Donald Trump and the Power of the Word (which other candidates know how to use it?)

This is Part 2 of a multi-part series examining how we use the Power of the Word in politics, particularly in the 2020 presidential race.  Look for other pieces such where I will examine how each major candidate for President of the United States uses the power of their word. Rev. Sara S. Nichols is senior minister at the Center for Spiritual Living, Davis and the Spiritual Director of All is Well Institute which supports and teaches people how to heal themselves using spiritual tools.  Trained as an attorney, before coming to spiritual science, she was a legislative and communications advocate for Medicare for All and other consumer issues in Congress and the California legislature.

Next up, "Bernie Sanders and the Power of the Word"  

In evaluating 2020 candidates for president, voters should ask a question that’s not even on their radar:  who is the candidate for President that can most effectively use what some call “the power of positive thinking,” and what I call the Power of the Word (See "What exactly is 'the Power of the Word?' and How does it Work in Politics?") to shift the parameters of the possible?  And of those, who is using that power to create and reveal a nation and a world that works for everyone (rather than as a means to an end to acquire power)?  As a person who, before becoming a new thought minister, lost the good fight as a lawyer and consumer rights advocate in Congress and the California Legislature, let me acquaint you with the current White House occupant’s use of “the power of the word.”  No one who is voting for president in 2020 should underestimate this factor in the race.

Donald Trump and his family were strongly influenced by Norman Vincent Peale, a Christian minister who wrote the bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking.   Trump’s father Fred was close to Peale who helped him use this philosophy to acquire real estate.  Peale officiated at Donald Trump’s first wedding. As Politico Magazine detailed in its late 2017 article, "The Power of Trump's Positive Thinking", Fred brought the Donald up to use positive thinking  “to be a winner” and to assert that he is winning, even when all evidence is to the contrary.  Note that what makes this thinking “positive” is not that it is good, moral, true or loving; what makes it “positive” is that it is an affirmation of what the thinker desires to be true, despite what’s really showing up in the world.

Politico walks us through many of times in his life and career that this strategy has worked for Donald Trump.  But we hardly need the detail because we have all watched this in real time. I notice it perhaps more than some might because it is a perverse version of what I teach, the power of the word, the power of my mind over conditions.

Indeed, Politico Magazine quotes best selling positive thinking writer Mitch Horowitz on the president, “‘He is a kind of Frankenstein monster of the philosophy’ of positive thought,” said Horowitz.  “Trump seems to be an example of at least the short-term, destructive gains that you can attain through self-help, through self-assertion, and people’s willingness to believe what they think that they see.”

Although I encourage you to read it for yourself, the point of Politico’s article is different in thrust from mine.  Its author, Michael Kruse, is interested in whether Trump has reached the limitations of the use of this philosophy.  Eighteen months later, the answer is clear--we cannot rule out that he will use it to maintain power at any cost, despite all logic and appearance.

Trump’s rise to power on a river of hate through the force of his mind and the triumph of his will illustrates both the power of these principles, the true neutrality and nonjudgmental character of infinite or universal law, and the danger of teaching people to work with this law without grounding their actions in values, like the ones my denomination (the Centers for Spiritual Living) teach, which include diversity and inclusion, accountability, love, compassion, caring, and integrity.

On the one hand, Trump’s success could be seen as an inspiration to anyone who is considering the possibility that they need not be bound by precedent or apparent conditions.  By any standard in our history, external conditions were these: Donald Trump had zero chance of being elected president of the United States. He had no political experience, no military experience, no public policy experience, no foreign policy experience.  He has multiple broken marriages, multiple affairs, multiple accusers of sexual assault and harassment. He won’t be handled. He broke with Republican orthodoxy to be anti-free-trade, pro-protectionism. He is openly racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic, encouraging of white supremacy and nationalism.  He courts oppressive anti-American oligarchs and dictators around the world. In short, this is not a man who was supposed to win a Republican primary, let alone a general election. Any other candidate with his baggage, with his negatives, would have, as Politico points out, dropped out early on.  Yet he was in it to win it and win it he did.

How, you ask? By using the power of the word, ungrounded in truth, values or effect.  Donald Trump picks certain affirmations, “Make America Great Again,” “We’re Going to Build a Wall,” and “Lock Her Up” and he focuses on them to the exclusion of all else.  He doesn’t let “facts” get in his way. He doesn’t let the “rule of [human] law” get in his way. And he largely achieves his goal, independent of external conditions or "facts."  No, he has not made America greater, built a wall or locked her up, but he has become president--which was the point to him (if not to his followers).

