The Boxing Match

                Last Sunday the twitter world woke up to a new tweet from our President. In this round of his twitter-wars he took on CNN. In an altered video clip he beats up a person whose head has been covered by a CNN type logo. As with most modern world leaders, President Trump utilizes Twitter to communicate directly with the public. While other leaders use Twitter to put out positive messages of congratulations or the occasional note of sympathy for sufferers, President Trump uses his posts to engage in very public conflict; primarily with news organizations and individuals that have the temerity to criticize him or some aspect of his policy. Instead of appearing as a powerful leader President Trump comes across as mean-spirited, vindictive, and petty. He displays a crude, sophomoric type of humor common to bullies of all ages. He uses Twitter to attack his enemies. The problem with all this is; he incorrectly identifies his enemies.

                Based on his public pronouncements, President Trump believes news organizations are his primary enemies. He chafes under their criticism. He has yet to learn that as president public criticism will be his constant companion; no matter what he does or says. Action or inaction it does not matter, someone will compose an article taking him to task. Every president since George Washington endured public attacks, some brutal and unwarranted, some earned. Those presidents who develop a thick skin and ignore most of them, only responding when absolutely necessary, fare well. Those who remain easily offended incur repeated assaults. President Trump has chosen to respond almost daily to perceived insults or slights issued by mainstream media. He speaks of them contemptuously, engaging in frequent vitriolic broadsides. In his opinion the press is the enemy. In this he is very mistaken. The press is not the enemy. Do not misunderstand me, President Trump, indeed all American citizens, faces enemies. There are forces arrayed against us that daily work to secure our destruction. They are legion.

                Ignorance is President Trump’s enemy; indeed our enemy. Ignorance crouches behind every bush and in the shadows seeking to drag us down. Ignorance shackles us to nonexistent fears. It deludes us into believing in a Technicolor celluloid past; one where we lived in our own places enjoying a fictitious unity. Ignorance denies reality, decrying a need for action or urging an overreaction to some ill-defined threat. Ignorance convinces us that a bogeyman lurks just around the corner, causing us to miss the real threat standing next to us. But ignorance is not the only enemy we face.

                Prejudice actively seeks to undermine our republic. Ever since the directors of the Dutch East India Company instructed Peter Stuyvesant to cease discriminating against Jews, Muslims, and immigrants of other nationalities and religions we’ve embraced the concept of freedom and toleration in our country.¹ This does not mean that we do not struggle with this concept. Indeed, we fought a war that almost destroyed our nation over this issue, the Civil War. But prejudice will destroy us since it leads us to judge unfairly, to categorize, and to discriminate. Prejudice is a tenacious enemy that every generation must fight anew. Still there are other enemies out there.

                Greed and its extreme sibling avarice the twins that generate in the human heart a grasping churlishness toward or fellow man will destroy us. Greed leads us to amass fortunes at the expense of our neighbor. Monetary success is not an evil unto itself. Yet, when we allow monetary success to consume us, causing us to look askance at our fellow citizens in need denying them assistance, our

nation stumbles. Left unchecked greed morphs into avarice, which knows no bounds. Greed and avarice move us to view precious natural resources as things to be exploited, not a trust to steward and husband, ensuring the long-term health of our nation. Greed and avarice teach us that our fellow citizens do not matter unless they materially add to our bottom line. Left unchecked, greed will consume us a surely as locusts devour standing grain. Greed and avarice father yet another enemy, poverty.

                Poverty shackles over forty-three million of our fellow citizen, some 13.5%, in grim circumstances. ² Our government defines poverty as two adults and two children living on a combined income of $ 24,339.³ Poverty carves a chasm between those of us who have and those of us who have not. For many this chasm, carved largely by our own intransigence, remains a fixed and impassable barrier. They may gaze across and dream; but, no bridge exists and those of us on the far side, living in relative luxury, do precious little to help them escape their pitiable lot. Ultimately poverty will destroy our republic and Western-Civilization from within. Those living under the grinding heel of poverty face a future filled with pain, suffering, and uncertainty. Often they stagger from one chaotic situation to the next, barely able to keep body and soul together. And while it is true that some live in poverty due to poor personal choices, that fact does not relieve us of the responsibility to reach out and help, through as many means as possible, our fellow man. In its preamble our own Constitution lays this burden on us, “…promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”⁴ To deny this responsibility, is to be dishonest with ourselves and our fellow citizens. But, there is yet one more enemy I’d like to point out, dishonesty.

                Dishonesty, in all its forms, eats away at the core of our nation. Falsehood erodes trust. Prevarication destroys our ability to work with each other. Those who dissemble only seek to avoid a painful truth. In some cases truth hurts; usually our pride. I hate to admit to my students when I’ve made a mistake. But, in order to set a good example, to be worthy of claiming the profession of teacher, I must own up to my mistakes, willingly admit them, and then take corrective action.

