Rep. Devin Nunes presented a rather stark tone of disdain for those in favor of spending cuts: “If you want to do phony work and if you want to go out to the [House] floor and talk about a bunch of phony stuff that sounds nice and put it up on YouTube and go back to your district and say we’re the only ones really fighting, then options one or two are your choice. If you actually want to do real work, then option three is your choice.”
ModState first posted the above on the 14th of February, 2016. Since that time, the communications director for U.S. House Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), Jack Langer, has never responded to our offer of allowing the good Congressman an opportunity to clarify his remarks if he so desired.
“I was having a rough morning and I snapped at a reporter. I do care about the fiscal issues facing our nation. Sorry.” Something. Anything.
Apparently, Mr. Nunes does not so desire. It is unfortunate for all involved that the representative from the 22nd district of California doesn’t see a need to address an issue high on the list of essentials of a number of his constituents. Even if it’s in response to another media outlet at this point, I simply would like clarification in answer to, “Do you care about the budget or the debt? What is it that you do care about, Sir?”
With the majority of public discourse non-existent and what discussion does occur usually ending acrimoniously, I recalled a lesson (from the past) learned the hard way: in life, there are times the rules are such that, indeed, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
Politics is considered the art of the compromise, or “the game of compromise,” to suit the lesson. Now, I don’t know if IQs dropped, if we forgot, if the entire paradigm changed despite the entire pantheon of examples (of public discourse), or if it’s an all-of-the-above that’s closer to where we’re at, but we’ve forgotten. One way or another, it’s that simple.
As “The Great Experiment”, that means that this is a failure as a nation. A failure to even try to communicate and find some semblance of common ground, to find a way to even try to be civil and respect one another’s time to speak, to actually listen to a message before deciding what it means and how we view that meaning, to even agree to try and communicate at all.
You see, the trick is in self-control. Before picking up your pitchforks and torches or, worse, leaving altogether, let the damned man have a few final words.
Fistfight breaks out in Turkish parliament
I say “self-control” is the key, if there is one, because in order for public discourse to function where there’s debate, dialogue and (hopefully) resolution at some point, we must individually approach this forum with the intention of conducting one’s self in a civil manner no matter what the opposition says or how they say it.
The first impulse is outrage, I’m aware, followed by some variant of, “So what do we do when [insert example of national Democrats and/or Republicans] start acting the fool?” And that’s precisely where, following my abandonment of my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts that the lesson learned previously (“sometimes the only way to win is not to play”) I remembered that silence isn’t always concession. Sometimes, it might be easy to think, “Ahp! Yep, see, DeViney’s silent so he’s conceding,” when, the truth is, I’ve also come to embrace another tactic summarized best as, “Let them talk; most people will hang themselves given enough rope.”
CNN was really on to something when they debuted the policy debates, featuring an epic duel between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) versus Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) engaged in an actual, substantive, non-campaign debate. Too bad they didn’t keep the series alive.
In order to pull this off, one must listen to their opponent’s words and, I don’t have chapter and verse from Harvard or Little Sister’s of The Poor and this that or the other study to cite, but I do know that it is humanly impossible for you to absorb as much of what someone else is saying while you’re running your piehole. An easy life “hack” for this (I’m trying to meet you halfway, my fellow Millennials) is to engage in one of America’s most obvious traditions and gently shove, well, pie or any other food one prefers into their gaping maw, which should, advisably, prevent the pie-eater from interrupting while someone else is speaking.
Another idea, and I only mention it in passing, is to teach your children these same concepts so that there’s a generational sort of reboot here, if you will.
Another really good concept, and this brings me back to what we’ve lost in terms of public dialogue, as a nation, as a people, is drop the assumptions. Do I really need to say that, as a Federal republic of 325 million-plus people scattered across 50 nation-states over 3 million-plus square miles, people come from different backgrounds and therefore automatically have their own way of doing things?
Apparently. Just remember: how good is it? Really good.
“Why does any of this matter?” one might ask, certainly a wise and reverent question, and unscripted at that!
As I face the active task of delivering closing remarks that are dually comprehensible and comprehensive, my personal political platform has never stood out more and conversely never kept me directly out of the fray as often. That’s weird. We’re living in a weird era.
As a centrist, I see, for instance, the keen insight President Trump into the general failings of a bloated Federal bureaucracy that feeds right into the national angst of an alienated body of followers who argue the value they get for their investment as taxpayers isn’t worth spending in excess of $4 trillion annually. However crude one views his “one-in, two-out” policy regarding regulations, he was onto something. Specifically, the broader argument that, not because of lack of desire and hardly because of lack of money but because of the inadequacies and failings that are part of the very fabric of a bloated, administrative state; in short, our Federal government is a monstrosity. A monstrosity, I might add, that needs to be shrunk, not given more money.