What if the people who are supporting Trump are as attracted to the use of the power of his word as they are to his policies? As a new thought minister, I know that we often walk into a Center for Spiritual Living hurt, broken and sad.  We feel disempowered. Often we are having trouble making ends meet.  Sometimes we are in broken relationships. Maybe we are in ill health.  We are attracted to what we teach as “Science of Mind” because if we believe only in external conditions then we feel hopeless and trapped.  We are attracted to a philosophy that teaches us that no matter what our circumstances, they can change. No matter how bad things seem, conditions have no power over us.   As a lawyer and legislative advocate, after years of losing the fight for Medicare for All in Congress and the state of California, I was attracted to this teaching partly because I saw a way to use it to alter the parameters of the possible.  I saw that until we mobilized universal law to our aid, no amount of marching, petitions and press releases alone would be successful.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the avid Trump supporter for a minute.  If you believe or align with any of the issues that Donald Trump is talking about--maybe it’s even just the obvious fact of the middle class disappearing or good jobs have left the US to go overseas under free trade--might you not be attracted by his command, his authority, his seeming ability to overcome, persevere and maintain no matter what people say about him, no matter what the seeming obstacles?  No matter what the human laws say? Isn’t Trump’s adherence to his own law of the gut notable when seen from that perspective?

Donald Trump is not allowing conditions to control.  Presidents don’t tweet? I tweet. Presidents don't attack their own cabinet appointees?  I do. Presidents respect the rule of law, at least publically? I don’t. Presidents abide by the Constitution? Only where it serves the goal.   Donald Trump has only one Constitution, and it is his gut. He is obedient to what works. He has not done it alone; he has used his platform to bring his base into alignment with his focus.  Together their powerful consciousness is making things possible that I didn’t know were possible and that I don’t want to be possible: demonizing immigrants, separating children at the borders, taking away LGBTQ rights, dismantling environmental and food safety protections, chipping away at or outright eliminating the separation of powers and co-equal authority of the judiciary and the Congress to get in the way of any of these goals.

Every effective leader in history has mobilized the power of the word and articulated a vision and a future beyond apparent conditions.  Just imagine if we had a presidential candidate who used the “power of the word” for love and for the good of everyone instead of just their own ascent and retention of power?   Wouldn’t it be amazing to have someone running for president who thought that the control of our political system by billionaires was just a condition that had no power over us? Someone who believed and credibly asserted that the power of the gun lobby couldn’t prevent us from keeping our children safe? Someone who really thought that we could provide quality affordable health care for every single person in this country from cradle to grave?  Someone who knew that we could actually right now dramatically slow the rate of carbon emissions and reverse climate change with the collective power of our mind in politics?

There are many candidates for president, most of those running for the Democratic nomination, that espouse the policies listed above.  How many of them believe they can do it, though, I begin to wonder? How many of them are a) truly grounded in those values and b) really know how to use the power of their word?  What if in addition to what demographic they appeal to, how much or what experience they have, or whether they can come across to the voters in Michigan, we looked closely at how they use universal law in the world?  What if we understood that the current president’s biggest liabilities were also his biggest assets? What if we seized those assets for ourselves and named and claimed our time as now?

In future articles I’ll examine these questions and more, does Bernie Sanders believe in the power of his word or just the power of the people?  Is that enough? Does new thought writer Marianne Williamson have a head start in beating Donald Trump at his own game because she knows the power of the word?  What does Kamala Harris actually believe? How did Barack Obama use his word? How can we ourselves use the power of our own word to create and reveal an America and a world that works for everyone?

What exactly is "the Power of the Word?" and How does it Work in Politics?

This is Part 1 of a multi-part series examining how we use the Power of the Word in politics, particularly in the 2020 presidential race.  Look for other pieces such where I will examine how each major candidate for President of the United States uses the power of their word. Next up, "Donald Trump and the Power of the Word"

Which words we use and how we use them creates the world we live in. Every idea is first created in mind, then brought forth in words, and then brought into being through human actions.  Those who understand “the Power of the Word” know how to use it to create what they want to create, not what they don’t want to create.  The reason that some people use the Word as synonymous with God or Jesus the Christ is that the Word is that powerful. When we speak our word, we are creating a container into which the power of the Universe can pour.  We are not the power, but when we use our Word, we are a conduit for that power. That is why it is so important how our leaders speak. This is why some leaders, no matter what policies they espouse, or what background they have, attract us.  And it is why other leaders, with the right resume, can ultimately fail to win elections or bring forth their agenda.

