Check for web archive captures
All Too Human
By lindamuralidharan on 2016-12-30 06:05:23
Very much to the point of current political news, the following headline showed up in my local paper on Monday under an
AP byline (the actual author being Lisa Lerer): "Trump's Actions Similar to Those he Vilified in Campaign". Those who are
not totally devoted in faith to Donald Trump have noted this stark phenomenon and often concluded that he is a hypocrite. It
is also a habit of other politicians with the typical American Republican being especially guilty of saying one thing then
doing another. One wonders who is really minding the store and seeking actions that aid those among us most in need while
making sure not to worsen he quality of life for the rest of us. And it is quite easy and logical to use the term "hypocrisy" for
this behavior, this behavior that turns on a dime when it suits the candidate or elected official. [caption
id="attachment_9256" align="alignright" width="300"]
\».:Arnme Duncan former Education Secretary..government grants help lower income preschoolers Arne Duncan former
Education Secretary..government grants help lower income preschoolers[/caption] I am concerned, however, to look at this
in a deeper way. I think it is pretty easy for us to use the term hypocrisy but also to let the analysis stop there. Some
exceptions exist, of course. Sometimes it is noted that "he" or "they" have said over and over again that they do not believe
in x policy but here they are voting for it. It seems they are afraid not to because such and such a group has organized in its
favor and they will make the politicians pay dearly (in terms of elections and funding) if they do not go along with this. Thus
we sometimes can write it all off to basic greed and self-serving power grabs. [caption id="attachment_9257"
align="alignleft" width="222"]|*.isome preachers are scolds some preachers are scolds[/caption] [caption
id="attachment_9258" align="alignright" width="300"]*.;preacher man preacher man[/caption] Nonetheless I think there is
often evidence of a different pathology infecting our social and political discourse. I refer to the term "projection". It does
have a basis in modern psychology and sometimes we play fast and loose with such terms and practice "pop" psychology on
our selves and others. Still,I believe there is validity to studying the issue in terms of a lot of public behavior,
pronouncements, accusations, declarations, and the like. Famously we have seen this phenomenon among a lot of clergy and
politicians on the right when they make severe judgmental claims about what others should do in moral terms. I certainly
admit that infidelity, sexual harassment, solicitation of prostitutes are activities engaged in by both Democrats and
Republicans. Famous Democrats caught out thus include Gary Hart, Jonathan Edwards, Bill Clinton. However, I watched a
TV show that listed many who severely damaged their political careers by these types of behaviors over the last several
decades. About 70% were Republicans who preached time and again so called "family values" and vilified those who might
veer from the straight and narrow. And...it is often the televangelists and preachers in the stricter, more judgmental churches
who end up caught practicing secret homosexuality or adultery or extramarital sexual acts with congregants. In these
situations, it seems likely that the harsh words for others who might make these choices was their attempt to hide, suppress,
or deny to themselves that they coveted others than their wives or than their stated sexual preference. Not so long ago it
would have been career ending if a gay man or lesbian woman openly declared their same sex preference. Thus we have
Donald Trump almost endlessly (until the actual election) vilifying, even extra judicially criminalizing H. Clinton for pay to
play at the Clinton Foundation. There is little direct evidence that as Secretary of State she specifically provided any quid
pro quo to any kind of organization/foreign government that might have met with her in her official capacity. It didn't look
particularly good in some instances, and there are any number of other questionable problems with the foundation itself and
with how people like Bill Clinton applied foreign aid in certain countries. Meanwhile it is said that the foundation has
helped a lot of people in various countries. It could be said that Trump projected his desires and practices onto the image of
H. Clinton. Since achieving the election victory, we have seen that Trump's own foundation has given away little to any
useful cause, he contributed little of his own money to it, and he paid some of his own personal and legal expenses with
foundation monies...which is itself immoral and illegal...perhaps it makes him a civil criminal but he was never able to
clarify Clinton's actual "crimes" and whether they would be civil or felonious. He implied they were felonious, however, in
sponsoring the "lock her up campaign". [caption id="attachment_9259" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
\®.:B.Clinton press conference Bill Clinton at a Press Conference[/caption] After repeatedly attacking H. Clinton, Trump's
own pay to play exploits are now the subject of much concern. His many hotels can bring in revenue from entities staying
