Rush

There was once a time, many years ago, when I enjoyed listening to conservative radio pundit Rush Limbaugh.  Occasionally I agreed with what he had to say, and I used to argue with his detractors that he was good radio entertainment.  Sure, at times he was outlandish, but that was the stuff of high ratings.  Frequently I’d disagree with him, but always he made me think.  And then, after hearing a call Rush took from a listener named Irv, I stopped listening.

It was a mistake that Irv ever got onto the air.  He was a thoughtful and articulate liberal.  Usually, the only liberals the pre-screeners allowed on Rush’s show seemed somewhere between ditsy and psychotic.  But not Irv.

Irv stated articulately, from an historical perspective and a personal belief system, why prayer in schools shouldn’t be allowed.  Rush responded, at first, with several non-sequiturs which Irv correctly pointed out.  Rush accused Irv of not listening, to which Irv calmly replied that Rush was wrong.  In fact, he informed Rush, he was listening, just not agreeing.

Rush began to raise his voice attempting to bait Irv.  Irv did not take the bait, but instead calmly and politely pointed out to Rush his inconsistencies.  Rush then ended the conversation by stating that Irv had called with no intention of dialogue and accused Irv of rudeness and arrogance.  Rush got in the last word, cut off Irv, and switched over to a commercial.

For me, this was no longer radio entertainment.  I heard on this call an arrogant, mean-spirited and intolerant man.  I no longer found Rush amusing or thought provoking.  I came to believe that his detractors were right to be concerned.  In all fairness, Rush never claimed to be “no spin” or “fair and balanced.”  It was clear that his radio show was a widely-listened-to platform for one man’s right-wing conservative opinions.  Rush had no intention of allowing his show to become a forum for debating ideas.

Rush espoused the virtues of a free and democratic country, but consistently devalued debate and ridiculed divergent opinion.  He espoused conservative American values, but excluded dissent from his media platform.  There was to be no right other than Rush’s right.  It took just one call for me to view Rush Limbaugh no longer as an entertainer but as a hypocrite, a demagogue and a threat.  I stopped listening.

Now fast forward twenty-five years, and I watch in disbelief as Rush Limbaugh is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Leaders

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds . . .”  (from Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address)



The Democrats have bumbled and stumbled through the Iowa Caucus, the impeachment trial and one more forgettable candidates’ debate.  And now our president stands at the podium gloating at the Democrat’s ineptness, ridiculing and pointing out by name the political rivals he so easily dismisses as ‘horrible people’.  Democrat or Republican, I look to either side in search of great leaders and I see none.

By consensus, Washington and Lincoln are considered the two greatest American presidents.  With courage and character, each led the country through times of crisis and vulnerability.  When I was a boy, we honored Washington and Lincoln on their birthdays.  A symptom of the times, Presidents’ Day now passes with hardly any notice or fanfare.

George Washington was the undisputed leader of this newly emerging country.  With little opposition he became the first president.  He was described by peers as candid, to the point, and a man of quiet strength.  He rejected ostentatious trappings and titles.  With disdain for unrestrained power, he established many precedents for future presidential behavior and protocol.

Yet, if he were alive today, Washington could not survive the venom of modern politics.  Media would call him aloof and arrogant.  Critics would point to his quick temper.  On camera he would be just a dull and uninteresting public speaker, with bad teeth.

Abraham Lincoln was a remarkable, if not improbable leader.  Rising from the obscure politics of frontier Illinois, he was elected president at the time of this nation’s greatest crisis.  Lincoln has been described as an unpretentious man, quick with words and wit, concerned about people and their problems.  He knew how to utilize the talents of his political rivals and how to turn his rivals into allies.  His moral clarity was unwavering.  If there is heroism in words, never was this more so than in Lincoln’s second inaugural address.  To a nation torn in two, eager for revenge, he spoke instead of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Like Washington, Lincoln too would not succeed in today’s political climate.  He had a strange and awkward appearance.  He was prone to cycles of severe depression.  And he was without the personal wealth it now takes to run a successful campaign.

Great leaders don’t emerge from the malevolent environment of today’s politics.  Many who might be well suited to lead won’t enter the fray. The press, the party henchmen, and the president himself are all too eager to criticize, humiliate, cut down and destroy.  Few candidates survive the gauntlet of our current political process, and none come through unscathed.

I think we need to once again celebrate the lives of Washington and Lincoln.  In order to inspire great leaders, we need to honor these great leaders.  For the sake of our future, we need to remember our past and those who truly made America great.

Selective Inattention

Yesterday, Kansas City celebrated the Super Bowl champion Chiefs.  Outside it was cold and damp.  Despite the weather, hundreds of thousands came out for the tickertape parade and the rally at Union Station.  It was a joyful day, a party atmosphere for the city.

