Sidebar: Could We Be Like the Ukrainians?

In my Sunday School Extra Credit post, I struggled with a story told by Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN), who had an encounter with an American one of her visits to Ukraine. Here's what he told her. 

You know, Victoria, these Ukrainians, they're actually more Americans than I thought. They really remind me of Americans, and they really inspire all of us.

I'm still struggling with his comment. There's no doubt Americans, and people all over the world, are finding inspiration in the resolve of the Ukrainian people, but I don't see them as being particularly "American." Honestly? I find them particularly not American - at least, particularly not today's American.

And this morning, as I waited for my first cup of coffee, I envisioned a crisis, an honest-to-goodness existential threat to the United States, not one of the many manufactured threats we're told almost daily we need to fear. Would we be able to pull together to defend each other and our republic (if we can keep it), the way Ukrainians are defending theirs?

Here's what fell out of my head.

• Red state governors would immediately call emergency sessions, or ditch their scheduled legislative agenda of book banning and enhanced cancel culture, and pass laws declaring that teachers, librarians, LGBTQ people, and abortion providers would all be conscripted into the military first, regardless of age, to get them the hell out of the way, so when the crisis was over, "we" would be safe from "them" and their agendas.

• If the Republicans hold Congressional majorities when my crisis occurs, expect the same to come at the federal level. But, on the chance that any of their relatives re teachers or librarians, they would be excluded from military service. They would still be outcasts in their families, but they wouldn't have to go to war. 

• Fortunately, there'll be no need to worry about trans people being in wrong-gendered foxholes; after all, real women won't be sent to fight. They shouldn't have to do that, except in places like Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Eritrea, Israel, and North Korea. But those countries are different. There's not like us. 

• The Rs in states along the southern border would race directly into the Rio Grande to pull immigrants from the water. Unaccompanied minors and other children would be sent to temporary detainment facilities to sew MAGA flags and make other mission-critical supplies, while adults, including parents, rapists, murderers, drug dealers and the other 'not the best people' will be sent with their COVID and fentanyl to the trenches. Promises of speedy citizenship would be dangled, of course, with no intention of anyone ever making good on them.

• The Ds would do their best to ensure that no one got sent to battle unless the government first wiped out their student loans, and guaranteed that, no matter what, they can't be evicted from their home for the duration of their service, including any time served as a POW or in any other state of confinement.

• The most progressive of the Ds would vote against any Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), unless we first ensured that all of our weaponry was carbon neutral, and that none of the bombs would hit the ground, preventing any environmental damage. The bombs would need to be of the 'bursting in air' kind, and would have to leave no trace. They'd vote no, even if 70% of our 'militaria' met the thresholds they demanded, because everyone knows getting nothing is better than getting a lot of what you want.

• Further, nothing could be fired by drone, because having pilots fire missiles and whatever else these things can fire, without being able to see the whites of the eyes of our opponent, is wrong.

• Meanwhile, back on the home front, people from dueling Charles Koch- and George Soros- supported think tanks would be thinking, fast and furiously, how they could make money from the war, and how many additional elected officials and unelected bureaucrats they would need to purchase in order to achieve their goals. And how to finance the purchases, too; I think they might ask Russia for help on that. Or the Saudi Crown Prince. 

• And, the Heritage Foundation would be building a list of potential candidates to replace anyone they like who got sent into battle (after the first wave of undesirables was conscripted). I think that process is called Indeed? Indeed, but I could be wrong.

 And when I had coffee in hand, my viewpoint didn't change all that much. 

• Hunter Biden painted a picture of someone who might be wife of the mayor of an enemy city's brother-in-law's niece's boyfriend's sister's daughter's illegitimate son's cousin, who may or may not have thought about giving someone named Biden some money to be used for something: drugs, paying for sex, buying gouache and canvas, or, maybe, bribing an elected official. The jury's still out on that, and we can't tell on social media. Or, maybe they thought about giving Biden the Golden some treats, I don't know. I can't be sure, because the fact-checkers aren't allowed to fact-check any of this.

• Separately, some young Rs in Congress freaked out about the groomer  thing, not realizing that groomers are necessary; sometimes, they even help people wear a coat and tie in the House. And we all know, without groomers, Shih Tzus would look like... you get the drift.

• Not only that, but they're also afraid someone's going to tell them that all of their friends and colleagues and R teammates around the country who've been arrested for things related to the kind of grooming the Rs are now freaking out about are, well, the kind of groomers the Rs are now freaking out about. The call is coming from inside the house, so to speak. 

• On the other hand, if they keep talking about groomers, no one will know they voted against the AUMF, too - not because of any policy idea, but because they're just trying to make sure President Biden and his agenda are stopped - so they'll probably continue pretending their colleagues aren't groomers.

