Who Is Telling the Truth?

There has been enough coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings that I thought I wouldn’t write on it. But, after the hearings, completed almost three weeks ago, in which Brett Kavanaugh comported himself well, showed himself to be fully qualified for the task of weighing matters according to the Constitution, and also showed himself to be a man of particularly decent character—then the drama began.

Judge Kavanaugh at today's hearing.
screen shot from C-SPAN

So I think that, in the search of truth, there are things we ought to discuss.

Who I believe, and who others believe doesn’t much matter. What matters is what is actually, factually true, outside of belief. And if we can find that out, then we can act based on reality.

I will deal only with the allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford. There have been no other credible accusations; all additional accusations have been spurious, unsubstantiated, and clearly timed to harm rather than to enlighten. So we’ll dispense with those.

That is not to say that Dr. Blasey-Ford’s allegations are credible. I spent much of the day listening to her testimony and then to Judge Kavanaugh’s. As a truth telling person myself, I have a hard time seeing other normal seeming people lie. I used to watch a TV show called Lie to Me, in which the psychological consultants were able to read facial micro-reactions and tell a lot about what people were thinking. While there may actually be such a science, or talent, that show was fiction. I don’t have that ability. I have to use my other resources and discernment skills.

Did Dr. Blasey-Ford appear to be lying? Not that I could tell. But was she telling us what actually happened? I don’t think so.

The way this is being handled, Republican and Democrat committee members took turns asking questions, five minutes each. All of the Republicans ceded their time to an expert female prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, with much experience getting stories from victims of sexual assault.

Note: Mitchell is a prosecutor. She interviews victims to get their stories as accurately detailed as possible so that perpetrators can be prosecuted and held accountable. She wasn’t there to trip up the accuser; she was there to get details out.

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell questioned for Republicans.
screen shot from C-SPAN

The Democrat members of the committee did not ask questions to get out any true details. Not one. They each spent their five minutes telling Dr. Blasey-Ford that they believed her, and that she was brave and heroic for coming forward. And that the Republicans were meanies for not indefinitely postponing to begin an FBI investigation.

They embellished with several commentaries on the importance of character:

Senator Feinstein:  I hope the majority changes their tactics, opens their mind, and seriously reflects on why we are here.

Change out the word majority for minority, and then she’s saying something I can agree with. She also said what we’re about is “a real question of character.”

Senator Hirono: Does character matter? Do our values, our real values about what is right and what is wrong, and about whether we treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect? Do they matter anymore? I believe they do.

Let’s just note that they say character matters, so what they’re doing says something about their character. I’ll come back to this later.

About the multiple calls to begin an FBI investigation. What happens in an FBI investigation? The FBI would get a statement from the accuser. Done. They would get a statement from the accused, under penalty of perjury. Done. They would interview witnesses, under penalty of perjury. Done. They would gather corroborating evidence from others who could shed light on the situation, people who knew the accuser and accused and witnesses at the time, and could have offered additional details. Done. In fact, there were six previous in-depth character investigations of Judge Kavanaugh prior to previous hirings.

Judge Kavanaugh has additionally provided a calendar identifying his whereabouts and activities during the given time frame. The calendar shows that, when the family was in town, he was involved in basketball practices and other typical activities. Parties were listed, including where and with whom. Names of some so-called witnesses were included, some at parties. But the other person accused, Mark Judge, was listed only in relation to a non-party event.

No one, not even the other female witness, Leland Keyser (her name was then) who remains a friend/acquaintance of the accuser, has any memory of the event. In fact, she goes as far as to say she knew of no party or gathering ever attended by Christine Blasey-Ford that was also attended by either Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge.

Dr. Blasey-Ford provided no explanation for why she attended this pre-party event, at a house that must have belonged to one of the other attendees but she doesn’t know whose, when she was two years younger than the others and attended a different high school. Her explanation was that it must have been a spur-of-the-moment event she was invited to at the country club they all belonged to. But what was her motivation to go to such an event, if she wasn’t dating any of the attendees, or was not a close friend of any of them? And there was only one other female? Who says those people were never at the same events?

Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford
screen shot from C-SPAN

She does not remember how she got there, or how she got home, although during questioning, which included maps of the area, she admitted that the distance meant she must have gotten a ride. She says her friend, Leland, did not even notice that she left, nor did she follow up or ask later, nor had she been aware of anything amiss going on upstairs at the house prior to the two boys careening drunkenly back down the stairs followed later by the young Dr. Blasey-Ford’s exit out of the house passing by all of them. Her exit wasn’t noticed, when in full view of all, even though they were supposedly the only females present?

Why didn’t she tell anyone? Not even whoever gave her a ride home? Because she was ashamed, she said. Of what she had done? Only in so far as she didn’t want her parents to know she had attended a party at a house with no parents present where there was drinking going on, of which she had partaken (one beer, she said; she was 15).

Could something—some kind of assault—have happened to her? Quite possibly. Was she assaulted, in the way she described, by someone else? She was offered that possibility in questioning, but insists she is 100% certain that the perpetrators were Brett Kavanaugh and his accomplice Mark Judge.

