Dialogue vs. Demagogues

This is not about democrats versus republicans. This about democracy and the republic. Enough already.

An old friend commented on my last blog. Right after the 2016 election, when I was loudly wondering, on Facebook, how we had somehow elevated the personification of indecency to the presidency, he had been suggesting -- equally loudly -- that we sore losers stop whining. We both, I am guessing, wondered how we had ever been friends. Our dialogue, last night, based upon his comment, reflects the deep divide, but at least it was civil.

I am over Trump. Not over my firmly held belief that he is an unprincipled conman who cares about nobody but himself (and maybe Ivanka and Don Junior), but over my once irrepressible urge to express exasperation at his vile insults and grossly uncivilized behavior. He is just the flame, the shiny object, the thing that captures our attention while everyone chokes on the smoke. What we don't see -- and what we need to pay more attention to -- is the stuff that fans the flame, the oxygen that fuels the disaster.

The oxygen is everywhere. In the media, both liberal and conservative. When I watch the rare press conference, watch the president or Sarah lie and insult and shut down questioners, I silently implore the journalists to either call them out or walk out. The calling out comes later, when everybody goes back to their ideological cable camps and preaches to their own choir. The walking out never happens. I wish it would. I wish the media would stop covering Trump rallies. I wish they would stop giving air time to his vile tweets.

But how do we stop the oxygen that has revealed itself so starkly in the last few weeks in the United States Senate? Peaceful protest, the thing that defines democracy more than anything, is referred to by the majority leader and his buddies as "mob rule." When asked whether he believed that George Soros (and maybe other wealthy Jewish liberal philantropists?) were paying the Kavanaugh protesters, Chuck Grassley said "I have heard so many people believe that. I tend to believe it." I tend to believe it. Now there's a standard. Just like he tended to believe Kavanaugh was truthful in denying anything that might make him look bad, even when his bad behavior was on full display, in real time. Mitch McConnell persists in referring, from his bully pulpit, to the Democrats as if they are our country's mortal enemies. He talks about how he observes the rules, which I suppose is true, since he has the power to change them, and does, as he sees fit. I listened as Republican after Republican uttered the absurd talking point, about Kavanaugh's accuser, that they believe she is credible because they believe she truly believes that she is telling the truth. What? Is there anything more insulting? More demeaning and patronizing, to say about a woman who has risked everything to come forward? Don't even get me started on Lindsay.

I see no righteousness in any of this, yet there are people out there, old friends even, who disagree. We dig in our heels, and we have grown to view each other with distrust and disdain. We have, somehow, forgotten that it is okay to disagree, and, I believe, it is because we have given oxygen to the loudest and most powerful purveyors of divisiveness. Mitch and Chuck and their ilk still invoke the Clinton name as a last resort to fan the flames, the tried and true dog whistle for the haters. Kavanaugh did the same. What about Bill? What about Hillary?

What about what's happening right now, before our eyes. Americans versus Americans, when we should really be worrying about common enemies, about bigger issues that affect us all. I welcome the dialogue with my old friend, and anybody else, even the ones who call be a snowflake. I think it's our only hope.