Divide to Conquer (The Era of Trumpism)

In grappling to understand the age of Trumpism, I realize that President Donald is a symptom of our era. His actions as the person in a highest position, heighten our conflicts in every arena possible. Republican and Democrat, the rich and the poor (or the haves and have-nots), the whites and the blacks, men and women, pro-lifers and women’s rightists, the heterosexual from the homosexual and transgender people, environmentalists and contaminators, law abiders and law breakers, religion against religion, warmongers vs. peaceniks, those in favor of immigration and those opposed, the conservative vs. the liberal media.  Proposing the abolition of gun control endorses violence as the solution. With Trump’s lack of interest and talent for dialogue, and distaste for negotiation, peace seems ever more elusive and violence looms on the horizon, ever more imminent and frightening.

Trump frames the ‘problem’ as stemming from ‘outside’ ourselves and our country. We are the ‘good’ ones. Essentially, he means himself and the rich ones on his “team” and in his cabinet.  While he inspires terrorism, he defines the ‘evil’ ones as the terrorists. (His attempts to blame Muslims have fortunately failed so far.)

In striking and heating up the already-hot irons of these conflicts, he captures supporters from each group. In essence, wherever the possibility of contention arises, his actions fan the flame and fuel the fire. (Please excuse my use of clichés, but I find myself saying, what the heck? Look at Trump’s use of clichés and superlatives (great, fantastic) which vary little from day to day.) In essence, what kind of example does he set? We are plummeting fast into the dump, myself included, in justifying the use of clichés.

The result: we are left in a limbo where reality is denied and violence justified. Montana GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted the journalist Ben Jacobs, for attempting to ask the candidate about the Republican Health Care bill. According to a report in The New York Times, there was disagreement of opinion about whether body slamming is acceptable behavior!  (Indeed, as we passengers on the NYC buses hear over the loud speaker every day, physically assaulting the bus driver is a felony, and it should be noted that assaulting your fellow passengers is also an offense).  After Gianforte’s body-slamming episode, Trump issued another message in support of the GOP candidate (who subsequently won the election). 

Conclusion: We best recognize Trump’s tactics to split us apart in every and any possible arena. His underlying motives serve to empower him, to further his brand and line his own pockets. Supposedly, a divided house will not stand. His attempts to thrust one group against another and divide the American people hopefully will fail, but not soon enough.

Dear Reader, I welcome your opinions. jsimon145@gmail.com

Bluffing and Risk: Beware the Wolf

One of my favorite childhood stories was The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I could listen to that story over and over again, perhaps fearing I’d forget the message and end up in the wolf’s tummy. I never wanted to be in that boy’s situation, tending a flock, and  possibly out of boredom or the need for attention,  resorting to bluffing, “crying wolf” to summon the village people to save him from the wolf who wasn’t really there. But who really knew when the wolf would show up?  If the boy persisted in bluffing, the village people would ignore his genuine pleas for help, endangering his flock and himself. The moral of the story, of course, is to learn that indiscriminate bluffing leads to loss of credibility with potentially dire results.

In the 17^th century, bluff meant to blindfold or hoodwink (from the Dutch bluffen, or to “brag.” The current use of the word stems from the mid- 19^th century and refers to   bluffing in the card game of poker.  Bluffing is related to lying: both attempt to deceive, to give the impression that your hand is stronger than it is.  Both In poker and in life, a tight player is more effective than a wild man who looses credibility like the boy tending a flock. If bluffing backfires, the bluffer risks smearing his image, to appear weak and incompetent.  Bluff doesn’t instill trust.

Before attempting to bluff, the successful bluffer plays with steady skill; he knows the rules, knows himself, as well as his opponents and their positions, and considers all factors, including the consequences of failing, (Bob Pajich writes that former President Richard Nixon had the reputation as a good poker player when he was a navy officer. He sought advice from those he thought were the best players. James Stewart, a fellow naval officer gave him tips: “Tight is right. Only bluff when you are quite sure. Bet when you got it. Fold when you’re beat.” Long before he became president, he may have appreciated the broader application of the game. He used his winnings of $5,000 to launch his first congressional run in 1946. But once president, he used one too many bluffs. Apparently, the road from discipline to indiscriminate is smooth and short.

Psychotherapy is a poor arena for bluffing. A patient who bluffs in psychotherapy is ultimately the loser because he undermines the therapeutic goal to achieve honesty and authenticity.

