My classmate Kelli Rogers wrote a blog article entitled “What Do You Do When It’s Harder Than You Thought?”  Kelli highlighted many of my concerns about Donald Trump and his admitted perplexity with the role he has assumed as President of the United States.  One can understand that it is hard to know what all would be entailed in fulfilling that role, but Mr. Trump stands out from many other former presidents in the fact that he has been a businessman his whole life rather than having served in public service roles.  There’s a big difference in the role of a businessman, one who makes decisions for the best interest of his company (and himself), versus the leader of a nation, one who is charged with the responsibility of caring for the masses and protecting the nation as a whole.

Kelli raised a valid question:  "Did Mr. Trump just want to win the election, without thinking about what would happen when he actually won?"  His track record of being an aggressive businessman would certainly tip the scale to the “just wanting to win” side.

Kelli stated it well when describing what a president should be:  “someone who should be an inspiring example to American citizens, who carefully decides how laws should be enforced, a person who connects our nation to other nations and makes careful decisions regarding our military while also being an economic and legislative leader.”

The president of the United States has long been a revered position, a position that should be reserved for someone who possesses a unique set of attributes that will be an overall benefit to an entire nation.  For those of us who are dismayed, we do have something to be encouraged by.  As much as Donald Trump’s inflated ego has been a hindrance, it might actually serve us well because it seems that he would prefer to be admired more than criticized, to be hailed rather than hated.  Many, including myself, regard him as a narcissist.  The definition of a narcissist in psychology terms is “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.”  Perhaps in his quest to be admired he will stumble upon ways he can “fix” things in a way that will really help more than just a select few.

Kelli Rogers’ concerns are shared by many.  One thing we can all be grateful for is our system of checks and balances.  There’s a reason why the United States has three separate branches of our government.  Our nation is not in the hands of one person.  Therefore, hope springs eternal.

Gerrymandering Reform

It’s hard to believe that gerrymandering has been around since the early years of our country, but it has.  Gerrymandering is the strategic splitting up of districts, no matter how wonky the shape may be, in an effort to ensure that party members win their elections.  As long as politicians are drawing up their own districts, they win time and time again with little competition.  Some of the bizarre-looking district lines not only make a person cock their head to the side, but it seems to be indicative of a blatant skewing of our democracy.  When politicians are able to create these safe zones, power is taken away from the people.  With gerrymandering in place, politicians are not as accountable as they otherwise might be.  The most egregious offender appears to be North Carolina with its 12^th district being drawn in a way that is 120 miles long but only 20 miles wide at its widest point.

If districts were drawn up by an independent agency, it would allow for more accurate representation and help to build trust within the political system.  Arizona and California are currently the only two with an independent redistricting commission.  The rest of the country should follow their lead. There is a clear conflict of interest for the group of people redrawing the district lines to be the same group who will be running for reelection under those lines.

Even James Madison, a founding father of the Constitution, was targeted by opponents when redrawing district lines in an attempt to prevent Madison from getting reelected to the House of Representatives.  Luckily for Madison it didn’t work, but it did cause Madison to be wary of elected officials manipulating the system to draw lines for their own benefit.

In the article “No More Gerrymandering” from the The Harvard Crimson, Christina Teodorescu summed up gerrymandering quite well by stating, "At its core, it is effectively a form of disenfranchisement.  Thousands if not millions of voters are packed into strategic districts in such a way that in each election cycle their votes are rendered obsolete.  Among its many other undemocratic effects, gerrymandering gives a decisive advantage to incumbents and increases partisan polarity:  Representatives who do not have to worry about reelection are far less motivated to negotiate or work with the opposition to enact constructive legislation."

The result of gerrymandering is that “representation” does not in fact properly represent the citizens.  While it may not be the cause of gridlock in Congress, it certainly exacerbates the extreme polarity.  A neutral independent commission is the best body of people to be drawing up district lines in order to ensure that the voters end up choosing their representatives, not the other way around.

In my classmate Ashley Underwood’s blog post “Contraception Should Be Covered by Insurance,” she makes great points about the benefits of contraception and the reasons it should be covered.  She points out several medical benefits in addition to the obvious benefit of preventing unwanted pregnancies.  Ashley stresses that defunding Planned Parenthood would be a horrible idea since it assists many women in caring for their health.  Some extremists have cast Planned Parenthood in a light as if it’s an immoral institution because it happens to perform abortions as well as all the other health assistance it provides.  This self-righteous view is hurting more than helping.  It seems a bit ironic that so many of these people who want to defund Planned Parenthood are the same people who want to make cuts to welfare programs.