Yet Dr. Blasey-Ford’s accusations and corroboration are so thin that no charge could ever be brought, no warrant could ever be given. It is clearly, by every legal way of looking at it, so unsubstantiated that it could only do damage as rumor.

So calls for any additional investigation without any additional information from the accuser are fruitless. The leads have all been followed.

We know enough now, from the investigations and testimony, to look at the facts we do know:

·         Christine Blasey-Ford claims she was assaulted but not raped by a drunken Brett Kavanaugh when she was about 15 and he was about 17.

·         She offers no details about where, exactly when, with any corroborating witnesses.

·         So far no evidence of any kind beyond her personal claim has been provided or found.

·         Brett Kavanaugh categorically denies that this event ever happened, or anything like it, nor does he remember any social event that included Christine Blasey-Ford.

·         Mark Judge categorically denies in the same fashion.

·         The other two named attendees, including her female friend, deny any knowledge of anything like this ever happening, or that Kavanaugh ever even attended any of the same events as the accuser.

·         Everyone who knew Brett Kavanaugh at the time, and in subsequent years, has testified that, not only did they never hear of any such event, it would be totally out of character for the Brett Kavanaugh that they knew.

·         His calendar shows some meticulous detail—and was kept and accessible after all these years. On that calendar he included social events, but nothing that could have been this party appears.

·         Brett Kavanaugh further submitted to a media interview, along with his wife, where he explained that, not only was there no attempted sexual assault, he was a virgin at that time, and during college (when other accusations claim he did vile things), and for years afterward.

·         There is nothing in his subsequent life that would bring his character into question. He is a religious man, and his behavior with his wife and children, with his co-workers, and with friends and acquaintances leads one to believe that he is being truthful about his denial. There appears to be nothing to hide.

About his being a virgin, one news interviewee said that right there is proof he’s lying. But for religious—and studious—people, that would be the norm. I never dated anyone that wasn’t a virgin up to and through the time of our dating. That was totally normal in my high school and college life, in a religious community among studious friends. Also, if you read Coming Apart by Charles Murray, you see that this more conservative behavior is known and acted out in the most well off zip codes, similar to Kavanaugh’s.

Let’s let blind justice weigh the scales. Everything comes down in favor of Brett Kavanaugh. Everything.

Dr. Blasey-Ford claims her coming forward now in not politically motivated, but relates only to protecting the country from having a person who would do such a thing in such a high office. However, she did not say anything about him when he was elevated to various other courts, including the DC circuit court, where he has most recently been serving, often considered the second highest court of the land. And his name has been on the Federalist Society/Heritage Society list of acceptable judicial candidates since before President Trump was elected. She wasn’t worried about him possibly replacing Justice Scalia. She did not act, and did not mention Kavanaugh’s name to anyone, including her therapist, until July 2018, when his name appeared on the short list to replace Justice Kennedy.

Why now? is a valid question.

Senator Feinstein
screen shot from C-SPAN

She hasn’t been asked political questions. But she sought to put her story forward through political people, her congresswoman and Senator Feinstein. Whether she is outright lying about who assaulted her (if anyone), or whether she has, after all these decades, falsely remembered who did such a thing (think of A Passage to India, by E. M. Forster, in which an Englishwoman takes an Indian man all the way to court for attempted rape, unable to remember details, until she realizes that she was mistaken and it never happened), the people on the Democratic side have used her for their purpose of delaying confirmation of an eminently qualified judge with an impeccable character.

Their timing is peccable.

Senator Feinstein has had the information in hand now for 60 days. Dr. Blasey-Ford provided it to her congresswoman three months ago. Feinstein had it well before the hearing. She had it during private interview questioning. She had it during the hearings. During all of those opportunities, she did not even hint that she was questioning his character or wanted his side of any such story.

One would think that, based on the timing, this was a Hail Mary attack to delay the inevitable confirmation.

People are talking about the attempt to delay until after the midterms, in hopes that a different Senate might prevent any Trump nominee from getting confirmed. But more imminent is the hope to delay beyond this week, because Monday, October 1^st, is the start of the new Supreme Court term. That is when they decide which cases to take up and what the schedule will be. The Democrats would much rather that happen with a 4-4 court than a 5-4 court.

In other words, the Democrat idea of “getting to truth” and paying attention to “character” includes falsely accusing a particularly decent man, destroying his life and livelihood, with false sanctimony on their faces.

This is evil.

Evil people, working among civilized people, take advantage of good people and their predictable behavior. Good people try to give people respect and the benefit of the doubt. Good people try to calm their anger and look for a reasonable explanation. They bend over backward to give someone with unsubstantiated claims the chance to be heard—just in case. They don’t want to appear unkind, or uncaring, or impolite.

That’s how you get what you’ve gotten in media the last couple of weeks and in today’s hearing. That’s also how we’ve gotten a president who stands up to those bullies simply by not caring whether he appears nice. I’m beginning to appreciate that willingness to fight back.

What we should have gotten was, “The burden of proof is on you, the badly timed accuser. If you can bring us a shred of evidence to help us believe there’s some truth to your story, despite its terrible timing, let us see it.”

And then you go ahead and confirm.

What else we should have gotten—and still should get—is a defamation of character lawsuit. Including Senator Feinstein. Including everyone else and their sleazy lawyers who have made additional allegations. Sue for jail time—so that Soros money cannot buy them out of the consequences.