This is about winning but it is not ONLY about winning.  The President of the United States shapes the world with their use of the word.  What Theodore Roosevelt called the president’s “bully pulpit” is not just a way to be heard by everyone.  That is part of it, but the other part is sculpting the world with their words. When presidents speak, it creates a mold into which the United States and the rest of the world will flow.  A passionately created mold of hate and competition creates a world of hate and competition. A passionately created mold of love and compassion creates a world of love and compassion.

The movie Won’t You Be My Neighbor?  shows real life footage where Fred Rogers uses the power of his word change the mind of an antagonistic and cynical congressional committee chair determined to cut funding for NPR.  As Mr. Rogers describes in his low key but deeply felt way how his program brings the power of love to children who may never have felt it, we watch the chair go from no to yes before our eyes.  

I have experienced a version of this myself. After I left public policy work and was focussing exclusively on ministry, a local group asked me to speak in front of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in favor of a ban on single use plastic bags. Af first I balked. Sure I was in favor of the ban (which at that time hadn't been ratified statewide), but who was I? Just some new thought minister. My church didn't even have a position on it so I couldn't bring the might of my 25 members to bear. And while I had years of experience testifying before lawmakers, I had no particularly policy expertise in this area and I didn't know what I could say that would possibly make a difference.

Then it occurred to me that as a minister in the Centers for Spiritual Living, I was trained to speak my word with power and authority using a form of affirmative prayer in which you unite yourself through universal source, declare what you want to be true and then are grateful for it as if it already happened and release it to Source to be done.

Anyway when I testified before the board I did the only thing I knew for sure how to do as a minister and practitioner of Science of Mind, speak my word for what I wanted.  I literally said an affirmative prayer as my testimony:

Good evening, Mr. Chair, and members of the Board of Supervisors.  I am Sara Nichols, I am the pastor and Senior Minister of the Center for Spiritual Living, Davis.  And I'm here to speak in favor of a ban on plastic bags by telling you what I know to be the Truth:

God is all there is.  God is in every single thing on the planet and in this state and county.  God is in the rivers, the fish, the mountains and the streams. God is in the land and the people who grow food and produce the products that are sold in every market.  God is in the workers at the markets. God is in the plastic bag manufacturers and their workers. God is in the plastic bags. And God is in every single member of the Board of Supervisors.  And God is in me. 

And so I speak my word with power and authority today.  There is no opposition here. There is no separation. There is not God or right over here and evil and wrong over there.  All separation is melted away. We are just God and God making choices about how we want to be and what is possible. I speak my word for new possibilities.  I speak my word for a vibrant economy with good jobs for everyone and a clean beautiful environment, clean water, clean air, healthy fish and animals. I eliminate all false division.  

I am grateful that this is already the Truth of God.  The solutions have already been created in the Mind of God and now they are spoken by me with passion and authority so they do not come back to me void.  I release my Word into the perfect law of God knowing that it is so. And so it is. 

The feeling in the room and among the supervisors was markedly different after this treatment testimony.  There was a feeling of love and openness and possibility that wasn't there before. Two of the supervisors that had been known to have misgivings about a ban on plastic bags, spoke in a way that indicated they now were open to voting for the ban.

In the rest of this series, I'll examine how the Power of the Word is used by the major candidates for President of the United States in 2020.

Run thru fire, swim thru barracudas to see hilarious Disaster! at Sacramento Theater Company through May 12th

(:)(:)(:)(:) unexpected snouts up for Disaster! at Sacramento Theater Company now.    I went to this play because Michael Laun is the director and a group of his friends wanted to see him in action.  A 70s pop song disaster  musical that I'd never heard of sounded like it could be kinda fun, but that's about it.  

Well, I was right that it was fun and I was wrong that that was it.  This fast-paced show is hilarious-- with standout performances by Nicole Sterling as Sister Mary, Jamie Jones as Shirley and either Elizabeth Lamora or Katelyn Reeves as Lisa/Ben (whoever performed on May 4th at 8pm).