So let’s say they get their way and abortions can’t be obtained and birth control becomes unaffordable for so many.  Then what?  There will be countless people in even more dire need of assistance from the government than there already are.  I think the people who want to defund Planned Parenthood ought to sit in a CPS court for a week and see all the resources that go into helping children whose parents don’t take care of them.

Ashley did a great job laying out various reasons why a woman might choose to be on contraceptives.  Some women want to pursue education and a career before starting a family.  A woman who makes the decision that now is not the time in her life to bring a child into the world should be applauded for her wise decision, not penalized for it.  She should be admired for wanting to establish herself with an income that she can count and provide for her child with rather than having hurdles put in the way that will increase her chances of having to rely on government assistance.

One would think the government would want to make it easier for people to help themselves, not harder.  One would think the government would want to have contraceptives covered by insurance to decrease chances of needing government assistance.  Ashley sums it up well that having a child should be a choice every woman gets to make and the affordability of contraceptives is important.

A current hot topic is the debate of whether to legalize marijuana or not.  I believe the U.S. government should legalize marijuana not only for medicinal purposes but for recreational purposes as well.  At a very minimum, the federal government should decriminalize it and let each state decide for themselves, thereby removing the conflict between state and federal legislation, and treat it the same as alcohol and cigarettes.  A main argument for not legalizing it is that it is deemed to be a gateway drug.  I don’t see it that way.  My thoughts are aligned with Willie Nelson's.  He said, “I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug.  It is an herb and a flower.”

Marijuana smokers shouldn't be viewed as criminals.  I work in the court system, and I see far too much energy and resources being focused on marijuana, a substance that is not known to induce violence.  Some people who drink excessive alcohol will get aggressive and even abusive (in addition to just plain stupid), and it often brings out the worst in people.  Marijuana, on the other hand, has a calming effect and seems to promote a peaceful vibe.

Marijuana has been proven to have health benefits.  I believe it should be decriminalized so that law enforcement and the court system can focus on more important problems and allow people who could benefit from using it to have the freedom to do so.  At this point, 28 states have legalized medical marijuana to treat illnesses such as cancer, PTSD, multiple sclerosis, Chron’s disease, hepatitis C, arthritis, migraines, anorexia, Turette’s syndrome, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, lupus, seizures, and autism.  Researchers have even found that the plant protects the brain in some ways.  In the Business Insider article “23 Health Benefits of Marijuana,” several proven medical benefits are listed, backed up by reputable research teams.

Small doses of marijuana can also inspire creativity and trigger increased attention to detail, but it’s important to emphasize “small” doses here.  Anything becomes a bad thing when it’s overdone.  Junk food is legal, but if people overeat or eat nothing but high-fat junk foods with no nutritional value, they can become obese and unhealthy.  Alcohol is legal, and there's no harm in someone having a glass of wine after work, but to consume drink after drink after drink would cause someone to lose the ability to make rational decisions and become a danger to themselves and others.  Just as we expect people to drink responsibly, we would have the same expectations for marijuana use.

There would need to be regulations in place, just as with alcohol and cigarettes (minimum age, warnings about overuse, etc.), but I see no reason why marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes remain legal.  Our neighbor Canada is now embracing marijuana legalization, according to the CBC article “Marijuana Industry Gets Boost from Legalization Target Date.”  The United States should do the same.  Bill Murray summed it up well when he stated, “I find it quite ironic that the most dangerous thing about weed is getting caught with it.”

    

The U.S. government should remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and allow this natural plant to be freely used if a person so chooses.  I believe it can help suffering people, boost the economy, cause law enforcement and courts to focus on worse problems, and there would be more mellow, easy-going people all around.

The Huffington Post blog titled “’Don’t Worry, I’ll Pull Out’ and Other Trump Lies” is a sarcastic piece written by Philip Rotner describing the various ways in which Donald Trump presents his lies.  Rotner has assigned humorous names to each type of lie in Trump’s arsenal.  While his descriptions are entertaining to read, it is simultaneously disconcerting because of the realization that this is the Commander in Chief of the United States that he’s talking about … or, as some have dubbed him, the Deflector in Chief.

It is clear that Rotner does not have warm feelings for Donald Trump, but even so, many of the lies he recites are ones that nobody … and I mean nobody (even his supporters) … should logically question are in fact lies due to hard evidence.  Rotner reminds us of the old familiar question Trump is basically asking:  “Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?”