That evening, as is my routine, I watched the ABC World News.  Halfway through this national news broadcast there was mention of the Kansas City parade.  What was shown on T.V. had occurred just prior to the parade, a clip of a drug-impaired driver being chased down the parade route and caught.  The police had done well, a potential disaster averted.  No one was injured.

That was it.  There was no mention of the celebration.  No mention that the remainder of the event went without a hitch.  No mention of the tremendous joy and civic pride.  The news showed a brief chase scene and an impaired driver.  That’s what they chose to show.  Anyone watching only the news would have seen one more unpleasant incident in a newscast filled with unpleasant incidents.

There was so much that could have been covered, that could have been shown on the news.  There were many uplifting moments.  There were many memorable speeches.  There was so much energy coming from a crowd that had waited fifty years for the celebration.  There was so much youthful exuberance from the newly crowned champions.

I am not concerned by what was covered in the news.  I am concerned by what was not.  Call it ‘selective inattention’.  Nothing portrayed in the news was a lie.  Nothing was ‘fake news’.  However, through selection and through omission, the whole story was skewed and all that was so joyful was ignored.

With such glaring omissions, I assume there was an agenda.  I just can’t figure out what. Was it ratings?  Are ratings better when only reporting disasters and near misses?  Was it political?  Is the agenda of the news to remind us of what isn’t right with our society?  Was it editorial?  Are news editors on the East Coast dismissive of good news coming from the Heartland?  Was it the constraint of time?  If so, why show only the bad?

I believe that democracy must have a free and independent press.  I don’t like the current administration’s attacks on the media.  I don’t like the common accusatory cry of ‘fake news’.  I write this blog concerned for our free press. However, because of the glaring omissions, because of the ‘selective inattention’, in one otherwise trivial minute of television news I became aware how selective reporting gives credibility to its critics.

Broken

“Broken hands on broken ploughs, broken treaties, broken vows,

Broken pipes, broken tools, people bending broken rules”

     (from Everything is Broken by Bob Dylan)

I write this late at night, unable to sleep.  Today was cold, damp and dreary.  The nightly news was glum.  The world is broken.  “The time is out of joint,” and my mood is foul.

The impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump began a few days ago with the swearing in of 100 senators, each taking an oath to administer ‘impartial justice’.  Really?  I just wanted one senator to step forward with courage enough to refuse to take the oath, admitting to their intended partisan verdict.  This is no trial.  The outcome is preordained, give or take a vote.  Worst of all, 100 elected leaders, our representatives, mock the oath.  A sworn oath now means nothing.  Leadership is broken.

I don’t know whether, or not, I believe that President Trump should be removed from office.  I distrust the motives and the spin of both parties.  I listened to the testimony of witnesses in the House of Representatives’ hearings.  The testimony I found most credible came directly from those who have made public service their career, those who have served through multiple presidencies, serving both parties, without personal political ambition.  And what I heard from those witnesses is that there is something very wrong occurring at the highest levels of governance.  Something is rotten and corrupt.  Government is broken.

In our country the level of incivility has risen to a degree where I question whether differences can any longer be settled respectfully through negotiation or peacefully through elections.  I worry that even the election process itself has been corrupted beyond repair.  We drift closer and closer to autocracy, while leaders in the House and Senate appear impotent or unwilling to confront the inflating power of this current president.  Democracy Is broken.

That which is broken must somehow be repaired, but how and by whom?  My religion teaches that it is my obligation to do whatever is within my power to repair a broken world, tikkun olam.  Yet sometimes it is overwhelming just to keep my own house in repair.

When it feels as-if my world is spinning out of control, when it is broken, I remind myself of a story told about a different leader from a different time.  It’s a tale of King Solomon.  It is said that Solomon gathered his wise men, asking them for a special ring, a ring upon which they would inscribe the secret of wisdom. In good times, he could look upon the ring with humility and gratitude. In hard times he could look at the ring and remain hopeful.  After much deliberation he was finally presented with his ring.  On it was inscribed the words, “This Too Shall Pass.”

I hope so.

Fair-Weather Fan

Am I a fair-weather fan?  I grew up in Denver where the religion was football, and Mile High Stadium its cathedral.  In the Bronco’s early years fans were plentiful, loud and loyal. The team was lousy. Whenever Hank Stram and the hated Kansas City Chiefs came to town you could count on a loss with a lopsided score.  The only solace was, weather permitting, throwing snowballs at the Chiefs from the old South Stands.

The Broncos went through many lean years and dozens of now forgotten quarterbacks. Things turned around when Craig Morton became Denver’s first bona fide big-league quarterback.  He led the Broncos to their first Super Bowl.  They lost.  Then came John Elway and the glory years of the Broncos.  Elway led the Broncos to five Super Bowls.  Absent a supporting cast, the first three were losses.  Finally surrounded by championship talent, Elway ended his career with 2 Super Bowl victories.  Following the 2013 season, quarterbacked by Peyton Manning, Denver lost in what was probably the ugliest Super Bowl ever played.  Two years later, Manning and the Bronco’s redeemed themselves in the championship game.