If Judge Kavanaugh is not worthy of the Supreme Court, it means he is not worthy of his current district court position either. So what is at stake for him is a lifetime’s reputation and hard work, and the ability to make a living for the next thirty years. There is measurable harm to him. Even if confirmed (and I trust he will be), this has put a shadow of scandal over him, as has hung unfairly over Justice Thomas all these years.

The burden of proof—under these circumstances—must be on the accuser. Dr. Blasey-Ford wanted to remain anonymous, but you don’t get to do that kind of damage to another human being from the safety of anonymity. At best that is cowardly; at worst it is pure evil.

If she were telling what actually happened, there would be corroboration, including a pattern of behavior in the character of such a man, and she could find it. If she had no animus and is merely mistaking the identity of an actual attacker, that could be discovered. (The prosecutor today suggested the kind of interrogation that could lead to exposing what actually happened, but that her counsel failed to offer.) With no animus, there could be a non-jail settlement, as long as it exonerated Justice Kavanaugh.

But if the accuser is not held accountable for defamation of character under such high stakes, then the precedence is set for every Supreme Court nominee, and any other person nominated to an important position, that the Democrats do not agree with on policy.

They have done this before. I’m old enough to remember what they did to Robert Bork, which invented the term for thwarting a nominee. I also remember the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas.  And let me just point out that, while Hill has been lionized by the Democrats for her bravery, her testimony appeared then, and still appears to be, a false accusation. How do we know? Her behavior. And his. She continues to do whatever is necessary for her “leftist” causes, and has benefited from the notoriety. Meanwhile, Justice Thomas has remained an unimpeachable character, and has done his job of applying the law according to the Constitution, as he took an oath to do, even though the Democrats whisper continued lies about his character. They were never worried about someone with bad character being on the Court—these were people who supported Bill Clinton. They just didn’t want someone who would uphold the Constitution.

Senator Graham
screen shot from C-SPAN

Senator Grassley was too kind to Democrats today, but I do credit him with defending the investigative process by the Republicans. They gave the woman every opportunity to tell her story and provide evidence. She added none.

Senator Graham today, was downright feisty, something we don’t usually see from him (here, during questioning Judge Kavanaugh, and here and here to media between hearing sessions).

If we have any respect for basic principles like “innocent until proven guilty,” and the rule of law, we should see a vote on Friday to confirm.

If we get something else, then evil wins.

Diversity Where It Matters

A conversation that followed my last blog post turned in part to President Trump’s policy on immigration, which isn’t going to the be main point of this post either. But in that conversation a friend said, “If you believe our diversity makes us stronger, as I do,” then you ought to oppose Trump’s doing away with the diversity lottery.

Again, I don’t want to deal with immigration issues today. They are complex, and I have long believed they need a good overhaul. But, until we have secure borders, it’s pretty pointless to talk about the specifics.

But I asked myself, “Do I believe our diversity makes us stronger?"

It totally depends on what diversity means. Are we stronger because people among us have varying levels of melanin in our skin? In what ways? Maybe there are genetic strengths from combining DNA from around the world; I don’t know. I’m open to that possibility and would like to see the studies.

But what if skin tone is really irrelevant? What if, as Martin Luther King dreamed, the important thing is the content of our character?

As an exercise, let’s look at some segments of our society we encounter, and experiment with adding diversity (differences) for diversity’s sake.

Take the US gymnastics team. Looking at the past Olympic team, they’re already pretty diverse in the sense of skin color. But they’re really not very diverse in other ways, like body type. They’re all short, compact, little firecrackers. Some are very thin, and others are a bit sturdier, but they could probably all share uniforms; they’re not that different. What if they were required to have tall gymnasts, over 5’10”? And while we’re at it, maybe women’s volleyball could use a couple of 4’11” players? For diversity. Because diversity makes us stronger.

US Gymnastics Team 2016
Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images, found here

Some years ago I noted the typical size of a defensive blocker on my college football team. They were around 6’6” and 325 pounds, and I told my mountain-sized giant son Political Sphere, “There are some things you’re just not big enough to do.” For the sake of diversity, shouldn’t the team be required to recruit some 5’10” skinny guys as defensive blockers? Wouldn’t that diversity make them stronger?

You get my point. We specialize where it makes sense to specialize, sometimes even physically. We ignore differences when they don’t matter.

If we’re not ignoring differences when they don’t matter, that’s a problem.

In 2015 I heard an interview with the great Thomas Sowell, following the publication of his book Wealth, Poverty, and Politics. I agreed with him about diversity. I wrote*:

First is his assertion about diversity—that it does no inherent good. I’ve long believed that. I remember the first time Mr. Spherical Model came home and discussed diversity training at work. They had been taught that they benefited from diversity. And I said, “You mean you learn how to get along despite diversity?” No, they were supposed to see that they got additional viewpoints from ethnic diversity.

That struck me as pointless. There are types of diversity that can help benefit the whole: variations in style, attention to detail, energy for leadership, different talents. You get a diverse team, and you all benefit from each other. But skin color and ethnic background don’t provide you with that addition. In international business you do benefit from someone on your team familiar with the culture you’re doing business with. But a basic classroom in America doesn’t benefit educationally from having students with different amounts of melanin in their skin.