As a device, the use of 70's pop songs to move the action along is genius.  Most of them are snippets (so probably didn't cost much to include) but the opening notes played by the able band have long since worn a groove in our collective minds.  Even the youngest among us knew every song but one and most of the audience couldn't help but sing along. 

We were in stitches while the nun twerked a slot machine to "Never Can Say Goodbye;" rolling in the aisles while the 14 year old kid in the production belted out "When Will I Be Loved" and absolutely devastated when local favorite Jamie Jones saves the day by dancing and dying at the same time to a "Fifth of Beethoven."

This director and choreographer certainly knew what they were doing.  Delightful pop voices, dance moves and costumes from the era along with seriously excellent comic timing milk everything this musical has to offer.  (And I'm not saying this because I know the director because I am a total snob when it comes to regional productions regardless of the connection.)

I should mention that this show also may give you the opportunity to see an dishonest criminally irresponsible sexual harrassing New York casino magnate eaten by barracudas.  In this day and age, that can be cathartic to fantasize about ...

This play is good for any age; perfect for a date or the whole family.  Great idea for mother's day weekend--lots of good laughs for mom.  

It's OUR Economy, (and we're not) Stupid!

Today NPR barraged me with its coverage of "record growth in the economy" bookended with a story on whether Jim Carville's famous campaign message, "it's the economy, stupid" still applies.  How we talk about this matters.  I am in the middle of writing a multi-part series on the Power of the Word in politics (look for "Donald Trump and the Power of the Word," and "Bernie Sanders and the Power of the Word" and "Marianne Williamson and the Power of the Word" on a "newstand"--mommy, what's a "newstand"?--near you soon). 

In some ways it boils down to this, let's use the power of our word(s) for what we want, not what we don't want.  Let's not hope for a recession or that people don't notice that we've hit certain indicators of economic growth; and while we don't want to have our head in the sand, let's not spend all our time lamenting the very real experience that millions today have of working multiple jobs to make ends meet, without affordable healthcare or education.  People know they're suffering.  Let's focus on what we want; let's speak our word for Medicare for all and universal affordable public education including preschool and university.

In remembering that Bill Clinton's political strategist James Carville famously posted "It's the Economy, Stupid" on the wall of their campaign "war room," we're focussing on the wrong thing.  The genius in that phrase wasn't the "economy" it was the "stupid."  The "stupid" wasn't the American people, it was the campaign staff.  Carville was telling them to stay on the winning message.  The message he had crafted was it's the economy.  With social media and the internet today, we ARE the campaign staff.  And we need to stay on message.  That does not mean that the winning message for those hoping to get elected in 2020 is "it's the economy."  

So what is the winning message? Many Democrats seem to think that their winning message is "it's Donald Trump, stupid."  However spiritual law and the president's use of it would advise otherwise.  First of all what we resist, persists.  Second of all, as many elected officials realize, there is no need to ever mention he who must not be named.  It is simply the water we're swimming in.

A better message for now might be "It's Our Economy, (and we're not) Stupid.  Witness Joseph Stiglitz--author of Progressive Capitalism is Not an Oxymoron which recently appeared in the New York Times.  Stiglitz, a nobel laureate in economics and leading progressive economist at Columbia University, argues that we can and should use our political power to restructure the economy so that it works for everyone, instead of only billionaires. "Progressive capitalism," he states, "is not an oxymoron; we can indeed channel the power of the market to serve society."  Stiglitz continues:

There are many other areas in which government action is required. Markets on their own won’t provide insurance against some of the most important risks we face, such as unemployment and disability. They won’t efficiently provide pensions with low administrative costs and insurance against inflation. And they won’t provide an adequate infrastructure or a decent education for everyone or engage in sufficient basic research.
Progressive capitalism is based on a new social contract between voters and elected officials, between workers and corporations, between rich and poor, and between those with jobs and those who are un- or underemployed.

Now Stiglitz, unlike perhaps, Robert Reich and other progressive economists, only goes so far with this logic.  He believes that a "public option" for Obamacare would have been enough to guarantee affordable healthcare for all, stopping short of calling for Medicare for All, which others know is more affordable (precisely because its not profitable to Wall Street).  