Twenty-five years I lived away from Denver, first in Manhattan KS and then in St. Louis.  During all that time I remained a Bronco fan.  When in St. Louis, I enjoyed the Rams.  Called “the greatest show on turf” and led by quarterback Kurt Warner, they went to two Super Bowls, winning one and losing the other. However, St. Louis was a baseball town, not a football town, and the Rams were destined to leave the city.  For me, it was still “go Broncos.”

Seven years ago, I moved to Kansas City, a great football town, on par with Denver.  During these years, I’ve seen the decline of the Broncos and the rise of the Chiefs.  My roots are in Denver.  My home is in Kansas City.  Pulled in two directions, a few years ago I found myself beginning to cheer for the once-hated Chiefs.  With the acquisition of the amazing Patrick Mahomes, surrounded by good coaching and a championship worthy team, I’ve jumped ship and now cheer unabashedly for the Chiefs.  Perhaps I am a fair-weather fan.

This past Sunday the Chiefs won an astounding playoff game, coming back from a 24-point deficit. Next Sunday they play for the AFC championship and, if all goes well, they will be in the Super Bowl for the first time in 50 years.

January is a dark, cold and dingy month, a month of melancholy.  Yet, with a winning team to cheer on, how much brighter the month seems.  My new philosophy: life is too short to cheer for a losing team. Call me a fair-weather fan.


Speaking of good cheer, I just heard three good jokes on the radio.

Q:  What did the band leader name his daughters?
A:  Anna-One, Anna-Two

Q:  What do you call an illegally parked frog?
A:  Toad (Towed, get it?)

Q:  What’s happened to the man who fell into the upholstery machine?
A:  He’s completely recovered.

Contradiction

We are challenged by contradictions; contradictory opinions, contradictory beliefs, contradictory perspectives, even contradictory ‘truths’.

The most common response when faced with contradiction is to declare your position right and the other's position wrong, of course. You know your are right. Experience tells you so. Accompanying this response, there is usually little self-reflection, little curiosity, only argumentation.  Being understood might seem important, but understanding the other does not. Often an escalation occurs and contradiction morphs into conflict. Sanctimony and outrage replace dialogue. End of discussion.

When faced with contradiction, the challenge is to enter into constructive dialogue, and for that time to suspend criticism while listening open-mindedly to the perspective of the other.  Dialogue does not include accusation and condemnation. Dialogue does not include threats and ultimatums

Dialogue is less about talking and more about listening, really listening. In the course of dialogue you need not agree, but you can acknowledge the viewpoint of the other.  Contradiction may not resolve, but contradiction need not lead to conflict.

In philosophy, there is a concept called ‘pluralism’.  Pluralism emphasizes that we exist in an extraordinarily complex world, too complex to be grasped through a simple and single lens. Often, contradiction is nothing more than a different perspective, the world viewed through a different lens. In this complex pluralistic world, contradictions should be approached with tolerance and humility, not in the spirit of argumentation, but in the effort to learn and share from the perspective, the lens, of the other.

In philosophy, there is a concept called ‘the dialectical principle’.  Sometimes, if one is willing to examine seemingly contradictory perspectives there emerges, in lieu of contradiction, a new and more nuanced understanding, a meeting of the minds, a synthesis of ideas.

Relationships are filled with contradiction. The world is filled with contradiction.  And that’s okay.

How To Be

There is one basic question that is at the heart of all religion and philosophy.  How should life be lived? 

Buddhists believe that life is to be lived in renunciation of needs and desires.
Hindus believe that life is to be lived over and over according to one’s karma.
Jews believe that life is to be lived making this world holy, according to Torah.
Moslems believe that life is to be lived in surrender to Allah, according to Koran.
And Christians believe that life is to be lived with faith and in hope for eternal salvation.


Socrates taught that life should be self-examined and lived in pursuit of Truth.
Aristotle counseled that life should be lived in moderation, finding the Golden Mean.
Kierkegaard thought that life should be lived not in reason, but in a leap of faith.
Nietzsche taught that God is dead and life should be lived becoming the best you can be, becoming the ‘ubermensch’.
And William James wrote that the human experience is far too complex to be defined by any one way of being.


From Amos, one should seek good and not evil.
From first Isaiah, one should relieve the oppressed, defend the fatherless, and plead for the widow.
From second Isaiah, one should be a light unto others.
And from Micah, one should seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly.


For 60’s psychologist Timothy Leary, life should be lived turning on, tuning in and dropping out.
For psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, life should be lived loving and working.
For existential psychologist Abraham Maslow, life should be lived self-actualizing.
And for concentration camp survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, life should be lived meaningfully.


There are many paths from which to choose.   There is no one right way of being.  There is no one Truth.  There may be false paths, paths that lead astray.  But there are also many true and meaningful paths, many good ways to be.

How to be or how not to be, that is really the question.