Is Hillary so dishonest?

Mom was the nurturer, greeting us when we came home from school, preparing our meals. Dad was the boss, the enforcer of rules, often with the palm of his hand. This clarity of roles gave us a sense of security.

Nowadays Mom goes to work and Dad has relinquished much of his authority. The old order has shifted in other ways. If we’re white or heterosexual we’ve lost assurance of our superiority. Black and white intermarry; homosexuals marry. On the global stage the clear issues of the Cold War have vanished, replaced with a militant Muslim enemy that strikes unexpectedly. Our lifestyle of big cars and unlimited use of electricity is affecting Earth’s climate, a science beyond our comprehension.

We older folks yearn for Mom and Dad—as they once were. Enter Donald Trump, the authority figure who’ll return our country to how it used to be.

But Hillary—she doesn’t behave the way a mother’s supposed to. She’s not a national nurturer but a trained lawyer who as a senator voted on complex issues; who as Secretary of State negotiated with leaders of other countries. She’s been hardened by battle.

Anyone who’s seen TV commercials, even if they’re muted, recognizes the little green creature advertising Geiko and associates the Statue of Liberty with Liberty Mutual. The purpose of repetition in advertising is to keep a product in the viewer’s mind, to repeat an idea so often that it’s finally accepted as truth

So it has been with Hillary’s reputation. Since 2008 Republicans have anticipated her candidacy in this election and committed themselves to eroding the perception of her character. They exploited the Benghazi attack, sponsoring multiple investigations and repeating the message that she couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth. They exploited her using a private email server, though other government officials have done the same. All the while the press allowed itself to be manipulated into continuously analyzing opinions about her integrity—until her dishonesty was taken as fact.

I’m not suggesting Clinton is beyond reproach. Her experience is so broad there’s something in her voting record or foreign policy actions to offend anyone. I am convinced, though, that public perceptions of her dishonesty are the result of a non-stop propaganda campaign.

Our job as voters in this election isn’t to choose the most nurturing mother or the most intimidating father. It’s to select an individual who understands and supports the Constitution, who appreciates the complex web of international relationships, whose knowledge is respected worldwide.

A person who firmly believes in “liberty and justice for all.”

A restroom war in North Carolina

So North Carolinians are arguing over restrooms again—what might happen if a certain segment of the population used the wrong one. Didn’t we go through this back in the sixties, when white folks fought to keep separate facilities for “colored” and “white?” Now the North Carolina House is distraught over the city of Charlotte’s ordinance expanding anti-discrimination laws for public accommodations. It’s the transgendered population our representatives would have us fear, how their choosing which bathroom they want to use “poses an imminent threat to public safety, ” (Speaker Tim Moore). The issue is worth the $42,000-a-day expense of meeting in special session, he says.

(I’ll avoid references to these elected officials who so boldly favor local control—except, it seems, when a city does something they disapprove of. )

A special session to make Charlotte’s ordinance illegal would supposedly contribute to the safety and well being of women and children. While I certainly appreciate Mr. Moore’s and his colleagues’ concern, let me remind him there are other issues more threatening to our safety. Granted none of them as scintillating as imagined drag queens such as what we see in movies pulling down their pants in front of innocent children and women.

Strengthening gun laws would do more to protect women and children, but would draw far less support. In 2015 there were 53 domestic violence homicides in our state (http://www.nccadv.org/homicides-20150. While mass shootings make headlines, suicides and accidental shootings in homes where there are guns take far more lives.

And what if our representatives announced a commitment to protecting women and children from air and water pollution? Yawns. Which has allowed elected officials to gut the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2015/04/23/bill-that-would-gut-state-environmental-policy-passes-nc-house-committee.

Keep in mind these are the same people who try to control women’s reproductive rights, who reject climate science, who undermine the quality of our state’s educational system, who voted to allow magistrates to refuse to perform gay marriages if their religious beliefs opposed it.

With national primary races for President so entertaining, few are paying attention to state politics. Which could explain why Tim Moore and his cohorts are talking about transgendered individuals using public restrooms. His efforts though should remind us that statewide elections are as important, if not more important than national ones. Candidates who deserve our support need financial backing and a team of workers. Otherwise restrooms will be the big campaign issue.