Thomas Sowell
screenshot from Uncommon Knowledge interview

Thomas Sowell talked about the school he had attended. This is an interview between Dr. Sowell and Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson:

PR: In Wealth, Poverty, and Politics you describe three very selective—they’re public high schools in New York, but they’re very selective. You have to test to get into them. They’re Stuyvesant High—your Stuyvesant High—Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. Quote:

“The triumph of egalitarian principle and demographic ‘diversity’ in the rest of New York’s education system has not resulted in an increase in the number or proportion of Black or Hispanic students passing the admissions tests to get into Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech. On the contrary, the numbers and proportions of Black and Hispanic students have declined substantially over the years at all three institutions.”

So, telegram to Mayor DeBlasio: As diversity becomes championed in the city of New York over the last forty years, fifty years, diversity actually diminishes at these very selective high schools. Why?

TS: Well, diversity really doesn’t do anything for you. There are many cultural…

PR: Doesn’t do anything for you as a society?

TS: As a society, or the people in whose interest you’re promoting diversity. In other words, when Black and Hispanic kids go to schools other than those three, they get a load of diversity. It doesn’t do them any good. For example, as of about 2012 or 2014—I forget the exact one—the percentage of Blacks at Stuyvesant High School was one tenth of what it was 33 years earlier. There’d been a major retrogression. So while they’re being taught, filling their heads full of diversity, the Asian students are learning math and science. Plus, the schools are also…  Another point against diversity is that in years past, those schools were so heavily Jewish that Stuyvesant was referred to once as a free prep school for Jews. Well, they weren’t diverse, but it was very successful.

And now, Asian Americans outnumber whites by more than two-to-one in all three of those schools. It’s still not diverse. But they’re turning out people who do marvelous things. And that’s what they’re there for—to benefit society, not to present this tableau that will please a handful of people.

There are places in our society that truly lack diversity: higher education, mainstream news media, and Hollywood’s entertainment industry. 

They’re the very ones preaching diversity—of race. But what they lack is diversity of viewpoint, or diversity of belief. It’s enough to get a person blacklisted if they come out as conservative in Hollywood. And, with a few exceptions, typically in math, economics, and some of the harder sciences, percentages of university professors with conservative or religious views are often low enough to be in the single digits. In media, the so-called “liberal” viewpoint is so pervasive that they believe everyone agrees with them. They encounter so few people with differing views, that they dismiss disagreement as stupidity, or they stamp it as evil, and they’re unaware of their obvious bias.

We need free speech to preserve diversity of ideas, and freedom of thought—to allow all of us to seek for truth, and be wherever we are on that journey.

So, does diversity make us stronger? Only if it’s diversity of thought, style, personality, approach, or capability.

Diversity of “character” doesn’t even make us stronger; only a critical mass of good character makes us stronger as a whole. If everybody had an equally strong good character—that would be better overall than diversity of character. Weak character isn’t something to be celebrated, just because it’s diverse from strong character.

I think the diversity of skin color movement is a lie covering up the anti-diversity of thought movement.

I went to college in a religious school, so, even though people of other religions went there, it was pretty religiously homogeneous. But that opened us up for a lot of safe, open conversations, with a diversity of ideas. A friend shared a story about being a law student at BYU some decades ago. For some reason he needed to take one class at the University of Utah, which is not that far away, in a city still predominantly Mormon, but not a religious school. The difference to him was stark. They could discuss widely varying opinions at BYU, fully and openly. But at the U of U, everybody towed the line, and didn’t dare express opinions that weren’t the established opinions of the teacher or the mainstream.

Our society is much more polarized now than those two law schools several decades ago. It might be that I’m right: differences are either a challenge that requires some work to overcome, or differences are neutrally harmless or at best pleasant variety—such as the variety of ethnic food we get in Houston, because it’s cosmopolitan. Is our food here better than French food in France, or Thai food in Thailand, or Vietnamese food in Vietnam? No, it’s just a pleasant variety we get here that people in, say New England might not get—and yet New England clam chowder might be better than you get here.

Food variety is nice, but it isn’t necessarily better, or stronger, than places with mainly their own ethnic foods. It’s neutral, or something you might have a taste for, like an eclectic appreciation for art or music.

The “diversity makes us stronger” doctrine is just not true, unless it’s referring to diversity of thought—which can make us stronger. And MLK is still right: character is more important than skin color.

_______________________________

*I wrote similarly last May in a piece called "Shame Culture vs. Guilt Culture."

Character Trumps Tribe, Part III

We’ve spent a couple of posts so far talking about “tribes.” I’m using this term to mean group, or identity, such as race or ethnicity. But it can be other things, whatever is part of an identity grouping. In part I we covered Houston Mayor Annise Parker and her LGBT tribal loyalty overriding principles important to the larger population. In part II we talked about the tribalism in the black community, standing in the way of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Another “tribe” that’s being put forward to get “firsts” is women, which we’ll cover in today’s part III, along with some conclusions.