And I'll note that the mere presence of this article in The New York Times shows that we are in a time when the ruling elite is, as it probably has not been since the 1930's, genuinely worried that the great mass of people left out of the economic boom are awake.  The mere election of the current president on themes of free trade shows that people recognize that the current free unfettered market approach has failed us.  The author attempting to save
capitalism not the American people.

The mere fact that the professors at Columbia Business School are calling for government action to include the middle class in benefits of a market economy shows that the time is right to speak our word for an economy that works for everyone.  

Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson and most of the American people are all focused on creating such economy, with varying degrees of success in message discipline.  Let's take a page from James Carville and stick to a winning message, but let's ground that message in a goal of a world that works for everyone--it's our economy, (and we're not) stupid.

Watch Bernie Sanders in Fox News Town Hall in Pennsylvania

Unlike every other candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Bernie Sanders had the guts to host a Town Hall meeting on Fox News right in the middle of post industrial Pennsylvania.  I am half way through watching it.  He has this mixed audience of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans eating out of his hands despite Fox News hosts being very hard on him and throwing every rightwing trope at him.  He is taking it right to the voters, not leaving anyone out.  This is gutsy and powerful.  Take a look:

If the Presidential Primary were held today...

Warning: this post is going to be, like many of my posts, rife with inaccuracies, vagueness and exaggeration.  So just relax and know that.  Part of why I'm putting it out there is to attract more information.

But whereas, it has come to my attention that there is a presidential election next year;

And whereas, it appears that the California presidential primary is March 3rd and not June;

And whereas, I like to panic early to avoid the rush;

I am going to tell you that if the primary election were held today, Thursday, April 4th, 2019...

---I would be in no position to vote because I don't know enough.  Okay that was kind of a teaser.  Here are things that I am thinking about the declared candidates for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States:

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) still has a lot of my attention because he:
stays focused on policy and not personalities including

• Medicare for All
• Minimum wage is a living wage
• Full voting rights and civil rights for women, people of color and LGBTQ
• Break up Big Banks
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Combat Climate Change
• I have worked with Bernie.  I trust Bernie.  As the Washington Post pointed out earlier this week.  Bernie is bona fide progressive but also has a proven track record of being pragmatic.  He does not have to knee jerk agree to a campaign plank that hasn't been well thought out because he doesn't have to prove that he is committed to a populist agenda that benefits everyone--we know he is. 
• He is the only candidate so far that I actually think is a good campaigner and I would actually want to be president.
• Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the next most interesting to me -- I am midway through her campaign book.  It makes me think that I would love her to BE president.  Given all her errors of judgment campaigning so far, I'm not convinced that she can WIN president.  But I definitely will be watching.
• Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) bears closer watching.  I feel like he does have something special and does seem to really be engaged in change rather than just wanting power.  
• Beto O'Rourke -- former Texas Congressman-- definitely adorable and fun to watch.  Can't tell how much I would actually want him to BE president, certainly fun to watch him RUN for president (sort of the opposite of Elizabeth Warren).
• Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) -- of course since she is closer to home and since I have a legislative background, I have some independent knowledge of Kamala (the only one other than Bernie).  As impressive as she seems if you don't know her, I'm actually not convinced that Kamala Harris stands for anything other than Kamala Harris.  There is a lot of evidence that her governing principle is to do and or say whatever she needs to do or say to gain power.  Yes, we've had a lot of white male politicians who are versions of that and yes I'm sure I would vote for her if she were the nominee, but can't we do better?  I don't want to expect more from a woman and person of color than I would expect from a white man so I'm watching myself on that.
• Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) -- not off to a great start.  Willing to tolerate a certain amount of quirky midwestern quasi centrist charm in exchange for a candidate who can win the midwest but not convinced she is it.
• Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO) -- I know next to nothing about this guy but I generally think being a Governor is a better background for running a country than being a legislator.  
• Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) -- sort of the same for him except that I think he is one to watch because he is prioritizing climate change.  With such a crowded field and with so many California Democrats being willing to put this survival of the species issue ahead of other issues*, anyone who focusses really strongly on one major voting block and is able to raise money is someone who might make it into the top tier.  Jay Inslee could be such a one.

Marianne Williamson (Author and speaker)--this is a subject

for another post but Marianne, like our president, knows the power of the word and knows how to bring that power to bear.  I actually think that the focus on reparations may have come from some of Marianne's early talks and writings.  She has been talking about reparations for slavery as a vital need in our nation as a spiritual/energetic matter to move on.  She has a HUGE following in California.  Millions of people buy her books and download her lectures.  Don't completely write her off because she's not a politician.  I seem to remember someone else who wasn't a politician defying expectations in a primary.