there who also want favors from him. His need for bureaucratic approval of some of his projects in foreign countries could
depend on favors a president is capable of offering. And we have just learned how his sons and business partners actually
invented a foundation that would bring in funds specifically from people who were to be offered audiences with the White
House after President Elect Trump is in office. During the campaign Trump claimed the election was rigged. However, when
James Comey of the FBI interfered with election matters (indirectly and certain people seemed to think there were a select
few FBI agents who were adamant Trump supporters), Trump did not demand an investigation of bias or rigging and after he
won he said absolutely nothing about any kind of rigging. I suspect when he kept claiming there was rigging it was him
wishing he could get away with it. After all he did say out loud that the hackers should really go after H. Clinton. An
example of projection here, too? [caption id="attachment_9260" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
| Obama press conference Obama press conference[/caption] On a larger scale, many in the Republican Party have claimed
voter fraud as a danger to democracy as it would represent a kind of election rigging. Almost no voter fraud as such as ever
been found. However, the projection of Republican desires to do the rigging is evident in a number of states such as North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others where all kinds of efforts have been made to suppress voter turnout in areas where
students, people of color, and others might be inclined to vote for Democrats rather than Republicans. For me, perhaps the
most disturbing of all is Trump's claim during his campaign that his rivals were wrongly the tools of Wall Street (Clinton,
Cruz, for example) and that he would drain the swamp of the same old same old elites that had been running Washington for
years. Now...in his cabinet he has many of these people whether from Wall Street or the corporatocracy or from Congress
(see people like Jeff Sessions). He is appointing some of the most predatory swamp creatures, people that have very little in
common with ordinary folks or any history of trying to better the lot of the have nots and the working class. So...was this
projection on Trump's part? As he seemed to so passionately say he was on the side of the working class...was his hidden,
personal agenda that he wanted to be the one to exploit them, that his only problem was when others got away with it?
Trump had unkind words to say about Clinton for hobnobbing with entertainment elites, Hollywood elites and the like and
for bringing some into her campaign. Now that his inauguration is in the offing, we learn that he is beside himself at the
failure of his staff to get A list entertainers to participate in his inauguration festivities. Some say he has angrily shaken up
his staff who feel desperate enough to offer perks of money or ambassadorships to those who will recruit for him. [caption
id="attachment_9261" align="aligncenter" width="515"]*.GWB. Press Conference. East Room. GWB. Press Conference.
East Room.[/caption] Did he condemn Clinton because he was secretly jealous of her ability in that department? Did he try
to suppress or hide his desire for the company and attention of the not only rich but also famous? Or was this just sheer
superficial hypocrisy, "don't do what I do, do as I say"? We can address the issue of millionaire and billionaire donors in the
same manor. Trump said Clinton was beholden to the donor class, would not be free to pursue policies good for "his
people"....presumed suffering middle class voters or middle class white voters. Now he has filled his cabinet (in terms of
nominations...all may not get past the Senate) with members of the donor class...a number greater than any other recent
president according to Lerer. The candidate Donald Trump was brutal in condemning H. Clinton for not holding timely news
conferences. Now President elect Trump has pretty much avoided them himself. After some months, he has had two
appearances in which he allowed reporters to ask question on live TV. These were still not the usual press conference format
in which there would be some prior announcement and time for a cross section of reporters to gather for the event. He has
also cancelled at least one press conference that has been scheduled and avoided the promised one in which Ms. Melania
Trump was supposed to give documentation of her having worked in the US legally...before she was a US citizen and before
she had married Donald Trump. It is presumed that she briefly was employed while "undocumented". (That would make her
a criminal in the eyes of the right wing, anti-immigrant contingent.) When Trump was condemning Clinton was that a
projection of how much he secretly wished he could avoid public exposure and simply control the news in his image via
Twitter, YouTube and the like? Or was it just ordinary hypocrisy? Was it just "we have one set of rules for me and another
set of rules for anybody who opposed me? [caption id="attachment_9262" align="alignleft" width="300"]
l».;George Herbert Walker Push and the press George Herbert Walker Bush and the Press[/caption] Maybe look at it this way.