Wendy Davis, running for Texas Governor, is an example of the “tribe” of women. She claims there is a war on women, and voting for her puts you on the right side of the war. But that’s tribal. What is she saying that would lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization for men in Texas? Or for women? Because the same principles apply if you want to go north on the sphere.

Other than our age and gender, I find nothing in Wendy Davis that puts us in any similar group. We agree on almost nothing, and I would never want a person with her lack of character and capability to represent or lead me. I certainly would not give her my vote just because of her gender. Especially when a man of great character and capability, Greg Abbott, is our blessed alternative.

Hillary Clinton will not be the first female to run for president; but she is pressing the “tribalism first” goal of getting the vote because she is nominally a woman. Her lack of character and capability are almost legendary. The only thing she thinks will work for her is tribalism—“Vote for me to prove you don't hate women.”

What does this "feminist tribe" stand for? Sex without consequence. “Right” to kill unborn babies at any point (and leading to even after birth in some cases). Disdain for motherhood, and especially for stay-at-home motherhood. Pushing to ignore physiological differences between men and women. Claiming that there’s still a pay difference between men and women (outlawed decades ago, when you’re comparing apples to apples situations). Pretending to be men, while pretending men are evil and inconsequential. There's nothing in there that even shows an understanding of women, let alone a love and appreciation for divine womanhood.

The feminist tribe pushes for power to be men, to replace men. It’s illogical. It’s ugly. It’s hate-filled. And because it’s so anti-family, it can only lead to tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

That is not to say women can’t be good in government, leadership, or just about any profession they choose. But it has to be based on the character and capability of individual women—nothing to do with the feminist tribe.

You can't assume goodness based on tribal association. So the next question is, how do you tell when a person is likely to promote their tribe over the common good?

In Harris County right now there is an interesting race for District Attorney. Both party’s candidates are women. The incumbent, Devon Anderson, was appointed a little over a year ago, upon the death from cancer of the very capable Mike Anderson, who had not been in that job long enough. He was her husband. She is a former prosecutor and was serving effectively as a judge. And she has been effective thus far, just a little over a year into the job.

But her opponent, Kim Ogg, also a woman, is fairly impressive. She is tough on crime, has some good data to show how things have been (up to 2012, when Mike Anderson was elected, so no data on how things are currently being done). One of the issues is about prosecution of minor drug offenses. I don’t agree with Ogg, but she did support her stance fairly well, and got some support at our Tea Party, where we have some libertarian leanings.

I got the chance to ask her this question: “We seem to agree with being tough on crime and fiscally responsible. Those aren’t things we usually go to the Democratic party for. So what attracts you to the Democrats?”

I give her credit for coming to a Tea Party in the first place; more Democrats should. And she was forthright and honest in the Texas way. I appreciate that. But her answer essentially was that she couldn’t get elected in a Republican primary. She thinks of herself as an old-time conservative democrat, like her father. She voted Republican in the 1990s, and has now gone back with the democrats. Yes, she did vote for Obama, but only once.

But here’s the telling detail: she voted for McCain in 2008; she liked him a lot. And then she voted for Obama in 2012. So, after four years of evidence against Obama, she thought he was a better option than Romney. (If you missed the contrast, start here.) She has revealed a severe lack of judgment. And she added to that by admitting without being asked that she supports Wendy Davis for Governor. In other words, even though we agree on a couple of principles, she identifies with a party that I simply don’t relate to. She's not about conserving the Constitution; she may not even know what the word means.

So maybe the most important detail is party—which is another tribe.

This may not have always been so, but today I find it very difficult to find a Democrat with character—the values that lead to freedom, prosperity and civilization. They tend to want power over others. Often power for their tribe (their group, their identity, their coalition of groups) trumps the good of all. Democrats, in Spherical Model terms, live in the southern hemisphere, with no awareness that there’s a better alternative.

So, regardless of tribe, let’s start with the agreement that the Democrat party right now is wrong for America, and their principles are wrong anywhere else in the world that might want freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

That doesn’t necessarily mean being part of the Republican tribe is the answer. Same is true for libertarians, or any party. You might get a little further by looking at someone’s religious affiliation. But even then, if it’s a tribal affiliation rather than connecting on principles, it’s misplaced loyalty.

So, in a party where you find a number of like-minded people, keeping the Constitution in mind, find candidates with character and capability. And once you find those things, look at agreement with the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization. You can find a good list of questions to ask here.

Connect with others to influence and support one another with love. But be loyal only to God and to your soul. Any other tribe is an incidental connection, unworthy of unquestioned loyalty.

Character Trumps Tribe, Part I

The attack on freedom of religion by Houston Mayor Annise Parker brought to mind a point about identity politics. Or, to frame it from a better position, character trumps tribe.


Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his speech on the steps of the Lincoln Monument.
His dream was that we would judge each other by the content of our character,
rather than the color of our skin.

I mentioned last week that, when Annise Parker was running for mayor, she downplayed her connection to the LGBT community. She ran as a sensible businessperson with skills the city needed. And she just happened to be a lesbian, but that didn’t affect her skills. That, however, was a lie to get elected. She did not have adequate skills to overcome her tribal connection.

She has reigned as the first openly homosexual mayor of a major American city. Ah, the glory! And she has used the power of her position, time and again, to press the agenda of her tribe, rather than the overall needs of all the citizens. She may even believe that putting forward her tribal agenda is best for all. But it isn’t. She’s blinded by that overriding agenda.

