Okay, let’s put this another way: How much chance do you give the fox in the chicken coop? A week? Two years? Four? Do you let it take over the coop, hoping that it will somehow turn into another animal maybe? Maybe it’ll become a hummingbird or something? Just give it another month and it will become a gold finch?
Is the fox suddenly going to become this really cool upstanding dude who believes in climate change, wants to help protect the environment, wants to allow the press to do its job unhampered, wants to support public education and not privatize it, wants to protect peoples’ health care and give everyone access to the care they need to live, going to help people retire in dignity, going to get off Twitter and actually try to serve the people who elected him…?
Karen, “actually try to serve the people who elected him…? ” Sorry to say this, but he is doing what the people who elected him wanted him to do – he said he was going to do these things and people still voted him in and now he is fulfilling his promises – whether your congress will allow him to carry out his promises is another thing – it will be up to the rest of your government to reign him in AND I suggest you read Mary Baker Eddy’s thoughts on Government – especially Science &Health P231:21-25. and be assured that Love is in control and governing Her whole universe. Do Not Be Afraid my friend:)
Thank you, Eurilda.
David Brooks write today (1/31) that “It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment.”
Yes. I think we need to pull out the weed before it gets too big and grows into a baobab tree, though. I feel a real sense of urgency about this one. It’s awfully nice to know I’m not alone in this.
David Brooks writes in the NYT today (1/31) that “It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment.”
This gives me some hope.
Karen – here’s a blog that a friend shared on FB. This reminds me not to react but to stay the course in supporting good governance and that we can’t be distracted or divided into opposing camps without our consent. I hope you find this appropriate to share here. I’ve shared it to my own FB page, but don’t feel it belongs in CS groups. – M
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.”
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot. My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like. I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal. But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.”
Yes, please do not respond along old fault lines but unite along a new line (path) that will make America great again BUT in a positive, humanitarian, loving, progressive, hopeful, well-coming, encouraging way that will make us across the border proud to have you as our neighbour. Uniting for good gives strength and power but divided we all fall.
WOW!!! That’s GREAT! I want to share that one on FB, too…