If hypocrisy is the underlying factor, we can call the politician out and assertively lobby for the better position. We may not
want to vote for the person in the future if we think her character is thus flawed. I leave the reader to decide whether the
following example represents hypocrisy or projection. Republicans attacked B. Clinton vigorously for accepting donations
from at least two foreigners. One I particularly remember (he gave the money back) was an Asian woman who led an
obscure religious cult. I seem to remember her being based in Vietnam. Her group ran an excellent Buddhist influenced
vegetarian restaurant two blocks from my home when I lived in San Jose, Ca. And yet some Republicans are welcoming a
variety of foreign influence in this year's election on the side of their candidate. What is the motivation for this double
standard ? [caption id="attachment_9263" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
lw iLyndon Johnson...not afraid to take questions from the press Lyndon Johnson...not afraid to take questions from the
press[/caption] By the way, I am not so upset about Russian interference as some folks are. It is not a good thing but after all
we have interfered many times in the elections of other nations. If projection is the issue, it would appear we have a person
who is immature in one or more aspects of his life. He does not know is own mind, has not defined what his values and
desires and needs really are. What to do? Recommend counseling, confront him so some soul searching is forced, vote him
out of office as untrustworthy? Meanwhile, here's one to ponder: A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly,
without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. Albert Camus
We the voters need to analyze the situation to see what true arguments can be presented for a candidate's or
government official's position. We need to be able to call up any facts that contradict what the person is saying. I
certainly hope we can get people's narrow religious doctrine out of the public sphere. If you think your god is a
punishing god who also forbids extramarital sex, then don't indulge or get counseling or divorce your wife if
you are married. Just don't waste my time and tax dollars to control what I do in that regard. If you are an
ambitious politician and you want to win at any cost...that is on your conscience and up to us voters to see
beyond your facade. For a long time in this country we have been building toward the phenomenon of a
candidate's image begin more important than her or his character or presented policies. Donald Trump
represents the apex of that trend. Image is all. His brand is all. While we the public, are in need of good debates
and good policy decisions. Now let's see what we the public can do about this. Apparently some Trump voters
loved The Donald so much that when he said he would kill their Affordable Care Act insurance, they just
thought he was riffing on an idea that might rankle the Democrats. They did not take him at his word. His word
is indeed questionable but this was a big risk....assuming he didn't mean what he said. What does not seem like
projection to me is history. The man (Trump) happily manipulated the system to avoid taxes, build wealth on
image and a brand name after he stopped bothering to even build his buildings himself (with his own company),
and to use the Atlantic City casinos and bankruptcy laws to enrich himself at the expense of tax payers and
creditors. He seems to have been very upfront about his greed and desire for fame and power. Every voter needs
to figure all this out for herself. Did your fellow Americans vote for Trump so that the White House is pretty
much for sale (metaphor...not the actual building)? Did the average Trump voter vote for Medicaid and
Medicare and Social Security to be emasculated or eliminated? Did they vote to have their health insurance
cancelled? We hope the media will do a better job of explaining that undocumented people pay taxes. That the
majority are hard working family people. That more Mexicans are returning to Mexico than are wanting to
emigrate over the border. I just write in the hopes that at the personal level and at the local level more of us are
tuning in and seeing what is being proposed across our country. I hope more people will notice that taxing the
super rich more stimulates the economy, provides a better level of income equity , and provides better funding
for our local communities. We will be able to hold Trump's feet to the fire and say your biggest message was to
help people...especially those who have trouble finding work that pays a decent wage. Now let's see you apply
proven policies to the task. What is the point of calling H. Clinton out on not having enough press conferences?
What is the point when your candidate admits to stereotyping an entire religious grouping? What do we really
want? When do we want it? And what are we willing to do about it? We are all human. We all probably
"project" at times. We all are hypocrites in large or small ways. Hopefully these behaviors are not the defining
parts of our personality. It is hard not to believe they the defining characteristics of some politicians. So , yes,
how do we flawed humans fix this mess?