She can’t see that pressing her agenda at the risk of giving sexual predators legal, unquestioned access to women’s bathrooms is not good for the community as a whole. She can’t even hear the huge outcry from the community who see that obvious danger. And she’s so sure she’s right that she arbitrarily throws out the 55,000 signatures of the people who want to put the question on the ballot. When she’s called on that illegality and must defend her actions in a lawsuit, she uses that opportunity to intimidate churches for speaking on this moral issue.

So, now that we have had a first openly homosexual mayor of a major US city, what do we know? The agenda of the tribe trumps the character of the candidate. Will that always be true? Perhaps not, but she has given us reason to beware. If her actual goal was to move members of her tribe into acceptance among the broader community, she set back that work a generation or more.

We have a similar situation with our first black president. [Style note: I do not know which changing term is best to use for the race previously referred to as black. Referring to it as African-American is inaccurate, since not all Africans are of the black race, nor are all blacks from Africa, nor are all people of that race Americans. So, for simplicity, I use the term black, meaning no disrespect or offense.]

He ran as post-racial. Many people succumbed to that. It’s a positive thing to show what so many of us already felt—race doesn’t matter; character and capability matter. Unfortunately, he was voted in because of his race, regardless of lack of character and capability. And, six years in I think it’s safe to say that his is the most racist administration we have had since Woodrow Wilson (who separated blacks serving in the military and encouraged eugenics that have led to a higher percentage of blacks being aborted than any other race—possibly more being aborted than being born).

Almost immediately after his election, he appointed a racist Attorney General, Eric Holder, who refused to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation, because they were black. And it was his policy that anything racist that blacks do is fair, and only non-blacks will be prosecuted for racist (or perceived racist) offenses. See J. Christian Adams’s book Injustice.

The president has tried to construe disagreement with him and his policies as racism—just as Mayor Parker has tried to construe disagreement with her as being homophobic. He uses his tribalism as a power tool against numerous other segments of the people: Constitution respecters, religious people, people who assert their second amendment rights, people who respect the military….

Now that we have had a first black president, what do we know? The agenda of the tribe trumps the character of the candidate. With blacks, this may set things back even further than you might think. We have the additional data that more than 9 out of 10 blacks voted for this man—because of his race. In other words, we have clear evidence that an overwhelming majority of the black “tribe” identify with the tribal connection more than with the American connection. This is where stereotypes come from—a probable truth. Most of the blacks we meet failed to vote in favor of American freedom and constitution, because they had a chance to vote for someone of their color. Most blacks, we can conclude safely from the overwhelming data, are racist. Tribal.

This means racism is a bigger issue than before the Obama elections. I’m expanding this discussion to “tribalism,” because race isn’t the only group with an agenda. Tribalism isn’t a good thing.

Think back to high school. Your school had a cross-town rival. Were all the people in your school better than all the people in the rival school? No. Was your school better than theirs because you had a better football team? Or even because you had more graduates go on to college? There might be some useful measures, but chances are you rooted for your school team out of loyalty. You went there; you belonged. And that’s all that matters.

But in grown-up world, loyalty by happenstance isn’t a good enough reason for supporting a person or policy.

There’s more to cover here, to fully understand our divisions, and possibly to find some way out. So we’ll continue this in part II.

Motherless Princesses

I love Disney, and I love fairy tales. Put them together, and I’m as happy as my granddaughter when she talks us into watching—one more time—whichever princess video is her current favorite.

Disney Princesses

But have you noticed that there’s a pattern of missing mothers?

·        Snow White: her mother has died (from childbirth?), so she faces the evils of a jealous stepmother. Where is her father, the king? Not helping rescue her from scrubbing floors.

·        Cinderella: her mother has died (cause and timing unknown), so she faces the evils of a jealous stepmother, pushing forward her own unpleasant daughters. Where is her father? In some versions, he’s just incompetently unaware; in others (the Disney version), he has also died before the story begins.

·        Aurora (Sleeping Beauty): technically she has both parents, but she is separated from them at birth, for her own protection, raised by a trio of good fairies, until she’s old enough to have outlasted the dangerous curse following her 16^th birthday.

·        Ariel (the Little Mermaid): her mother has died (cause and timing unknown), and she defies her father, who can manage the entire underwater world except for this headstrong daughter.

·        Belle (of Beauty and the Beast): her mother has died (cause and timing unknown), and she has mostly raised herself, because her loving father is preoccupied with his inventions.

·        Pocahontas: her mother has died (cause and timing unknown), and she is subject to her father, the chief, who is loving, but not listening.

·        Jasmine (from Alladin): her mother has died (cause and timing unknown), and she is raised by a loving but ineffectual father, who becomes subject to the evil influence of the Vizier.

·        Mulan—a rare exception, who has both parents, both loving. She doesn’t, however, emulate her mother, but goes to war as a man, to act in her father’s place.

·        Tiana (the Frog Princess)—another rare exception, but her father has died. She doesn’t emulate her mother, but strives to fulfill her father’s dream.