Ironically, they know when I’ve made a mistake. They are smart and observant. Admission of guilt only clears the air and helps us move on to the next event with alacrity. For us to make progress we must fight this enemy and require our leaders to not only be honest, but also work against all forms of deceit. Until we elevate our national discourse we will not enjoy true success in any venue. Dishonest remains one of the most tenacious of enemies. It is imperative that we address this enemy since the existence of dishonesty feeds all other enemies and allows us to deny their existence.

                If President Trump ever wants to rise above reality TV star, demagogue status, and assume the mantle of world leader, he must battle our true enemies, ignorance, prejudice, greed, poverty, and dishonesty. He must discard his penchant for using bully tactics against his detractors. Those tactics will never succeed. He has no true lever to move them. They will remain after he is out of office.

And, truth be told, when he engages in such puerile behavior he fans the flames of criticism. His only real defense is to engage the enemies of our nation. Battle them Sir. You will still receive criticism, but at least then some of your critics will be silenced by your success. As for the rest of us, we must turn our attention to our real enemies. The enemy is not the person on the other side of the aisle who embraces a different view-point. In fact, if we learn to listen we might find that not only do they share our desires for a successful nation; they may have some good ideas as well. Ultimately, we will all have to fight the real enemy and the longer we tarry, the harder the climb, the more difficult the road will be.

                As always, please leave a comment, like, or share. Any feedback will help me improve as a writer and as a thinker.

1. http://www.ricburns.com/film/new-york-a-documentary-film

2. https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty.html  

3. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html 

4. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript  

The Nefarious Poor

                Well, the Republican Party has shown the nation where they stand. After long years of

criticizing and carping about the Affordable Care Act, they revealed their plan this last week. Cobbled together very rapidly in closed door meetings, without input from outside sources, this bill reveals a certain darkness in the American psyche. Sadly, this is not limited to members of Congress. Fundamentally we despise the poor and consider them fundamentally flawed. We’ve adopted an attitude common in Elizabethan and Edwardian England, as well as the gilded age in America. We do not care for those less well off, those recent waves of prosperity have left stranded on sandbars of poverty, those unable to crawl up the beech to the higher ground of affluence. More than that, we assume that being poor indicates some level of moral failure on the part of the impoverished. We have ours and we do not want to share any of it with the nefarious poor. In fact, given half a chance we’ll gladly take what little they have. In recent years we’ve adopted the attitude that somehow poverty and need indicate some level of criminal misbehavior.

                I suppose all of us blessed with some measure of financial success have always harbored suspicion regarding the poor. After all, we enjoy our fiscal success due solely to our innate intelligence and wise decision making. We arrived at our exalted status through our own hard work, overcoming every obstacle through tenacity and grit. We never needed, or accepted, a helping hand in any form. Bereft of family and friends, our determination brought us the life we enjoy. Those who endure poverty do so by their own choice. Sometime in the 1980’s we started questioning the efficacy and legitimacy of helping the poor. In the early 1990’s we embraced the document Contract With America as a blue-print for governmental reform. A foundational assumption of the document was that efforts to help the poor had degraded their morality and helping them only encouraged continued illicit behavior. This type of thinking reinforced and strengthened remains prevalent in many circles today.

                We see the homeless or beggars and assume, without questioning, that they arrived at their state due to inherent laziness, poor decision making, or some manner of criminal activity. Influenced by the long reach of Puritan thought, we ascribe material blessing to God’s approval and material want to some fashion of divine censure. After all, in a land of plenty such as ours, any anyone can achieve material success with only minor effort. Bring up this subject in a break-room or foyer and we will gladly trot out stories of people living in relative luxury, driving late-model cars, all on the largess of food-stamps (a program that no longer exists, being replaced by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), long-term welfare, and the generous handouts collected in the hot summer sun near a Walmart exit or overpass. Another popular chestnut centers on a minority mother who subsists on welfare collected for children she produced in a revolving door fashion. We incorrectly associate moral failure with poverty. Good and upright people go to work, earn a living, and enjoy the fruits of their labor in peace and quiet. There are several mistaken assumptions that lead us to these erroneous conclusions.

                Incorrect Assumption Number One: those who receive governmental assistance do not work. We assume that those who receive governmental assistance spend their days lounging around, binge watching their favorite shows on sixty-plus inch LED TVs. ¹ Due to a decrease in full-time work opportunities, especially for those with minimal education, an ever growing percentage of wage-earners must cobble together multiple part-time jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet. In most places a full-time minimum-wage job will not lift a family of four out of poverty and pay the bills. Additionally, part-time work does not include the benefits of health insurance, a retirement plan, advancement, or vacation. The average American wants to and is willing to work. In recent decades many companies, especially those in the ever increasing service sector, have shifted their work from full-time to part-time in order to reduce the amount of money paid in wages and benefits. This long-term shift in the working environment, aided by the demise of unions, has generated a growing class of working poor. This group of workers, living on the margins, often find themselves thrust unexpectedly into poverty.