 

Nancy Werking Poling is author of Had Eve Come First and Jonah Been a Woman and Out of the Pumpkin Shell.

 

 

 

The Christian Agenda

The 2016 primaries have come to the Bible Belt. Already politicians are competing for the evangelical vote.

For too long we progressive Christians have allowed evangelicals to be spokespersons for the Gospel. In fact, in the minds of many outside the Christian faith, “Christian” and “conservative” are synonymous. Evangelicals tend to preach against homosexuality and gay marriage, abortion, the evils of banning prayers in public schools, the war on Christmas. As a result, their followers block entrances to Planned Parenthood, write letters to the editor of local newspapers, run for office, refuse to marry gay couples.

Most importantly, they vote.

As a Christian, but—for lack of a better label—a liberal Christian, I’ve had the privilege to listen to the sermons of outstanding progressive/liberal clergy. At election time I’ve noticed they tend to be quiet, as if they don’t want to offend or use their position of influence to sway decisions. As usual they assure us of God’s love. We’re to help the poor and needy. We’re to confess ours sins. We’re to act with courage. We’re to speak out against injustice. All as if an election is not approaching.

In a political advertisement, Marco Rubio says voters will decide” what kind of country America is going to be in the twenty-first century.” On CNN Franklin Graham encouraged evangelicals to vote and to “stand for biblical principles.”

No doubt my list of biblical principles won’t correspond with Graham’s. Yet as a progressive/liberal Christian, I am one whose faith influences my voting. I will be looking for candidates who in their words and past actions have demonstrated the following: 1) a compassion for the poor, the refugee, the marginalized; 2) a concern for God’s creation, that is environmental issues; and 3) a commitment to justice—racial, gender, economic, criminal.

I’m not suggesting that liberal clergy tell us who to vote for. But we need to hear them apply ancient truths to current events. Together we need a more public struggle about what God requires of us as American citizens, what kind of country we’re going to be. Whether or not we liberals speak boldly about biblical principles, we can be sure our evangelical sisters and brothers will be promoting an agenda we do not share.

Nancy Werking Poling is author of Had Eve Come First and Jonah Been a Woman (Wipf & Stock, 2010), a collection of short stories in which the author imagines heroes of Hebrew Scripture as women; and Out of the Pumpkin Shell (Spinsters Ink, 2009), a laugh/cry novel about women’s friendship and family secrets.

Donald Trump, the Republicans’ idea of a strong leader

In the final assembly of ninth grade I received a leadership award. The recognition was probably based on my saying hi to everyone I passed in school hallways. After that, at each educational level, my understanding of effective leadership evolved. During my senior year of college the student government president was an intelligent young man of gentle spirit who had earned the trust of his peers. He didn’t thrust himself into the limelight but quietly carried out each task his role required. Later he was awarded a scholarship to Harvard for graduate studies and eventually became a superintendent of schools, a leader in his community. A strong leader, no doubt.

The New York Times (12/11/15) has reported, “More than four in 10 Republican primary voters say the quality most important to them in a candidate is strong leadership, and those voters heavily favor Mr. Trump.”

Which leaves me wondering about the qualities of leadership. Here’s my list: An effective leader is one who 1) serves a higher cause than self; 2) is trusted by the majority of the group to whom s/he is responsible; 3) has a deep understanding of the constituencies s/he serves; 4) doesn’t exert power over the group but empowers others; 5) demonstrates an openness to those of opposing viewpoints, with repeated efforts to draw them into the sphere of influence; 6) appeals to and calls upon the higher instincts of the group; and 7) can successfully navigate relationships with other groups/nations.

In recent months, as the country has faced one crisis after another, I’ve watched President Obama speak to the American public. His posture erect, with no grandiose swinging of the arms, he has shown his respect for the office of President, a cause, a position, greater than himself. His speeches, calming in tone, have not been self-serving; rather they have demonstrated his understanding of his responsibility to keep the country safe. He has chosen words carefully, not from a sense of “political correctness” but from a respect for the country’s various constituencies, including Muslims.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump tosses out words as if they are confetti, labeling an opponent as “weak,” intended to make Trump appear strong by contrast. His reactions are reflexive, rather than reflective. Bomb ‘em, keep ‘em out, execute ‘em.

