This is a bit more serious than my normal blogs, but from time to time, I feel I need to express them. Protests across the region and the nation this past weekend have really got me thinking about where our country’s leadership, and our core values, are going. The “No Kings” movement is rapidly evolving into an effective counterbalance to MAGA, which, while still a force, appears to be seeing its support crumbling around the edges. The world is becoming more complex, and for citizens in a democracy, it goes without saying that the voters and the candidates they choose must be as well. I was listening to an interview recently of a supporter of the current administration. His views and his responses give us an insight to how the president’s supporters think. For example, he stated that cities are becoming ‘safer’ because National Guard-essential soldiers (without training in law enforcement, one might add)-are patrolling the streets. He also feels ‘safer’ because undocumented immigrants are being deported at a rate with no precedent. Again, he believes the message that “undocumented” equals criminal. He thought the economy was doing well, probably because he looked older, perhaps retired, and doesn’t particularly care what’s happening in the workforce, where unemployment is low but climbing. He may or may not care much about climate change, food safety, or medical research, perhaps he may think he won’t live long enough to see the results of cuts in the development of those sectors.
So, what does America want in its leadership? That includes all levels of government – national, state, and local. From my humble perspective, it’s important that we find candidates that are nuanced, multifaceted thinkers. Leaders that seek advisers who can understand and solve complex problems, and are able to develop effective policy strategies that will take an advanced civilization will into the future. Leaders who surround themselves with people that gather important information, read reports, consult experts, and analyze data in forming their views, and then listen to their views. Leaders that move society forward, not backward, and that are willing to serve multiple, complex interests. The interests of the needy, the wealthy, and everyone in between. Yes, they are out there, and it is important that we find them, elect them, and support them.
In this respect, it also takes voters that can understand complex problems and multiple, sometimes “radical” solutions that may be departures from past practice or historical precedent. It takes voters that can understand the past, interpret the present, and imagine the future. We can then ask ourselves why voters support the candidates they do. The perception in the 2000 presidential election, expressed by many, was that George W. Bush was a “regular guy”, I guess in contrast to Al Gore, who was perceived more as an intellectual, perhaps elitist. That same image may have plagued Adlai Stevenson – twice. Do voters look for a personal profile, a candidate’s personality, adherence to certain principles and ideologies? Is a “person of the people” always the best choice? Or a military person? A business leader, who tends to think “top down”? A friendly face is nice, but a depth of understanding is better. And right now, I don’t think we have either.
Americans are a restless collection of voters. We tend to be impatient. I’ve have heard recently the phrase – from people interviewed in voting lines to folks ahead of me at the store, “We need a change. We can’t keep going the way we are.” The teacher in me likes to probe, even though I know I shouldn’t. “What, exactly, would you change?” I ask. That is usually met with a look of confusion. We expect quick, simple fixes to longer term conditions, and when those fixes don’t take immediate effect, we’re climbing into the lifeboats, ready to place blame and jump ship at the ballot box. The political operative that coined the phrase, “Are you better today than you were four years ago?” posed an interesting, and confusing query, because nothing operates on a political cycle. The national economy, so tied to the global one, doesn’t work that way. Congress is still deeply divided, and the House seemed in recent years to be more concerned with distractions than creating positive legislation, and still hasn’t mapped out meaningful immigration policies or streamlined a path to citizenship for the “undocumented” that our workforce can’t replenish and that we so desperately need. Or even agree on a budget has a little something for everyone. And yet, the current administration seems more concerned with deportations, trade tariffs, and what the Smithsonian museums are displaying than in fixing what Americans see as a major concern.
Someone wise once said that with age comes wisdom. For a number of folks, it does, but for an equal number, it also brings fear and a fierce need to protect the past as they remember it. That varies from individual to individual. I was reading a letter to the editor a while back in which the writer extolled the mystique of “individual initiative”. On a purely philosophical level, that sounds great, and to a large extent, I would agree. In reality, some will excel while others merely tread water, and still others will sink without help. Many Americans can’t survive on their own, whether their needs or disabilities are physical, emotional, social, or economic. Removing programs to assist them that some view as “wasteful” and “enabling” can have tragic consequences. We can’t all be captains of industry, because someone has to do the work. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and yes, even the Donald Trump tend to forget that. I’ve learned over the years that we’ll always need people to fill spots in all segments of society, and if a free society is to survive, it needs to value everyone and appreciate what they have to offer.
Here in New England, we had textile mills on just about every major waterway. Up in the northern counties, paper mills abounded. Now, most all are gone, victims of outdated technologies, dwindling raw materials, cheaper production elsewhere, and the electronics revolution. I won’t vote for a leader that tells us that the textile mills are going to make a comeback, any more than I would vote for someone who tells the coal miners of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio that their jobs will too. A leader whose motto is, “drill, baby, drill” while cancelling funding for clean energy and alternative sources for it. I can’t support a candidate that “panders to their base”, or places the needs of one constituency over another. The new leaders of the future will talk about advanced technologies, new jobs with wages, benefits, and incentives that will rebuild the middle class. Those leaders will be talking about ways to address scarcity, like affordable housing, and provide access to health care for everyone. Investments in educational systems that produces thinkers and innovators. They won’t talk about “cutting taxes”, but rather making taxes equitable and proportional. “Tax fighters” will be unmasked as obsessed with moving backward to a golden age of prosperity that, if we’re truly honest, never was. One of the important lessons I’ve learned and carry with me when I enter the voting booth (or mail in my ballot, if that remains permissible) is that there is nothing wrong with making money or building wealth. But making that a primary, obsessive life objective, an end-run around fairness, or that pits people against each other, is a value we don’t need in ourselves, or our leaders.
A “conservative’, often worn as a badge of honor, is by definition, “a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.” Anyone ruled by fear or a desire for absolute conformity of thought is usually on the wrong side of history. Life, and in a democracy, voting, are about choosing what’s can or should be preserved, and what is evolving and needs to be changed. It’s a balance, and we need to know how to make choices that distinguish the two. A wise person, a colleague, used to say that there are three types people, and I’d apply that to voters too: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder “what happened”.
I'm Thinking...No! 