interest.  What your ego-mind tells you to do, and thus what you want to do, is not in your best interest because it is captive to all your anger, fear, and doubt, to your learned experience, to your conditioning.  (See my post, “Freedom - What Does It Mean,” on www.thepracticalbuddhist.com.)

I know of no surveys that assess who has a spiritual life and who does not.  Certainly, questions commonly asked about religious practice are not a marker for having a spiritual life.    Many people “believe” in God or in Jesus Christ, even feel they have a “personal” relationship with Christ, but nevertheless do not lead their lives as God or Christ would have them do, even if they are orthodox and follow all the prescribed rituals.  For their relationship with themselves and the world around them is controlled by their ego-mind, not by their divine essence.

Just looking around me at what I see happening both in my immediate surroundings and in the broader world, it is safe to say that the number of people who have freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind is relatively small.  And as long as that continues to be the case, we will live in a world primarily characterized by its dysfunction, whether within the family, the workplace, or the broader world.

Those people who follow a spiritual path, and those traditions that support the teaching of our God/Buddha essence and the purity of our natural state, thus need to expose more people to this teaching.  Not by proselytizing but by making their teaching/beliefs on this subject known so that people who are suffering have the opportunity to say, “I think there may be something here,” and take the step to begin their own inquiry into their true self, their soul.

Why Do People Put Up With Our Economic System?

Income inequality in the United States is well documented.  Looking at the top 1% of the population … whether it’s high-flying corporate CEOs or tech billionaires or financial gurus or even the top worker bees … the disparity between their incomes and the average worker in their firms is staggering.  That people live in poverty, not having enough food on the table or living in substandard housing, while the super rich bank their millions and billions is unconscionable.  

You cannot but help ask yourself that if the system is so unequal, if it is so broken, why do people put up with the system.  Why is there no major protest, either on the streets or at the ballot box?  For clarification, the Tea Party or Trump middle-class supporters, are not protesting the economic system, they are protesting the role of government.  And the progressives who are protesting the system have not attained the critical mass to bring about change; they are still a splinter group.

The answer is that while the income inequality is huge, a large proportion of the population is doing ok; the system works for them at least to some extent.  In 2018, the top 15% of households made $150,000 or more; the top 42% made $75,000 or more.  That means that 40% of the population have a decent standard of living unless they’re living in New York City or San Francisco.

The people who are really impacted by income inequality are those for whom the system just doesn’t work - the 50% of households who make less than $50,000.  And it doesn’t work for them not just because they don’t have enough money to afford what most consider essentials, let alone live as they would like. 

But the added indignity is that the system constantly clobbers them psychologically.  Indeed, it clobbers almost everyone who isn’t in that top 1%.  Why?  Because most people in our society are all about ego.  They identify themselves in comparison to what society and the media tells them the good life is, what people who have “it” do, how people who are successful live.

And most people, certainly not those with household incomes under $50,000, but not even those with incomes of $150,000, are not able to live the life that is posited before them as their goal by our media.  They cannot have the housing, the education, the food, the travel, the clothing … none of the accoutrements of those that are held up as models of success. 

Our society cultivates us to always want more.  That’s what keeps the wheels of consumerism spinning and the economy growing.

That results in most people feeling frustrated, disappointed with their lives.  Whether you’re homeless, working poor, middle class, or lower upper class, people want more and are dissatisfied with their current state.  Indeed, the more they have the more they want.

Why isn’t that a cause for revolt?   Ironically, regardless how frustrated people are, even those who have been beaten down by the system, most still believe in the system; they see themselves as somehow being at fault, or perhaps the government, but not the system, and indeed they want to use the system to get ahead.  That is why rather than disdaining people with money, those are their idols.  That’s who they want to be.

And so instead of people either having a choice to fight to change the system or accept their lot in life and be happy, people in our society mostly have no choice.  They are trapped by the golden handcuffs they wish they had, and so they suffer.  How sad.

Trump’s Iran Folly

While Trump’s careless action in ordering the murder of General Suleimani was not an impeachable offense, it is certainly yet one more example of why he is unfit for the office of President  and why he is a danger to our country.

The issue here is why did Trump order this targeting killing?  Why now?  Suleimani has been an easy target to find and the military has offered his killing as an action option to Presidents on numerous occasions as far back as President George W. Bush.  Most recently, they presented this as an option to Trump after the rocket attack near Kirkuk killed an American contractor.

No President has accepted that offer because the risks of killing someone that high in the Iranian hierarchy were great.  There would likely be further loss of American and allied lives from retaliatory action, and, perhaps most importantly, it wouldn’t change the situation on the ground at all.  

Secretary of State Pompeo called it a definitive action.  It was anything but.  When a high official is taken out, he is just replaced by someone else.  It doesn’t slow or halt the battle, other than momentarily.  On the other hand, it presents a situation which the Ayatollah must respond to with appropriate force and violence, otherwise he will be seen as weak and ineffective to his people and subordinates.

It’s was bound to also be counterproductive in several other important ways.  Years of American sanctions have weakened the Iranian economy and that has driven a wedge between the people and the government.  People are restless and have been protesting.  With one action, Trump has united all Iranians behind the Ayatollah, much like all Americans were united after 9/11.

It was also bound to be counterproductive because by violating Iraqi sovereignty, he not only angered Shiite Iraqis but all Iraqis.  And likely lead the Shiites to push to expel U.S. troops from Iraq.  Which is exactly what has just happened in the Iraqi parliament.  Our departure from Iraq would be both a major foreign policy failure and leave Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds feeling unprotected from the Shiite majority.

So why did Trump order his killing?  Because he sat stewing as he watched scenes of Iraqis assaulting the U.S. Embassy compound after the U.S. counter-attack on Iranian-backed militias.  And I’m sure he heard how Iran thought he was weak since he had previously backed down from using force against Iran (apparently because Tucker Carlson told him it would upset his base since he had promised to uninvolve the U.S. in the mideast).

So out of personal pique, not careful policy analysis, Trump ordered the strike.  Not an unusual action for him.

There is another issue here.  Is the targeted killing of a high official, such as General Suleimani, a political assassination or an acceptable combat decision?  Political assassination of foreign officials is prohibited by Executive Order.  In response to Senator Sanders’ characterizing it as an assassination, Mike Bloomberg said that was ridiculous.  

Obviously killing the Ayatollah would be a political assassination.  So where and how do you draw the line?  I would say given Suleimani’s actions over many years, and his status in the hierarchy, this was not a combat decision but a political assassination.  Indeed, John Bolton praised the attack as the first step in bringing about regime change in Iran.

Congress should act quickly and decisively to prevent Trump from leading us into a war with Iraq.