·        Rapunzel—her parents are alive, but she was kidnapped in infancy by an evil witch who poses as her mother, with more scary guilt-inducing manipulation than just about any arch nemesis. She’s probably going to need therapy after reuniting with her real, loving parents.

Is there a conspiracy? Not exactly. It is understood that fiction needs opposition for the main character to face and get through. Lack of a mother is sufficiently trying that, getting along without a mother and turning out OK declares character strength in itself.

What would be good to see in literature would be a daughter growing up with two healthy parents, influencing her appropriately, so she can face odds with something better than either the lucky timing of a rescuing prince or having to act like the rescuing prince herself.

And, speaking of princesses, I want to add a couple of other thoughts. At last week’s book club, we discussed The Goose Girl, by Shannon Hale. It was a re-read for me; I read the whole Books of Bayern series when there were only three (just learned I’m missing one). In this story, the princess is sent to marry the prince in a larger nearby kingdom, to ensure peace. Her lady-in-waiting and some henchmen decide to do away with her and substitute for the sake of their own power hunger. She escapes and hides out, becoming a keeper of the royal geese in the kingdom of Bayern. She learns and grows her own abilities and talents (which include some magic, this being a fairy tale). Much good is done because she lives as a commoner and comes to understand their needs and desires.

While I was at the library getting a copy of that book, I also picked up Princess Academy, Palace of Stone, the sequel to Princess Academy. The princess in this series is only a supporting character. The main character is a (motherless) young girl named Miri, who is learning all she can and discovering singular ways to help her people. In this second book, she and friends are spending a year living at the palace and learning according to their various interests.

There is a fair amount of tyrannical confiscatory taxation going on in the kingdom, as well lack of freedom of speech, lack of representation, and other things common in monarchical tyrannies. People are on the verge of revolution. Miri likes the ideas of changes that will help her people, but she also comes to recognize how rebellion is likely to affect her friend, the princess, and others. She seeks a way to persuade people without violence—doing surprisingly well for a teenage girl raised in the hinterlands. Again, there’s a bit of magic involved; it’s a fairy tale. I enjoyed the story, quite a lot, as a light summer read. But, while it shows that character matters for all individuals, it doesn’t quite leave the princess dream for the American Dream.

I think we tell our girls they are princesses, because we mean they are special, and valued, and we treasure them. But we don’t mean to be telling them, “You’re born better than everyone else, so feel free to be petulant and selfish and look down on others.” We never admire princesses (or anyone) with those characteristics. Not even in books.

We’re Americans; we believe everyone is equal before the law. No one is given special treatment because of aristocratic birthright. And we can move from class to class based on effort, learning, and other measures of success and character. It is not enough to sympathize with those beneath us. We need to know that, in God’s eyes, everyone is His child—greater than any princess, in truth. What we need to do is live up to that birthright, and teach our daughters who they are and who they can grow to be.

I’d like to see a story, as entertaining and readable as any fairy tale, that shows the love of God through the example of loving parents in an intact family—a rare story in literature. And I’d like the egalitarian princess to come to value her God-given individuality, not the luck of birth or outward beauty, or the replacement of feminine gifts with male behavior instead.

Measuring Mitt Part III

I watched Saturday’s debate, eventually. My assessment was that all of the candidates had done fairly well, while the moderators showed themselves to be attempting to accomplish something other than the rest of us. Then, afterward, pundits decided to tell us what we had heard—and their assessments differed from mine.

The story at the end of the debate was that Romney had a terrible night. I heard a number of excellent answers, and no terrible gaffes. Since our current commander in chief is a condescending “um” repeater without a teleprompter, and his VP is indeed more likely to speak a gaffe than a sensible sentence, it seems rather disingenuous to claim this performance was any less stellar than the debates of the past half year, let alone that it was disastrous.

What was the media’s story of disaster? It related—yet again—to Rick Perry’s inaccurate claim that Mitt’s book claimed the individual mandate of Massachusetts Care would be a good pattern for national health care, and that a later edition of the book took out the phrase. Not so. There’s a more thorough discussion of that here. And it was discussed, covered by politifact.com and others before. So Perry was using the issue disingenuously, and Romney was forcing him to face it.

I would bet (if I were to bet—maybe $.25) that Romney is not a betting man. He intended no bet with Perry. It was an expression of, “If you really believe it, then prove it.” Why the concern? Because $10,000 is a lot of money, and most people in today’s economy couldn’t risk that—so the story is he’s out of touch with mainstream America, sort of like when Obama bemoaned the rising cost of the designer lettuce, arugula.

And the story of the pundits was that Newt had had a brilliant evening. Newt often does well in debates. I actually agreed with Santorum that both Newt and Mitt were expressing their points well, but that in the end Mitt’s point held more weight. (It was on some comment Newt had made about Palestinians having no historical right to their land—a historically accurate statement, but not carefully stated in perilous times for Israeli allies.)

If Newt had done so well, then there would have been no call for the attack Monday on Romney’s wealth—spewing the liberal line that his wealth was ill-gotten, and he was an evil capitalist because he had laid people off.  We can talk about Bain & Co. and Bain Capital another day, but I don’t believe Newt believes that attack; he was just spouting off in frustration. But I would measure it a worse offense for Newt to attack Mitt’s success at capitalism than for Mitt to have proposed a $10,000 bet on something he knew he couldn’t lose.