Last time I checked Joe Biden is not a declared candidate so I won't comment. 

*myself, I put combatting climate change a close second to economic issues such as Medicare for all and Living wage--why? because I would like us to survive and thrive--but let's not pit these issues against each other the way the right does--I like the way Bernie does both.  He has been a strong vote on the environment and would be a leader on this issue.  

If a lesbian "bloke" from Australia can get angry in front of men, then why can't I?

Five snouts up for Netflix's "Nanette" comedy special with Hannah Gadsby.  When my husband said, "do you want to see a Netflix special with a female comic that's supposed to be pretty good?" I quickly agreed.  The first hour of the 2-hour special is very funny, Hannah Gadsby makes us laugh about what it was like to grow up in small town Australia as a lesbian who looks like a "bloke" and "has all this going on" (she says, waving her hands at her body).

After that hour we took a mid-way bathroom and tea break and rejoined our hero.  At that exact moment, this comedian takes a sharp departure from, well, comedy and starts instead to tell the truth about her life.  In so doing, she unpacks the difference between comedy and reality, what it was really like to grow up a lesbian androgynous looking female, and to raise some hard questions about how men treat and see women.

She does this on stage in front of a few thousand people, which is, frankly, awe-inspiring.   And for parts of it, she sounds really really angry and you can feel how uncomfortable that makes absolutely everyone.

It made me realize how very seldom I have seen women be really really angry in front of men about what it's like to be a woman.  In fact, if I Google "woman who screamed at" only Ana Maria Archila screaming at (Senator) Jeff Flake in the elevator after the Brett Kavanaugh hearing pops up.  This should be an indication of how seldom a woman screams at anyone in public.

For me, personally, what most catches my attention is when Hannah wondered what it is that white men are so angry about.  Why do the men who rule the world have fragile egos?  Why shouldn't they be the most secure people ever? 

Lately I have been thinking about that a lot.  I have previously shared this video about how "why I'm not racist is only half the story" -- in it Robin DiAngelo educates us about "white fragility" and how when we deflect and defend and justify our behavior as white people, trying to prove that we're not racist, we make it much harder for people of color to be open with us, and we prevent the very change we say we are for.


And ever since that video, I've wondered also about "male fragility" and how it functions to keep the patriarchy intact. From the time I was a young girl, I was socialized to be sensitive to the male ego.  Ironically, I did not have a father with a fragile ego.  He was pretty secure in his manhood.  Nonetheless, my southern belle of a mother taught me that it was an essential component of successful womanhood to never demean men, make them feel small, to never insult their egos.

For years, even as a "feminist," I have had a part of me that has had pride at how well I get along with, work with men.  "Men feel comfortable with me,"  and "I have a way of talking to men" are thoughts I have had. Even as a strong, loud, opinionated woman, I have largely observed and enforced the related guideline that women are not allowed to discuss "women's" subjects in mixed company.  But, perversely, men's subjects are everyone's subjects.  So if men want to discuss sports, or geek out on country music in front of a group of women, or make dick jokes, women must quietly listen or occasionally come up with a question to ask.  If women want to discuss menstruation or Barbies or their armpit hair, they are advised to wait for an all female gathering.

Falling asleep after watching Hannah's special, I realized that my taking pride in my "way" with men reflects a deep internalization of the patriarchy, but also that it reveals a fundamental mistrust of the men around me.  All my life I've been surrounded by wonderful, kind, loving, feminist men.  I've never been sexually assaulted, or even harassed.  I've been safe and loved.  I am white.  I am happily married to a man.  I am affluent.  I am highly educated.  I am ridiculously articulate.  I am American.  

If I can't get angry at men about the condition of women, who can?  If I can't speak my truth, who can?  If an Australian lesbian comedian who looks like a bloke can speak her truth in front of men, then so can I.

One White Woman's (ill-advised?) Journey toward and Rave Review for Green Book

(:)(:)(:)(:)(:) Five Enthusiastic Snouts up for the movie Green Book which controversially just won best picture.  It was a bit of a journey getting to Green Book, but I finally did, and, spoiler alert, I loved it.  When I first heard about the movie, I immediately wanted to see it.  But I had read reviews and heard from critics that it might be sentimentalizing segregation.  That it was just another black white buddy film written and directed by white men.  That it was the new Driving Miss Daisy (only reversed).    

