Danger

Friends, 

My writing style and content over the years has maintained a relatively upbeat and hopeful message. I am not going to give that up now, but tonight I just need to be more direct and allow myself to be honest about the deep trepidation I have about the new Trump administration. 

Given the number of morally suspect and unprepared people Trump is recommending for positions of leadership it seems more and more naive to believe anything but the worst of public administration is about to be unleashed on the rest of us. With so many guardrails against autocracy in jeopardy, and unless there is yet unidentified means of countering the abuse of power that is about to be thrust upon us, we will be subject to terrible abuse and deprivation, especially to the most vulnerable among us. The sheer meanness of recorded past remarks by the proposed leaders - starting with Donald Trump - are clear indications of lack of compassion and respect for human dignity. As it stands at this point,  the media descriptions of each of the proposed leadership appointees primarily provides background about their open disdain for a democratic government, for human rights, and for basic decency. These are people proposing various forms of retribution, revenge, and as much disruption and destruction as they can get away with. They are not motivated by personal slights in their own lives particularly, but because they feel immorally empowered to disregard their moral and institutional responsibilities they are motivated primarily for the desire to bully, control and punish those they consider threats or uncooperative. And that includes the whole concept of democratic government. 

It may be too dramatic to say our nation is about to be dealing with a situation similar to the arbitrary control one faces when incarcerated. Although there may be legally stated rules about how many restrictions and types of punishment that can be administered under custody, under the cover of assumed personal power and privilege, and without appeal, the daily treatment of the prisoner is ultimately controlled by the attitude of the prison leadership and the discretion of the line staff. Similarly what is being proposed by the Trump administration is to demand compliance and demand absolute loyalty to the Trump and to disrupt our established democratic government. Their goal, in other words, is to clear the way for those in power to determine what best serves their needs: control, concentration and extension of wealth, and vengeance on all the institutions, persons, and legal precedent that impeded or denied their power and control in the past. And they offer no alternative policy that supports the underlying values of the American government ideal. It really does feel a lot like a prison ward run by unaccountable, socially psycho-pathological types running amok with power.

To consider this situation anything but a dire crisis of government is to naively underestimate the likely immediate and long-term impact their leadership will have on our individual and communal lives. I keep looking in vain for some indication of possible public service to the common good, or at least a reasonable proposal about how to make government more effective and efficient other than slashing existing programs that primarily serve the pubic interest, and most particularly protecting the most vulnerable. I am inclined to be repeatedly stunned by my outrage to it all, but I only have a limited amount of outrage to spend, and I can’t afford even that. But there is something undeniably outrageous about the lack of character and professional qualifications  of those proposed for leadership positions. Because being outrageous seems to be the administration’s intention, and it has the presumed control over the process for now, it seems best to just contain my outrage with the expectation that at least some of it will be mitigated, if not by a Senate vetting process, or later, through the resistance of the general public. 

So, getting back to my preferred writing style and content, I have a nonviolent tentative plan about how I intend to respond to the crisis we face.

In my study of past reforms and reformers, and out of my own experience, there are two primary essentials that provide for the resiliency and effectiveness of sustained social change, especially against significant opposition. The first is to be solidly grounded in a frame of traditional values/orthodoxy. Although the range of those values might include the value of domination and control as espoused by Trump and others, my value base comes from my Quaker Christian tradition based on the love ethic taught through the recorded teachings of Jesus in addition to my democratic ideals of equality and inclusion. Our Quaker tradition has a history of living out of a radical faith that presumes the presence of God in each person and all of creation. That means we observe a particular reverence for Life in all its manifestations that leads us to counter violence with an ethic of peace and justice. My faith makes these values experientially affirmed and trustworthy even as I may be threatened in the face of adversity. 

The second essential is a commitment with a community who shares my primary values. The founding documents and the Constitution have established a still unsettled (and actually threatened) common identity we call the United States, and in as much as we act as a “community” with respect to our established ideals, we are an effective bulwark against tyranny, and we need to call our nation to those values now as strongly as possible. And the same applies to much smaller communitarian identities such as our families, neighborhoods, various associations, and our faith groups. To the extent we are committed to a common set of humane, respectful and compassionate attitudes and values toward each other and the wider community, we will provide greater protection for ourselves and others. 

So in practical terms what does this mean? In response to the threat posed by the Trump administration, I would encourage each and everyone of us to be very intentional about the depth of our moral and value base and to find others with whom you share these values:

• How deep is our understanding and commitment to the democratic ideals and process at all levels - family life through government? 
• How clear are we about family values and our faith traditions teaching about what we consider to be most acceptable way we treat each other, our moral code? Have these been openly discussed?
• What is our capacity and breadth of our ability to love beyond our self interest? 
• Are we now, or are we planning to be part of an affinity group with a stated commitment of mutual support?

If our values and community are clear, we will find ways to then identify and follow strategies to not only resist the autocratic reality around us, but, more importantly, we will be seeking and establishing alternative models for a more compassionate, cooperative and sustainable form of government and  way of life. 

Peace,
Tom