May the American people choose women and men who will lead us with strength grounded in wisdom rather than fear.

 

Republican debates: for love of a good fight

My daughter’s adolescence gave me two insights into human behavior: we love a good fight, and in our weakest moments we go on the offensive. Both truths were clearly demonstrated in Wednesday evening’s Republican debate.

During our daughter’s middle school years the family lived in Southern California. Over her lunch hour, when gangs were sure to get into fights, she’d follow them around. She didn’t want to miss the excitement.

Americans like the drama of a good fight. From John Wayne westerns and Audie Murphy war stories to today’s crime shows and intergalactic battles, we find pleasure in watching the survival of the fittest. We bet on cock fights, boxing matches, football games.

Donald Trump’s no fool. Right away he set the campaign tone. Like the school yard bully he strutted around, tossing out insults. We’ve followed him, itching to see who’ll take him on. Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Carly Fiorina seem up to the challenge. Interestingly, Ben Carson’s contrasting calm demeanor seems to be serving him well. Jeb Bush’s isn’t.

Sadly the media have been lured into the love of fight. Wednesday night Cruz rightly criticized the inane nature of the questions. He pointed out that the Democratic debate was different, attributing differences to the media giving the Democrats an easy ride. No, the CNN moderators were professionals. Rather than encourage a fight, they asked policy questions allowing candidates to show their differences. It was a debate for grown-ups. Republicans deserve the same kind of forum.

This brings me to my second observation about human behavior: in our weakest moments we go on the offensive. When our daughter knew she was in trouble, she’d attack us first: “How dare you wake up my friends’ parents in the middle of the night to ask if I was there.” “You are the worst parents…”

Wednesday, as soon as Cruz blamed “the mainstream media,” other candidates joined in, referring to “the liberal media.” This worked for Republicans in George W. Bush’s campaign. Cowed by accusations, journalists quit asking the difficult questions. This, in turn, has led many liberals to conclude that the press is conservative.

I’m not suggesting that Republicans bear sole responsibility for the direction their debates have taken. Rather that the public’s lust for blood and our tendency toward offensive posturing have brought us to this point. As far as the media is concerned, we’re getting what we want.

 

Nancy Werking Poling is author of Had Eve Come First and Jonah Been a Woman and Out of the Pumpkin Shell.

Donald Trump, Archie Bunker in a suit

Until Archie Bunker came along we Americans pretty much kept dumb thoughts to ourselves. In 1971 he entered our living rooms, and for twelve years we laughed at his diatribes against blacks, women, and foreigners. He had an opinion about everything, with little regard for the facts or for other people’s feelings.

Archie wanted the world to be as it used to be: a time when a white man, no matter how low his status, knew that at least he was better than a woman, an African American, or an immigrant. But his white male privilege was being challenged. African Americans were moving into his neighborhood, taking jobs previously held by white men. Women were moving out of the invisibility of home and hearth, also taking jobs previously held by white men. For all his bluster, Archie was a frightened man, scared of a changing world, one in which his privilege as a white man wasn’t going to hack it anymore.

Now Donald Trump is admired because he “tells it like it is,” “says what needs to be said.” Like Archie he’s striking a chord that gets to the heart of many Americans’ fears, especially those of us who are white and older. For the world in which we came of age no longer exists. We might be called the Left Behind Generation, left behind by a changing social ethos and technology. We’re surrounded by images of sex and violence. Gays have refused to stay in the closet. African Americans in government are deciding the country’s future. We’ve barely caught on to email, Facebook, and Twitter before our grandchildren have moved on to new technologies. Celebrities featured in the news are people we’ve never heard of. And there are all the international threats, ISIS and terrorists.

It’s easy for Trump and other politicians to play into our fears, to resurrect a demagoguery that blames immigrants, the other party, homosexuals, atheists. They would have us believe that their toughness can turn back the calendar, rid the country of threats to our sense of well being. Instead of those who appeal to the Archie Bunker in us, we need leaders who nurture our noblest qualities: compassion, generosity, an openness to new ideas. Leaders who can unite young and old, black and white, foreign born and native born.