These criticisms really caught our attention, and we strongly considered skipping the film altogether.  Then our young adult children came home for Christmas holidays and we took a look at the movie offerings on a given day.  Only two films that the four of us could agree upon were being shown in the right window:  Green Book and Creed II.  Unfortunately our kids talked us into Creed II--I didn't have the pleasure of seeing the original Creed (full confession: in the late 70s I had a poster of Sly Stallone on my bedroom wall), I'm told it was a steep fall from I to II.  

That choice behind us, I put Green Book in the back of my mind and kind of assumed I wouldn't get to see it.  Then a friend of mine left a long voicemail message with a "spiritual check-in" that was 90% about how good Green Book was, or at least I thought that was what she was talking about, the message was slightly garbled.  The next time I spoke with her directly, I brought it up.  "Were you talking about the movie Green Book on that message?"  She said "yes! have you seen it yet?"  I said no, and mentioned the critical reviews.  She said she hadn't read those reviews and that she and her relative (both of whom are African-American) had absolutely loved it.  So there's that...

Then about a month later, ANOTHER friend, in another ostensibly spiritual talk, speaks for 15 minutes about how Green Book was kind of a life movie for her (a 'life movie' is a movie that is so perfect for you that it's one of your top movies of your life).   I spoke with her about this afterwards, and told her about the negative reviews.  She, an African American woman who also happens to be a top concert musician, expressed disagreement and said "consider the source, that movie was God's honest truth."  So there's that...

And then we saw it.  Just last weekend it was the only thing we could find to do on a Sunday afternoon of a holiday weekend within walking distance of our hotel in San Francisco.  Oh. My. God.  We just absolutely loved this film.

Now, I haven't seen every movie that was nominated for best picture this year and so I'm not positive that I would have voted for it for best picture.  But I can tell you that this particular white woman found it to be a stunningly beautifully written and acted movie about the relationship between these two men in the context of segregation.

The deep cynicism of some of these negative reviews honestly makes me wonder if any of these folks actually watched the movie or did they just read the plot?  Yes.  There is SO much about the conceit of the film that could have gone badly awry in the execution:  black white buddy road movie genre is SO over done.  The elite African-American pianist could have been portrayed as a caricature.  The movie could have made the northern whites seem non racist or the southern whites seem to be racists with a heart of gold.  None of that happened (in my estimation).

The dialogue, the character development, the relationship works.  It just does.  Tony Lip, the Italian driver, is a bit of a caricature of Italian Americans in some ways, and definitely provides the comic relief.  But the film was created and written by his actual son, and this is a true story.  And Viggo Mortensen, who plays Tony, displays a stunning range of emotions, skills and depth.  I haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody and I've heard that Rami Malek's performance is amazing, but I'd have no trouble handing Viggo an oscar for that performance.

And Mahershala Ali was equally magnificent as Dr. Don Shirley.  What beauty, what poise, layered over such humanity.  I'm thrilled that he won best supporting actor.

Now lets talk about Spike Lee and Blackkklannsman for a second.  I am a HUGE Spike Lee fan.  I was outraged when Do The Right Thing--which I consider to be one of the greatest films of all time--was passed over.  But Blackkklannsman is not even in my top 10 favorite Spike Lee films.  So no, I don't think I have to be outraged that it was overlooked for best picture.

I don't fully understand how or why the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences makes its decisions.  And I can't know that Green Book "deserved" the oscar.  But I can know that IMHO it was one helluva film.

And the winner is...Chaos! Will Vice (Cheney) or Trump win the award for most destruction to our democracy?

With the movie Vice up for several Academy Awards and a trumped up "state of emergency," it is time to compare the Trump and Cheney/Bush presidencies.  What comes to mind is chaos vs. control.   No, not KAOS vs. CONTROL as in the brilliant sixties spy send-up Get Smart.  We’re talking Chaos and Control: the universal forces.   While both Trump and Cheney may be power mad rightwing leaders creating change, Trump is chaos.  Vice President Dick Cheney, whom the movie Vice portrays as (and many believe to have been) the true leader of the Bush presidency, is control.   I have an emerging hope that, despite appearances chaos may be more beneficial to the democracy than control. 

