I do NOT want an ‘outsider’ as president

We’ve been hearing for decades that the political system in Washington is “broken” due to élites and other special interests not beholden to the electorate and that only folks outside the system can bring it back to what it used to — and should — be.

That’s not only wrong; it’s naïve. Dangerously so.

When it comes to running a country, you should want someone who has some understanding of budgets, foreign policy (the president is also head of state) and the politics of getting bills passed.

Remember that we don’t live in a direct democracy; we live in a republic where we elect people to make decisions for us. Trouble is, doing the right thing for all doesn’t always mean popularity, which is why politicians, understandably, are often categorized as unprincipled.

Too many people thus believe that their parochial interests mirror those of the nation’s.

(So what would result from things like term limits for legislators, so that more people can run? Gridlock and perhaps even more career-oriented politicians. Yes, more, because those lobbyists, the real problem, aren’t going anywhere.)

The real reason a Donald Trump, who has never held elective office of any kind, would be a disaster as president is that he has demonstrated no concept of how to work out those differences; he appeals to those who want, really, a dictator — or, perhaps more accurately, as conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks said, “a superhero.” If he plays the political game he loses his base and becomes “just another politician,” but if he goes in like a bull in a china shop he loses the country — and the world. For those who believe that government can and should be run like a business, you simply can’t set goals and get rid of people who don’t meet them or who won’t follow along.

“Outsiders”? I won’t vote for that kind. Ever.

Trump — the true heir to Reagan

Since the 1980s and especially since the Bill Clinton years, the Republican Party had desperately tried to find the next Ronald Reagan. But it actually has him today — and doesn’t want him. Of course I’m talking about presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Now, I know this might sound crazy and even offensive to some, because they were temperamentally quite different. But they had two major things in common that are often overlooked: 1) They each possessed a supreme confidence that they could ride in on the proverbial white horse and save the day; and 2) They scapegoated an “out” group to do it.

In Reagan’s case, it was African-Americans. As governor of California, he criticized Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent resistance upon his death. When he ran for president in 1976 he made comments about “welfare queens driving Cadillacs,” and he kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss. — where three civil-rights workers were murdered 16 years earlier — and declared that he supported “states’ rights.”

Trump, of course, has made immigration an issue, claiming that he would force Mexico to build a wall to keep Mexicans out (though in fact more Mexicans are leaving than coming in) and suggesting that Muslims from the Middle East shouldn’t be allowed in due to fears of terrorism.

That demagoguery is part of Trump’s appeal.

Part of it, however, is also that Trump is a political outsider with zero experience in elected office, and that will prove to be his undoing should he get elected (which I don’t anticipate). Reagan, however, wasn’t — he’d been on the scene for a while, knew how to make deals with the opposition and used diplomacy in dealing with other nations, something that hasn’t occurred to those who demand a neophyte.

Which I don’t understand. Truly. A number of conservatives have said that a Trump victory will undo the Reagan Revolution — and they’re probably right. But Reagan did provide a blueprint for Trump to follow, and he’s doing it.

Left behind

Author Jefferson Bethke, known for his poem “Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus” and a follow-up book “Jesus > Religion,” has recently delved into the issue of adult singles in the church, saying that they — we — aren’t part of the Christian “JV team.” That is to say, Christian singles aren’t less worthy to be part of the church, to say nothing of being in leadership, just because they don’t have a spouse.

I understand that, but the real problem here is the lack of relationships between married and single, which obviously puts the single at an immediate disadvantage.

That should be obvious, but it’s something married people may not quite see. Of course the married person is in a covenant relationship, which by definition has to take priority. Usually, however, married people fraternize with other married people, and when you have a situation where pastors are married, which is almost always, the gap widens. And with more and more singles coming to church, especially with the “millennial generation” being primarily single, the difference in marital status will become an issue within the next decade.

As a lifelong singleton, I understand this from experience. I left the post-college fellowship at my former church because of the large number of weddings, 18 in the year-and-a-half I was part of it; I wasn’t in a position to date any of the women and had virtually nothing in common with the men, so I had trouble building relationships there. I ended up leaving the church altogether 12 years later for similar reasons; even though I was a respected deacon I felt lonely and fell for a woman in the church whom I had no business approaching; I realized in that situation that I was slipping spiritually.

My current church, where I’ve gone for over 17 years, has a large single population that at one time drove the church but no longer as visible as it once was. Spiritually, it suits my purposes, and I get to play music, always good for a musician. I’d like to find someone there that I could date and possible marry, but that hasn’t happened yet. Furthermore, I won’t change just for the sake of “finding someone” because I don’t see that as a valid reason to change churches.

But I digress. It’s still difficult to come to church alone and leave church alone, and I do with that I had a group of peers to go to lunch with. Would more coupled people be sensitive to that.

Connecting with an ‘inner child’

When I was in the fifth grade, my first year at a Christian academy, a first-grade girl named Cheryl who used to ride the same bus home seriously took a shine to me. She treated me like a teddy bear, occasionally playing with my hair, hugging me and — most notably — kissing her hand and brushing it up against my cheek. She even often told me that she loved me.

Interestingly enough, now that I think about it, she really did. After reading the book “The Five Love Languages,” I’ve determined that the two that affect me the most are 1) Physical touch; and 2) Words of affirmation.

And that relationship, as irritating and confusing it was to me at the time, affects those I have with women today.

I say this because over the years I’ve often found myself in the role of nurturer, occasionally a father figure, to women, some of whom have told me feel “safe”; I used to consider that an insult because I wasn’t dating much and felt stuck in the “friend zone.” Today, however, I recognize that it brings the kind of responsibility that men need to have in any significant relationship with a woman, including a marriage.