Archie entertained us, but few of us would want him for President.

 

African migrants in Spain

Like other tourists searching for a place to eat across the street from Seville’s university. we were—not accosted, let’s say our patronage was aggressively sought. A tug on a sleeve, the magic word paella shouted. Finally unable to say no, we chose a table on the wide sidewalk. Spanish dictionaries in hand, we ordered tapas: salmon on a bed of lettuce, a surtido. I repositioned my chair to better fit under the shadow of the slanted umbrella and protect my fair skin.

Around us waiters rushed like a weaver’s shuttle among the tables. There were brief periods when they all went inside to the kitchen. Seemingly from nowhere  African migrants appeared. Their ebony skin contrasting with the complexions of tourists, they pushed trays of sunglasses, leather purses, and pirated CDs in customers’ faces. Yet it was as if they were invisible. With the back of our hands we all brushed them away and continued to eat.

As a writer who’s experienced plenty of rejection, I couldn’t help but consider the persistence of these men. And they were all men. Which also led me to wonder where their families were. Back in Africa, waiting for their husbands/sons/brothers to make enough money to send for them? Trapped in refugee camps?

Seville wasn’t the only place we encountered African migrants. They were selling their wares in Madrid too. In the Puerta del Sol—the center of Spain it’s said to be—they had spread their wares on white sheets. Metal rods for taking selfies were quite the rage, and judging from all the tourists snapping their pictures in front of the bronze bear and madrona tree, vendors selling the rods were experiencing some success.

My husband noticed before I did, the way the African migrants had nylon cords wrapped around their wrists. We quickly witnessed the purpose.

A whistle, a shout? An offstage cue? Before our eyes, the vendors jerked on the nylon cords. Instantly the corners of the sheets came together. Like Santa tossing his pack over his shoulders, the African migrants threw their wares over their shoulders. In haste they scattered, each going a different direction. Seconds later two Policia Local, in friendly conversation, strolled by what a moment earlier had been a stage of commerce.

How do they hide among white throngs, these men whose skin color reveals origins across the Strait?

Last year 12,549 African migrants were caught trying to enter Spain illegally. Are the vendors in Spain’s cities ones who were not caught? Most come from sub-Saharan Africa, but also from the war-torn countries of Syria and Somalia. They are desperate to leave lands where Christians kill Muslims and Muslims kill Christians. Where boys are conscripted into military service. Where families go hungry and lack basic necessities.

Back in our apartment we read the news on our iPhones: In Mediterranean waters 700 illegal African migrants had drowned. I reminded myself that the bodies were not debris like plastic bottles and styrofoam cups floating on the water’s surface but human beings who had been doing all they could to survive. As were the vendors at the sidewalk cafe and in the Puerta del Sol.

While I vacationed.

Madrid African vendors 1-7

African migrants in Madrid

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton and the advent of email

With Hillary Clinton being criticized over inaccessibility to her email, I’m left wondering if, under similar circumstances, my reputation would be in jeopardy. I depend on email for nearly all personal and professional communications.

The National Archives and presidential libraries contain hand-written letters of former government officials. The British Museum has hand-written manuscripts by famous authors who wrote a draft, then scratched out and added words to produce a masterpiece. Letters and manuscripts were painstakingly written in the cursive style formerly taught and admired, in many cases so pretty that it’s illegible today. With no access to whiteout or ink erasures, people gave thought to most every word they wrote.

The advent of email brought with it a carelessness. At first we were told it wasn’t necessary to worry about capitalization or grammar; just get that message out there. Email invites hurried responses, spur-of-the moment thoughts. Not infrequently do we post curt messages with the potential of hurting someone’s feelings; spout off words we’d never say face to face; write something mean-spirited, because that’s the way we feel at the moment. Sarcasm and irony don’t necessarily come through.

I’d be humiliated were all my emails scrutinized and exposed: a jealous comment to a friend about M’s appearance; a complaint that all R can do is brag about himself. A grammatical mistake here, a word of profanity there. I probably write more messages/letters in a week than my literary forebears wrote in a lifetime.