In the context of parenting, bluffing is also inadvisable because the technique collides with consistency and credibility, two assets of good enough parenting.

Trump has banked his art of the deal on bluffing with the goal to further his brand. But his history reveals business failures (bankruptcies and lawsuits) as well as successes.  His bluff record is hardly steadfast or stellar.

New York Times writer Neil Irwin points out that in the political arena, bluffing is tricky. It involves dealing with other world leaders who most likely know each other’s hands— that is, what each has to win or loose. If the conditions are too outrageous, a negotiator walks away from the bargaining table. In dealing with a wild, waffling bluffer like Trump, who has sullied his image, walking away becomes easier and easier.

Irwin notes that bluffocracy has replaced democracy, and as a result the world suffers a kind of paralysis. We can’t move forward. No one knows how to interpret Trump’s statements, judge his intentions, predict his next move or be certain that a deal struck today will have meaning tomorrow. In dealing with Trump, we tread water; progress lies beyond reach. No one knows when Trump is calling wolf, and based on recent news, Trump doesn’t know either.

A second Aesop’s fable seems relevant, The Scorpion and the Frog. When the frog asks the scorpion to ferry him across the river without harming him, the scorpion agrees. But once they reach the other side, the scorpion betrays him. “Why?” asks the frog. “Because it is my nature,” replies the scorpion. Trump’s nature has been to bluff to further his own interests. To expect otherwise is to betray ourselves.

 New York Times op-ed writer Peter Wehner sums up the tragedy. Trump doesn’t believe in the higher power of his office—the belief that governing well advances human good.  Sabina Berman, a Mexican playwright said, “ This is the end of the U.S. as the Northern Star—the star that used to guide democracy.”

Conclusion: Bluffing belongs in the card game of poker but has serious limitations in love, life and politics. With a notoriously bad bluffer in the White House, democracy can’t progress. The U.S. has lost its stardom in the world’s eyes. The question: Can we ever regain what we’ve lost?

Dear Reader, Please offer your comments. jsimon145@gmail.com

Oslo: World Conflicts and Solutions in the Age of Acceleration

Oslo, a hit play by J.T. Rogers, running at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre in New York City, is a story of international peacemaking,

 Rogers based the action on a true story of how Norwegian government officials, husband and wife Terje Rod-Larsen  and Mona Juul, initiated secret peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the early 1990’s. Eventually their creative and valiant efforts led to the Oslo Accords (described in The New York Times as “a fleeting moment of bright hope in an enduringly dark realm of conflict”).

Early in the play, Terje explains that the new model he ascribes to is rooted in the personal, not in the organizational; he addresses each point of contention with individuals, rather than the forces they represent.

“It is only through the sharing of the personal that we can see each other for who we truly are,” he says.

He acknowledges his personal flaw—judging Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after seeing one side him. Described in The New York Timesreview as a "pontificator with a peacock streak," Terje’s ego threatens to obstruct the process; but he is able to accept Mona’s (well-intentioned) confrontations. Their openness to each other makes them an ideal couple, capable of the enormous task they undertake.

Mona, the expediter, interprets for the participants in the peace talks as well as the audience. Her “quiet but commanding serenity” defuses “tensions and restores perspective.”

 In elevating the theme of the personal, Oslo dovetails with Thomas Friedman’s brilliantly comprehensive book, Thank You for Being Late.

Replete with explanations of the world’s predicament (stemming from our age of acceleration) Friedman, like Terje proposes that we make contact on the personal rather than the organizational or governmental level.

Not surprisingly, food is a unifying element in both the play and the book. Mona and Terje supervise the preparation and serving of delicious meals that dissolve the diplomats’ defenses like lumps of sugar immersed in warm water. Friedman cites his hometown, St. Louis Park in Minnesota, as a model community, where the Lincoln Delicatessen brought together Jews and Gentiles who grew comfortable feasting on Jewish food and experiencing Jewish culture. [Quoting Grunstein, Friedman concurs that national governments are too cumbersome, distant, and, lack the agility needed (to resolve conflicts) in the age of acceleration.]

Conclusion: As communicated by Rogers in his play and by Friedman in his book, despite our differences, we share the same appetites and goals to survive and to thrive. Principles that build a creative relationship between two people also resolve the conflicts of nations.

Dear Reader, I welcome your comments. jsimon145@gmail.com