Some may argue that all politicians lie and that a certain amount of lying may be acceptable if the politician has the best interest of Americans at heart.  Even Rotner, who has over 40 years’ experience practicing law as an attorney, would certainly understand a little holding back on details or downplaying or stretching the truth that is often employed by lawyers and politicians.  As Rotner points out, though, Trump has taken it to another level entirely.  Particularly troubling to me and others is how closely Trump’s ways run parallel with classic emotional and verbal abuse found in some personal relationships.  The hallmarks of an emotional abuser are denying reality and shifting blame.  When someone exposes something unfavorable about Trump, his knee-jerk reaction is to accuse his accuser of his own transgressions, utilizing what Rotner has labeled the Pee-Wee Herman: “I know I am, but what are you?” (known as “projection” in psychology circles).  Another technique they use is to twist reality until you question your own perceptions of it.  Yep, check-mark on that one, too.

Rotner’s blog is meant to be funny as he highlights an important problem.  Even if people agree with policy changes that Trump is making, I think all people should be concerned with the ease in which Trump lies because it calls into question:  Is he intentionally lying and trying to fool the people he’s representing or does he have a skewed view of reality?  Either way, it’s problematic for everyone.

In the op-ed “Trump Voters Are Not the Enemy,” Nicholas Kristof makes an argument that it is unwise to cast all Trump voters into the same wide category.  When I first pulled up the article, the title suggested to me that I was about to read the words of a pro-Trump writer defending Trump and his actions in some way.  As it turns out, Kristof is not a Trump supporter.  In fact, he is quite critical of President Trump.  As a columnist for The New York Times and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Kristof in this article simply encourages the reader to channel his or her frustration to the right source.  This Harvard grad writes articles with an emphasis on human rights abuses and social injustices, and understandably Kristof is displeased with the new president, but he makes a valid point that “it’s short-sighted to direct liberal fury at the entire mass of Trump voters” and to view them as the enemy.

 

During this past presidential election, many people disassociated themselves from friends and family once it was revealed that they were in opposite camps, Trump vs. Clinton, and the aftermath has been disheartening.  Some of the back and forth shared on social media has been downright ugly and, quite frankly, has caused me to view many people differently too, not based on who they voted for, but the manner in which they’ve expressed their opinions … nasty, name-calling, stereotyping, putting large groups of people in one big lump.  Hmmm, isn’t that the very thing so many of us are concerned about Trump doing?  Sometimes I agree with the premise of what people are saying, but I’m too often struck by the force of ugliness with which those views are expressed and the resulting irrational sound of it all.  As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.”  People on both sides are making blanket judgments about the other … baby loudmouth liberals, proud bigot republicans, just as an example.  Too many are just caught up criticizing, which leaves no room for intelligent debate.

Kristof is troubled by the condescension that is being directed not just at President Trump (who he believes well deserves it), but he warns that “demonizing Trump supporters feeds the dysfunction of our political system.”  I agree with this sentiment.  Sure, there’s plenty to worry about, but not everyone who voted for Trump embraces everything he’s saying and doing.  I know a handful of people who now wish they hadn’t voted for Trump.  He appealed to those that wanted someone to take action, to fix things that were broken for them.  Well, there’s no question he’s taking action.  (This sort of conjures up images of a bull in a china shop for me).  Kristof’s point is that it is not effective to demonize everyone who voted for Trump and that to continue to do so may work to entrench them into Trump’s camp even more by mocking them and refusing to listen.

I agree with Kristof that while many people are disgusted by Trump’s “otherizing,” we should all be careful not to stereotype people by who they voted for, lest we find ourselves doing the very same thing we abhore.  I’m not unrealistically thinking that Republicans and Democrats are likely to hold hands and sing Kumbaya any time soon, but, like Kristof, I do believe it behooves everyone to stop demonizing others in a blanket fashion and to direct any animus at exactly who it needs to be directed at. 

Many people, myself included, have found themselves scratching their heads wondering how people have such vastly differing views of the same thing.  In the NPR article “When It Comes to Our Politics, Family Matters,” Shankar Vendantam invites us to consider the parallels of political views and parenting styles, the way in which we view family.  Vedantam focuses his reporting on human behavior and the social sciences and has written about how unconscious biases influence people.  Although this article was featured and the podcast aired in September 2016, during the middle of the heated run for presidency, it is still relevant because … well, as we all know, people are still scratching their heads, exasperated by the incomprehension of how people see things so differently from themselves.

I applied Vendantam's theory as I thought about all the people that I know and their accompanying points of view, and I found that there is indeed a parallel.  As the article states, real life is much more nuanced, but this will certainly pique the interest of anyone puzzled with the great divide as I have been.  After reading the article, I highly encourage you to play the audio podcast associated with it.  The added voices and sound bites with more extended coverage on this topic is very interesting.  This article is very much worth reading (and listening to) because it introduces a new perspective from which to view things, and it could help us have a better understanding of all people and where their views may be rooted.