On the other hand, I also see the benefits of a strong, but limited, leaner Federal government with a decisive Executive having multiple opportunities for reform in bipartisan areas (fringes on both sides notwithstanding) with Congress, and I see those very same opportunities going wanting right now. And that is where, yes, I can see the personality crises stemming from being willing to be at odds with anyone, anytime over anything bringing about, indeed, a sort of “Trump Fatigue.”
That cuts both ways as well: while the people grow weary of the constant drama President Trump’s approach relies upon, they also tire of every single failing in DC being laid at his feet.
The same President who picked a fight (via social media, but of course) with an Autistic foreign teenager over climate change he maintains doesn’t exist to begin with also felt like the status quo that denied opportunities to felons post-release was unfair (See: “The First Step Act”). The very same POTUS who inexplicably disavowed support (however briefly) for our Kurdish allies also did what every Administration since Carter had threatened to by being the American Executive who stood up to Communist China’s underhanded trade practices and illegal valuations of the Yuan (their currency), which gave them unfair advantage(s) in imports/exports against other countries.
I don’t blindly support any politician, and I’m leery of ideologues. I don’t have any heroic, holistic advice on how to approach the President or his (many) conflicts, some contrived and some born of circumstances outside of his control.
These thugs didn’t issue executive orders that restricted travel from other countries into their own. They killed people they didn’t like and/or want. Perhaps a bit of caution, then, before ascribing the President Trump to the ignominious league of names like “Hitler” and “Stalin”, methinks?
But I do know this: the sooner we can get one extreme to stop canonizing every wacky idea the President utters and convince the other side that, no, Sugar, dictators don’t ask other countries to stop immigrants, they just have them shot. Dictators don’t ask, and they don’t Tweet about being treated “very badly” by the judiciary and the media. They don’t have to.
Look at the big picture, and tell me where you’d rather be that would be a better country from which to launch Endeavor A or stand up for Civic Cause B, et al. So, you don’t like the President. I don’t know how much the President likes the President. But you ought to be able to know the difference in there being room for (bigly) improvement in our mixed capitalist system, and in living in a concentration camp as you and your fellow undesirables are systematically exterminated by an authoritarian state.
“If being crazy means living life as if it matters, then I don’t mind being completely insane.” – Kate Winslet
There’s a fundamental breakdown that, for whatever the reason may be, is completely disregarded by many modern Americans. While there are so many behaviors that can be clarified on a psychological standpoint, this one isn’t presenting itself quite as easily as some other predominate issues. Fifty years ago, mental health wasn’t a recognized issue. There was no reasoning or justification for people suffering with such, only that they were traditionally characterized as a bad person. We come from a civilization that, 50-100 years ago, men would institutionalize their so-called weaker parts for some of the most mundane reasons; superstition, novel reading, tobacco use, masturbation, etc. Thank God that doesn’t happen anymore, right?
Consequently, the ship turned, starting on the daybreak of the 21st century, to a focus on mental health. We have the Boomer generation that started to classify themselves as damaged and recognized there was a problem. The Boomers came from parents who were the product of the Great Depression and World War 2 which, from the psychological viewpoint, we can take a look at the time and infer that while they were traveling into adulthood, the focus was more on a Country as opposed to the needs of an individual. This outlook coupled with extreme PTSD from the lack of basic needs and war time elements brought to life the behaviors of “sweeping it under the rug.” We then had the Boomers raise the generation coming into adulthood now who are focused on mental health. “Focused.” At least mental health matters when it fits and supports an agenda. Before we go further, I am not and will not relate politics to mental health. In this context, they are in no way or form related. There are snowflakes everywhere people; stay woke.
I will be the first person to say that I absolutely love the fact people are more focused on mental health. I truly do not know how I would react in a culture that didn’t and there still are countries where that is not highly recognized. For anyone that has/does suffer with anything in the mental health category, it’s an extremely comforting to know there is some safe space and people that do understand its real and it’s not going away. Adhering to this train of thought, there is a big difference between needing a safe space because you are trying to work through an issue and because you refuse to admit that it’s ok for people to disagree with you. They are not the same thing and never will be.
Let’s talk about this disparity. In the grand scheme of things, we are not special, our feelings only matter to ourselves, and if we don’t do something, America is going to be governed by a bunch of oversensitive, ill-informed, entitled children; this doesn’t sound very promising to me. However, I’ve been wrong before.