About a decade ago I was attending a certain 12-step recovery meeting — for the sake of anonymity I won’t mention it — and one of the women who tended to dress sexily approached me, clearly wanting some validation from me, so I gave her some verbally. (I learned later that she was coming out of a marriage so trying to hit on her wouldn’t have been appropriate, plus I know from personal experience that such meetings aren’t good places to meet partners for a number of reasons.) Later on I gave her a balloon on which was printed, “To cheer you” — to that, she said, “This is just what I needed!”

Sometimes a woman may need to vent or grieve, not to solve a problem but just to be heard; at other times she may just want to curl up. Although I didn’t always, I do these willingly today without the expectation of gratification.

So what does this have to do with the “inner child?” Everything. Someone pouring her heart to me I now see as a gift — it’s not merely what she has; it’s who she is, and it’s something that I had better not exploit for my selfish purposes. Some women have been abused by significant others or, sadly, parents, and I don’t need to compound their trauma. It’s where the tender side of a man needs to come out.

Maintaining those boundaries has helped me quite a bit, especially of late. In the fall of 2014 I began learning West Coast Swing, and many of my partners are young enough to be daughters if I had children; as I wrote in an essay the next year, “It’s a lot like dancing with siblings.” In turn, they often give me energy, and I often leave a session feeling satisfied.

Even when I’m in a relationship, I remember the 6-year-old part of my partner — the part I really need to honor most.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have expected more …

Here in Pittsburgh an anchorwoman from the of the local television stations recently lost her job after she made remarks on a Facebook page concerning a mass murder that took place within walking distance of the station, in an “at-risk” neighborhood. She made a number of assumptions about the shooters, saying that they were probably young, fatherless black men (when in fact no suspects have yet been arrested as I write). She also compared them to a busboy at one of the local nightclub districts, wondering, in effect, “Why can’t they be like him?”

However, a number of politically conservative Christians have defended her, saying that her statements weren’t really racist. I wonder how some of those same people would react if she had made “anti-Christian” remarks.

And there’s the hypocrisy — in that narrative it seems that the only real persecution that exists surrounds them and their worldview. It’s been that way since the early 1980s, when the “religious right” gained a little political and cultural power and in the process began to trash those who disagreed.

If persecution is indeed the norm I would expect the Christian to sympathize with those who suffer, who experience at the very least insensitive remarks of some sort. But that hasn’t happened to my knowledge; it seems that many believers have forsaken the “do unto others” command, and that failure to be considerate is one reason the church is every bit as divided as the world. After all, our witness to the world is severely compromised when we don’t practice what we preach.

The discrediting of 'Reaganomics'

Former Rep. Joe Scarborough made an admission I never thought I’d hear from a conservative Republican: “It never trickles down.”

The reference, of course, was to what became known as “Reaganomics,” which posited that, were taxes and regulations cut, the wealthy would be free to invest and grow the economy.

I for one thought from the jump that supply-side economics, its formal name, was a scam inspired by pure greed, and Scarborough seemed to be saying that as well — although well over 30 years later.

What I found amazing is that such a scheme found its way into the church, almost as though being Christian was tantamount to supporting a pro-business ideology. Nothing wrong with being in business and not even with making a profit, but — really — how much money and power does one need? Especially with the pursuit of it leaving families and communities devastated, with more working-class people these days turning to drugs and even committing suicide due to the lack of economic opportunity.

Because what really happened is that the rich pocketed that money, taking it out of the economy altogether and using it to get more or maintain their privileged status. And while the economy did grow after President George W. Bush cut taxes, virtually all that growth came at the very top. And you simply cannot maintain a healthy society with such inequality because it means a lack of opportunity down the road.

National Review is in denial, publishing a tome that said that supporters of Donald Trump, whose candidacy for president the magazine opposes, have simply lost their “values.” But you can’t feed a family on values.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has been saying since 2008 that "the big [conservative] defeat is coming" — perhaps this year. I must confess that I didn't think it would happen like this, but the delusion of Reaganomics is finally being rejected.

“Changing Washington” — won’t happen under Trump

It’s almost a truism that Donald Trump, currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, would be a disaster in the White House as things stand now. Some Democrats are actually gleeful at the thought, believing that he would be easier to defeat in the general election.

Whatever the case, Trump’s bombastic rhetoric will cost him down the road. Because of the way things are, his promises to foster change, essentially based on asserting American power, are worthless because they depend on changing the culture of Washington, D.C., which many, many “reformers” claim they want to do.

As Democratic political figure James Carville said in the book “Love & War,” which he wrote with his Republican wife Mary Matalin, “There’s only one way things are done [there], and that’s ‘as usual.’ ”

Why is this the case? Well, look at it this way: If Trump does get his way he alienates not only the political “establishment” but much of the country and world, let alone ignore the Constitution. If he becomes more “moderate” and reasonable he’ll be seen as a sellout to the establishment.

Does he reasonably think he can build a wall along the border with Mexico and have the Mexicans pay for it? Or that he can unilaterally take out the so-called Islamic State? And with the amount of money we're already in the hole because of the war in Iraq, how will we pay for that?

"Well, Trump isn't part of the 'establishment.' " And that's a problem because he not only doesn't know what the problems are but also how to address them. He said he'd hire people who would; trouble is, they'd by definition be part of the "establishment." And that would defeat the purpose.

Besides, at that level you have to cut deals to get anything done. That's required when you have people with differing ideological agendas, and suggesting that people who represent "blue" areas adopt "red-state" thinking simply won't happen. I'm not sure Trump gets that.

Bottom line, if Trump does the bull in a china shop thing he loses the country. If he compromises, he loses his base. When it comes to governing, he's going to have to be realistic. As Carville said, "You will not change it."