Character Matters

What I really want to cover today is some of the character issues about Mitt. Both questions about character (related to marital fidelity) and understanding of economic struggle came up in the debate.  I don’t know if a campaign can actually control this kind of thing, but there have been a couple of positive pieces about his character lately. Last week’s Parade Magazine piece was surprisingly positive, mainly about Mitt the family man, one who grew up doing chores and earning money. It showed him to be human—and like people I know.

Then December 10^th there was another piece, specifically about his personal economy, called “Two Romneys: Wealthy Man, Thrifty Habits,” that details his innate thriftiness. A quintessential story was of a time in the 90s when his company had just handed out some very lucrative bonuses, and an employee gave him a spin in the $90,000 Porsche 911 Carrera he had bought with that windfall. Romney, as the story goes,

was entranced by the sleek, supercharged vehicle: at the end of a spin around downtown Boston, he turned to the employee, Marc Wolpow, and marveled, “Boy, I really wish I could have one of these things” Mr. Wolpow was dumbfounded. “You could have 12 of them,” he recalled thinking to himself. But Mr. Romney had frequently driven an inexpensive, domestic stalwart that looked out of place in the company parking lot—a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon with red vinyl seats and a banged-up front end.

Ann Romney is a woman of many talents; one is haircutting. She cut hair for the five boys and Mitt until the last boy left home. Then she said, “That’s enough. You can go pay someone to get a haircut.” By then he was governor of Massachusetts. The nearest place was a block from the capitol, so he went there, even though it irked him to have to pay $50. (I pay that; it gives me a similar pang, but I don’t think it’s over-the-top extravagant.)

His father, George Romney, had grown up poor. It says something for the family that he was wise enough to avoid the pitfalls of many who become rich. He insisted that his kids work. Mitt couldn’t go join friends on a Saturday until his chores were done. And he had part-time jobs through high school and college. It is also telling that Mitt made these same kinds of requirements of his own sons—all of whom are married, educated, and gainfully employed. It’s a good track record for any family in today’s world, and particularly for an extremely wealthy family.

He does spend extravagantly on a few things: his houses are large, with swimming, tennis, and other recreation attached. The purpose of a home or vacation home is to provide a place where the family can gather and enjoy being together. If you’ve got money, that’s something worth buying. He has been known, however, to rent a U-Haul to move from one vacation home to another.

He also spends big bucks on the horses Ann rides as part of her therapy for MS. Speaking of her MS, she tells the story of Mitt reacting to that news. When they realized something was very wrong, they went for testing. ALS was a possibility, and terminal. When it wasn’t that, he assured her they could get through anything. He stayed by her side; he told her the only thing that was important was having her with him. And they count it as a daily miracle that she has enjoyed such a long remission. If he becomes president, someday they'll make a movie including this story, and critics will say it's too sweet to come across as real. But it's real for Mitt and Ann.

There’s one other story I came across a while back, attesting to his character. It was a story by a neighbor in Belmont, Massachusetts, a young, liberal non-religious woman. The story was in response to attacks on Mormonism; she said she would not vote for Romney, never had. But if a person’s reason was his religion, that was just wrong-headed bigotry. I’ve written on that before, but what I liked from her story was this anecdote. When they moved to the area, one of her first friends was a Mormon neighbor who invited them to church. They didn’t have a church, or really felt like they were seeking one; but they did respond to the friendly invitation, and to the warmth the felt in the meetings, so they attended occasionally for some time. This was during the time Romney was governor, but he attended church the same as her other Mormon neighbors:

Even though he was Governor at that time, we still saw plenty of him at Sunday services and elsewhere. Whenever I encountered Mitt and his family at church services, I was struck at how accessible he was, how friendly. In fact, when my then-toddler threw her sippy cup across the chapel, it was Mitt who crawled under a pew to retrieve the cup. We even have a rug—it’s in our living room now—from Mitt’s son Tagg. And all the Mormons were generous and friendly like that.

A complaint I often hear about Romney is that he seems too slick, too nice, too unlike real people. But not to me. Other than the extreme wealth part, and being better at what he does than just about anybody, he seems like many people I have known. Mr. Spherical Model would be just the kind to reach under a pew for someone’s sippy cup. In fact, he once rescued a mom whose son threw up on the bench in front of us—took the child while she went to get towels. That’s heroic beyond the threshold of my generosity (I don’t do well around throwing up). My brother-in-law is successful, with a very nice house—designed with the idea of family and friends coming there to spend enjoyable times. He owns a boat and spends much of his free time driving it around the nearby lake towing the kids and their friends behind on tubes. I saw a video of Mitt and family, last time around, showing a scene that looked to me just like our extended family.

 A man I grew up near owned a hotel chain; I didn’t know he was wealthy until he offered his small yacht for our youth group to use on a trip to Lake Powell. I recognize as very real the kind, generous family man who might also happen to be wealthy. That seems much more normal to me than, for example, Gingrich’s somewhat complicated family life. If Romney doesn’t seem real to you, then what does that say about your world? And, truthfully, would it be such a bad thing to have someone who lives this kind of life be in a position of example?