• Democratic leaders in the House and Senate - with a combined age of 1234 years, 5 months, 6 days, 7 hours, 8 minutes, and 9 seconds as I write this - will be huddled in a corner of the Speaker's balcony, trying to figure out how to 'message' the existential threat, who should deliver the message, and how many focus groups will be needed to test it out. Separately, the 57 caucuses - the same number of states President Obama said he visited - all prepared self- serving, unresponsive responses to the official message, to be ready in case the leadership every issued one. The Rs prepared a response, too, for what's it's worth.

• Meanwhile, in the trenches, folks learned to sit around and wait for something to happen. Some people brought books - banned books, can you believe that? - with them to pass the time and that created almost more of an existential threat than the threat they were there to fight. Books don't belong in foxholes, it was argued. Foxhole is a dirty word and shouldn't be allowed, someone said. Others wanted to ban a book someone was reading, which led to hand-to-hand combat.

• And then there were cries for hand sanitizer, to prevent the spread of immigrant COVID germs, but no one thought to bring any. The issue was resolved when the germaphobes agreed to eat dirt, a man said he had eaten dirt as a child and hadn't gotten the Wuhan flu. QED. 

• Back home, people who had family breadwinners deployed, or who lost their jobs when the trouble started, or who were displaced, were looking for safe places to go. But some people wanted the safe places to be safe from conflicting ideas, including disagreement on the existence of the existential threat, and so the churches and schools that had opened their doors had to close, and the government had to step in to solve the problem. And we all know how that'll work out, right? 

This is an admittedly dark take on things, and yet, it presents Americans the way we currently present ourselves to the world, and to each other. I'm sure, if push came to shove, much of what's written above wouldn't happen. We could rise to the occasion, I'm sure. We pulled together after 9/11, for a while, and we could to it again. 

The hard part, for me, is that it seems we're willing to wait until another 9/11, or some other horrific event, for us to try and talk about where we agree, rather than where we disagree... about how we can make our country successful, rather than how we can make an administration fail...  about what's worth fighting for, and how we can go about it...

Wouldn't that be inspiring?

Listening to a One-Percenter

The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believed that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunity and a level playing field. 

I agree with him.  

Would it surprise you that a one-percenter, equally adored on the right and abhorred on the left, made the statement above, in reference to Bernie Sanders?  And that he agrees specifically that corporate welfare is bad, and our criminal justice system is screwed up, and that our Democrats and Republicans, through their actions, "perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States" and that is has to stop?

This person is definitely not a Sanders supporter, however. Sanders believes big government has to solve the problems created by our political system of "picking winners and losers," where the author would instead focus on the results of throwing government money and programs at our problems. Those results -- that we we still have the problems -- proves, he feels, that more government is not the answer.

He retreats to his corner, and goes on to say,

When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don't infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives.

Thoughts?

• Is there a collision between "the right to live your life as you see fit" and not "infring(ing) on the ability of others to do the same" in a modern America?  Would there be marriage equality, or would that be infringing on those who disapprove? Could a business refuse to provide services to a customer living life they see fit by choice or by genetics (as a gay person, or a Muslim, or a person of color), or would that be a forbidden infringement on the customer? Can a business be forced to provide health benefits to employees, or is that an infringement on the company living life freely as it chooses?

• What does "equality before the law" look like? Would we really want to treat a poor person the same as a rich person in our criminal justice system? Provide them unlimited access to reasonable and viable counsel? Provide them with equal opportunities to stay out of jail, find alternatives, protect their rights the same as we would a rich person's?  What about people of color? Can we handle equality before the law?

• Is a free market that lays off American workers and gives the jobs to people who earn less in a year than an American earns in a month, or a week, or in the case of some CEOs, in an hour or even a half hour, operating in the same universe as "treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance?" Is a free market, charging whatever price someone pulls out of their hat (even for critical and life-saving services), or paying as little as possible in wages and benefits, acting in any way dignified, respectful and tolerant? And if so, of whom?

• What are the measures of how "people succeed by helping others improve their lives?" Is it providing an effective, adequately funded educational system, starting from the very beginning, that affords all who are willing the chance to learn and grow and succeed whatever their aspirations? Is it affordable post-secondary education, including trade schools, apprentice programs, community colleges, state university systems, and private colleges and universities? And jobs in your field when you when you complete your chosen path?  Is it a reasonable starting wage and benefit package, with opportunity for growth and longevity at a company?

• Will our free will, and our free markets, make today's situation better or worse? Reduce poverty and income disparity, or make them worse? Help people become more self-sufficient, or be even less able to support those who are at the bottom of the scale? Move us towards greater tolerance, dignity and respect, or make it even worse, if that's possible? Will the homeless be housed, the hungry be fed, man's inhumanity to man go poof into the air? 

I'm not convinced that Bernie has the right answer, any more than I'm convinced that this guy, Charles Koch, has the answer.

We do agree, though, on this, his closing thought:

I don't expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division. When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.

Hear, hear.