After all, since SNAP and welfare are so generous they simply do not want to work. They’d rather sit around and collect checks; years of governmental largess having destroyed their ambition. In truth, in over half of the households receiving SNAP, or other monetary assistance, people participate in the labor market.

                Incorrect Assumption Number Two: those receiving governmental assistance do so for long periods of time and as part of an overall employment strategy.  An unexpected problem, such as sickness or loss of a job, often thrusts a family into poverty and homelessness. While participation rates and times vary by program, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of SNAP participants received benefits for between thirty-seven and forty-eight months.² In fact most programs employ a variety of strategies to move participants off program and into self-sufficiency. Those of us living in the middle and upper class enjoy a variety of ways to deal with the unexpected problems of modern life. We purchase new or newer cars. We set aside funds to maintain them. We enjoy jobs that pay a variety of benefits. A close friend recently struggled through a period of sickness. They enjoyed a good full-time job with benefits. Their benefits not only paid for a majority of the treatment, but also ensured that they had a job once they recovered. While this period challenged them, they were able to focus on treatment, knowing that their job remained secure. In fact, their supervisor allowed them to ease back into working full-time by scheduling them half-time for two weeks and then allowing them to assume a full workload. A part time worker would not enjoy such coverage and flexibility. A sick child or parent requiring constant care may result in the loss of employment for the care-giver. The problem need not be medical in nature. A mechanical failure in transportation may very well drive a family into dire straits. Employers easily replace part-time workers. Most job application and interview processes inquire about reliable transportation. Transportation failure is cause for dismissal. These or any other of a number of seemingly innocuous problems may push a family into a deficiency requiring governmental aid. Most of those receiving such aid do so temporarily. The situation is dealt with or the time allowed for aid runs out. Either way, they move off the well-fare roles.

                Incorrect Assumption Number Three: those receiving aid or assistance are involved in criminal behaviors of one kind or another.  In recent years we’ve embraced means testing, mandatory drug testing, and “work-fare” as acceptable strategies for reducing and policing well-fare roles. In some way I suppose means testing is valid. In a world of constrained resources we do not want to waste or fritter away monies recklessly. But why do we assume that those who need help engage in nefarious behaviors at a greater rate than the rest of the population? From all reputable accounts drug testing costs far more to implement than we ever save.³ It turns out that in most places ⁴ We expend much more in the way of public funds for congressmen and other governmental officials and never ask them to provide a sample of their bodily fluids. As someone who participated in and ran my command’s portion of the Army drug-testing program, I often wondered at the implied message I sent to my soldiers when I handed them a bottle and required a sample in return. I’ve also endured the embarrassment of being watched while I produced a sample and having to watch others do the same. In defense of the Army program, we were trying to eradicate a drug culture that sprang up during the chaotic post-Vietnam years. We effectively beat back that particular problem, creating an environment that is largely drug free. In the case of the military, and certain other professions which involve public trust, drug-testing may be a viable course of action. But why do we make recipients of public assistance prove that they are drug free? What gives us the right to subject them to that particular indignity? When considered against the relative waste implementing such programs entail, these measures seem particularly mean spirited and designed to demean, not save. So what are we to do?

those receiving public assistance use drugs at a far lower rate than the population as a whole.

                This rather short essay cannot hope to even fully define the problem. But, it does point out that in recent years we have adopted a rather negative and churlish view of those in need. Any real effort to help those in need starts with an attempt to understand their story, how they got to the point of need in the first place. And to do that, we must see them as people; men and women who for various reasons need help and assistance. Of course poor life decisions may have generated this need. But more often than not, the circumstances regarding birth and education propel people into needy circumstances. And we would all do well to keep in mind the assistance we’ve required and enjoyed over the years. Very few of us enjoy success entirely on our own. Many people, perhaps into the hundreds, provided us help of one kind or another. For most of us the mere happenstance of our birth, something we cannot influence, guarantees a good start. Born into families which encourage and nourish, we thrive. Our families know and understand the importance of education and ensure that we attend school. We live in zip-codes which have decent schools; schools with adequate funding, good programs, and that attract and retain high quality teachers. Our neighborhoods enjoyed low crime-rates and salubrious surroundings. Our parents pursued careers which enabled them to provide excellent health-care when we needed it. All of these things we did nothing to obtain. And for the vast majority of those who inhabit state supported assistance rolls, these things remain a dream out of reach. So we should cultivate the ability to see those requiring assistance with a more sympathetic heart, one that remembers the truth of the old saw, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

     As always, please leave a comment, and if you like, share. Thanks.

1. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2015/wh-120815     

2. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

3. https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d

4. http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/