So I take issue with the assumption that all email messages sent by public officials are the property of the people. Though I disagree with John Boehner on most issues, I want to allow him some privacy when it comes to his email. Surely he has expressed frustration, anger, snide observations, private, spur-of-the-minute thoughts he doesn’t want on the public record. A word of affection to his wife back in Ohio is none of my business.

The Clinton’s no less than Obama have been targets of the opposition’s scrutiny ever since they appeared on the national scene. Surely Hillary was aware early on that she needed to keep tight control over what Republicans were certain to expose. This is not secretive; it’s savvy.

Sure, many of us older citizens wish for a return to civility and care in communications. It’s time we accept that it’s not going to happen.

The so-called war on Christmas

It’s that time of year when some of my “Friends” on Facebook have posted, “Nobody’s going to make me say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas,” and “Where’s our President when Christmas is erased from our schools’ calendar because of Muslims?” (attributed to Chuck Norris).

In fact, no one’s keeping me from saying Merry Christmas. I can send Christmas cards. I can light up the nativity scene on my lawn. I can say Merry Christmas to everyone I greet. If, however, I am a keeper of the public trust in our religiously diverse nation—i.e., a mayor, a public school teacher, a county, state, or country employee—I may not use public funds or public space to promote my religious beliefs.

Orlando of the 1950s had a large Jewish population. How did Jewish children feel singing “The First Noel” and “O Holy Night” in our annual Christmas concerts? For the sixth-grade Christmas gift exchange a Jewish boy drew my name.

In our high school a sound system broadcast daily devotions into each classroom. Scripture and an inspirational thought for the day were read. We concluded by reciting “The Lord’s Prayer” and pledging allegiance to the flag. I sometimes wonder how my Jewish classmates felt about that part of each morning.

People complain they can’t use language that is “politically correct”: not say the “n-word,” not say “retard” or “fag,” not use “man” when they mean woman too. While “Christmas” has not been added to the list, we’re in the process of learning there are times and places where the sensitive person does not say it.

Why? Because words, symbols too, have the power to hurt and exclude. It doesn’t matter what the speaker intended.

A manger scene in a town square, the words Merry Christmas on a public building, a card sent by a public official (at the tax payer’s expense) wishing the constituency a Merry Christmas—what effect do these have on those who practice a different faith, whose beliefs are as important to them as mine are to me?

Stamped on our coins is “E pluribus unum,” meaning “of many one.” This doesn’t mean that to become one all newcomers must adopt the religious practices of our western European forebears. I believe it means that all people of good will who come to these shores, no matter their faith, are invited to be one with the rest of us.

So, to my Christian friends: Merry Christmas. To my non-Christian friends: Happy Holidays.

If you don’t have time to…

I remember what it was like to have a full-time job and two kids, with no extra time to keep up with the news. I was then and continue to be cynical about government and the integrity of politicians. Yet over the years I’ve discovered that nearly every aspect of my life is decided by elected officials besides the President.

That’s why, even though this coming election doesn’t have the excitement of a presidential year, it’s as important. Here are issues I consider most important as we approach the 2014 election:

1) Clean air to breath and clear water to drink. Yet many legislators oppose efforts to prevent oil-fired power plants from emitting dangerous toxins into the air. Regulations, they say, cost jobs.

2) A safe food supply and access to basic medical care. Yet many legislators keep calling for the repeal of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and try to weaken the power of the FDA and the Department of Agriculture.

3) A fair wage for the work people do, including equal pay for women. Many people work two or three jobs to provide their family with basics. Yet some candidates continue to oppose a higher minimum wage. (Beware of those who in the past week announced they are for a minimum wage increase—after learning much of the public favors it.)

4) A solid education that will allow children to become leaders in ingenuity and production. Yet pledges not to increase taxes are forcing teacher layoffs, denying schools the resources they need for effective teaching, and increasing class size.

I urge you to vote. If you haven’t had time to keep up, google to learn the endorsements of organizations who share your values. Examples include Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, local chapters of the American Bar Association