For one thing chaos = disruption, which we now value.   We live in a time where Amazon, Uber and other highly successful companies celebrate their “disruption” of business as usual.   Trump is the disruptive presidency.  Could he be the chaos we need to disrupt the system of complacency, ignorance and lack of engagement?  Surely the flaunting of separation of powers by declaring a fake state of emergency on the heels of a government shutdown is a major piece of that. You didn’t know the importance of separation of powers?  Watch the president take your tax dollars away from something you value and use it to build a wall;  didn't know you needed the feds?  Try getting food stamps, visiting a national park, getting your tax return, seeing a doctor, flying on a plane, during a government shutdown.  

Let’s look at it more closely.  Dick Cheney, the movie Vice reminds and educates us, systematically, methodically and quietly seized power in the Bush White House from the famously powerless position of the Vice Presidency.    Cheney recruited and cultivated the theory of  “unitary executive power:” a way to vastly expand the power of the executive beyond that of the other previously “co-equal” branches of government, legislative and judiciary.  When Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, Cheney created, from that crisis, opportunity (as the overworked Chinese maxim recommends).   Convincing Secretary of State Colin Powell to dissemble before the world about “weapons of mass destruction,” the Bush-Cheney team was able to justify the invasion of Iraq (instead of Afghanistan, which would have been the obvious choice), allowing their big oil buddies to get their greedy hands on long-desired petroleum fields. 

Moreover, it seems that Cheney accomplished all this all fairly secretly, largely out of the public eye.  The consequences of Cheney’s campaign for control were devastating.  While US military casualties were low as wars go, it is estimated that Desert Storm killed close to 500,000 people in Iraq, including a high proportion of women and children.  Nearly 100,000 Afghani people were killed.   In the name of defeating “terror,” the Patriot Act was created to justify secret extra judicial procedures, indefinite detaining and torture of prisoners, as well as legalizing broad domestic surveillance of Americans.

Compared to now, no one noticed.  Yes, the Bush-Cheney team was mocked, reviled and despised by Democrats and much of the world (how did the old joke about Cheney's arrhythmia go? W was just a heartbeat away from the presidency?).    There were, of course, protests.  But it wasn’t like it is now: a fraction of the population noticed; a fraction cared; a fraction could tell you what was happening.    Proof of this is provided by the re-election of Bush-Cheney.

Enter the chaos of the Trump presidency.  Although posturing as another rightwing power mad leader, Trump gives no evidence of discipline, control, theories or system.  “I have a gut,” he brags.  “My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward.  I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.” (The Art of the Deal).  

I’m sure Dick Cheney, alive and well with someone else’s heart in his chest, sees that all this chaos could be put to good use for the rightwing.  After all, Trump’s tweets, bleeps and blunders as well as the Mueller investigation are all a tremendous distraction.  Any reasonable Control could use it as a slight of hand to shove through all the pieces of the conservative agenda that were still missing.  And in some respects, this is occurring.  Trump’s surviving appointees are doing their best to dismantle the Clean Air Act, protections for endangered species, civil rights protections, etc.  And then there’s Brett Kavanaugh (although him we noticed).

But there’s also this: we are not at war.  And, as the midterm congressional election demonstrated, many more people are paying attention. Look at the number of presidential candidates.  Look at the voter registration.  Look at the crop of new women in Congress.  Look at the move to the left.

There’s a spiritual element I haven’t spoken to that I want to unpack: as a human race at least in the west, we’ve been taught to fear chaos and change and to court control.  But in the body, it is said that all diseases are control and cures are chaos.  Cancer is, while it disrupts our lives, very systematic in how it builds and grows.  And all our medical “cures” for cancer (basically cutting (surgery) burning (radiation) and poisoning (chemo) are chaotic.  They are designed to disrupt the system of cancer and to make it break down and cease to grow and build on itself. 

Prior to this presidency, we’ve been aware of a cancer growing in our body politic: that cancer is complacency, ignorance and lack of engagement.  Cheney and his ilk exploited that cancer, encouraged it and grew it.  Witness the elimination of the fairness doctrine which allowed Fox News to rise.  Maybe unwittingly, Donald Trump is the chaos we needed to wake up from the dream that we could have a real democracy without acting like the sovereign people we are on paper.