“If you’re going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you’re going to be locked up.” – Hunter S. Thompson
If you made it thus far, you’re thinking, “What’s the point here Brittany? What are you getting at?” When is the last time that you have seen a peaceful protest? When is the last time you have seen multiple groups of the modern Americans that differ on views come together and either achieve the agenda or at least agreed to disagree, and didn’t end up looking like a bunch of snotty nosed, bratty children fighting over the last cookie? It’s cool, I’ll wait. When did we lose the social capability to have the basic respect for other people regardless of political stance, race, economic status or literally any other way you want to group people? When did we have to start grouping people anyway and then treating them differently just because of such? When did we forget that the Constitution protects freedom of speech? PSA, the Constitution also protects ideals we may not agree with.
Looking at current events, we have a group of people aware of mental health but refuse to accept that people differ in their views and when that difference does come about, we then choose verbally and/or physically attack those that do not agree. For what? We are mentally aware enough to know that abuse in any form causes trauma, trauma then has the potential to create mental health issues, however, in that same sentence we will condemn any person to just that, solely because they do not agree with our ideals. Anyone else confused?
The late, great Dr. Seuss wrote, “A person is a person, no matter how small.” How and when did we forget this? How do we now have people that have been friends for years removing each other from their lives just because of who they voted for during the last election? How do we say we care about each other in such a primal way as mental health and with the same tongue cause the trauma we were still healing from? Most importantly, why? Why are we so stuck on being right as opposed to just agree to disagree?
UNITED STATES – MAY 22: Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., walks to the Rayburn House Office building on Wednesday, May 22, 2019. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
Justin Amash, Representative, 3rd Congressional District, Michigan, announced in an open letter on Independence Day that he was exiting the Republican Party. He will finish his current term as an Independent. His short, well-written explanation in the Washington Post intrigued Political Beast, and has pushed us to respond.
Amash’s actions and letter do not occur in a vacuum. Throughout the laborious process known as the Mueller Report, Amash has consistently reminded us that Congress has a responsibility to look hard at facts and to be guided hard by them. This responsibility exists regardless of party affiliation, and Amash’s interpretation of the evidence is that President Trump is guilty of abuse of power and attempting in an informal way to circumvent the investigation of a Special Prosecutor. Thus, the president deserves to be impeached by Congress. This is Amash’s belief, and Republicans will not agree. None of them. The energetic response of Amash’s fellow Republicans has been widely heard on the nightly news, as they distance themselves from his positions and call him, “misguided.” His ideas, “unfortunate.” Wherever you lay your political picnic blanket as we watch the never-ending Trump fireworks, we thought you would appreciate a quick summary of Congressman Amash’s background, his argument for leaving the Party (and the Conservative ranks), and why this matters for everyone on the left or the right. And everyone else.
It’s embarrassing that widespread ignorance dictates we start here, but here we are: Representative Amash (I-MI) is not a Muslim, and he is an American. He’s the son of two Arab Christian immigrants, grew up near Grand Rapids, graduated from University of Michigan Law, and was elected to Congress on a small-government, low-tax, personal responsibility slate of positions. The man is not a leftist. The man was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus and was supported strongly by members of the Tea Party. Granted, the Freedom Caucus passed a resolution (unanimously) expressing disapproval of Amash’s views on Trump’s deserving impeachment, but anyone who attacks this guy based on his lack of Conservative credentials is not barking up the wrong tree. They’re drunk pissing on a light pole.
[DeViney: “He’s referring to President Nixon (R-CA), just so we’re clear here.”]The Congressman’s letter (although published in a paper that is still intoxicated from bringing down one Republican president a half-century ago) is not partisan at all. In fact, it takes equal aim at both sides of the aisle. Most of the op-ed is dedicated to quotes from George Washington’s farewell speech to Congress. This was an address President Washington did not have to give. Hell, no one ever asked him to leave office at all! Washington did leave, however, and he dedicated his address to what he considered the greatest threat to America’s democracy: partisanship. Both parties, all parties, any party. Amash claims his experience in Congress, especially recently, has led him to accept that the current two-party system has become an “existential threat” to the country. This has been mocked and derided by press of all stripes, and this particular press member isn’t defending the Congressman, only pointing out: this is what President Washington (I-VA) said. Say what you will.
And that’s all. The guy’s as Christian, as American, and as conservative as any talking head on FNC; he just seems to be more introspective and contemplative than average for a right-winger. He hasn’t declared whether he’ll run for another term in Congress, and he’s currently considering a run for President on the Libertarian ticket. Whatever his future, if the Congressman remains as principled as he was in his Rexit, we’ll remain intrigued.
