Why do I get these crazy writing ideas when I am running? I get some of what I consider my best ideas while I am out jogging. Sometimes, my brain solves problems when I am running, sometimes it comes up with thoughts on things to do and other times I get ideas to write about. I was out running yesterday when the following thought flashed into my mind: What if Jesus entered the presidential race on the Democratic side? What would people say about this? I assume that it would get attention from a wide range of commentators. Just for fun, I decided to “put words into their mouths.” The result is the following “Fake News.” If you want to add your comments on what or how you would think about such an event, please do. I always welcome comments. So here we go!
News Flash! Breaking news on CNN and Fox News. Jesus of Nazareth, AKA, Son of God, Man from Galilee, Jesus Christ and King of the Jews has recently thrown his hat or crown into the ring to run for president against Donald Trump in 2020. A quick Pew Poll shows him trailing Joe Biden and Sanders in popularity but leading the other 22 Democratic candidates.
“We are bringing you some recent comments concerning this new event. First, from the Republican side:”
Donald Trump: “Fake, Fake, Fake. I don’t believe it is the real Jesus. But even if it was, I will kick his butt back to Crown Heights or wherever else he is from.”
Mitch McConnell: “This is another desperate gamble on the part of the Democratic Party. I don’t care if he is the real Jesus or not. There is no way that we are giving any of our hard-earned tax money to the poor people in this country.”
Lindsey Graham: “Well, you all know that I am a man of honor and integrity. However, I do not think it is right that Jesus should try to stick his nose into something that should not matter to him. We in the Republican Party have been doing a good job of running this country and I think Jesus would be better off working with the Pope to improve things in the Vatican. Let us politicians run this country.”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “I know Jesus has quite a reputation, but I think he is a sell-out for joining the Democrats. I am a Christian, but I will still vote for Donald. He is the man.”
Devin Nunes: “I think there is some kind of a conspiracy afoot here. I don’t know this Jesus guy very well, but I suspect that if he is a Democrat, he is also a closet commie and closet homosexual. You can’t trust any Democrat. I plan to head a committee to see if this Jesus has a bonafide birth certificate and is really an American.”
Bill Hannity: “Fox News says he is a fake and a charlatan. Who ever heard of anyone in their right mind wanting to take money from the rich to help the poor, the lame and the sick? Maybe he is Jesus, but this is the 21st Century and he is long past his prime. He might have been able to sell that message in 20 BC, but this is 2020 and that dog doesn’t point any more. If I were Jesus, I would go back to selling alms or something to help the poor and stay out of politics.”
“Now for some comments from the Democratic side.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “I have great respect for Jesus, but I don’t think he has a chance. First of all, he is a White guy. Second, he is old. I mean he is really old. You put it all together and he is an “Old White Guy.” Not enough Democrats will identify with him. He is a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys.”
Nancy Pelosi: “I am not going to play any favorites here. As long as he doesn’t push for impeachment and as long as he remembers that I run the Democratic party, I won’t have a problem with him.”
Ilhan Omar: “I want to know where he stands on Israel. Is he for a two state or a one state solution? These Jewish politicians are all the same. Everything for Israel and nothing for Palestine. If he wants my support, he is going to have to show his support for the Palestinians.”
Chuck Schumer: “I agree with Nancy.”
Joe Biden: “I think Jesus could have a lot going for him, but he lacks my experience. He might make a good Vice President, but he will need to pay his dues. I have been in the Democratic party for over thirty years and I have the track record that this country needs. I will get behind Jesus if he is the party’s choice as I have got behind every other Democrat that my party chose.
Bernie Sanders: “I have said it once and I will say it again. Election days come and go. But the struggle of the people to create a government which represents all of us and not just the one percent – a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice – that struggle continues. I have been on the forefront of this struggle for many years. I have nothing against Jesus, but you did not see him on the Civil Rights marches when I marched along with Dr. Martin Luther King and you did not see him on the Vietnam War protest marches when I marched facing police batons and tear gas. We need someone who will stand up to this corrupt government and I have demonstrated that I am willing to do that.”
“That’s all for now. We will bring you updates on the Democratic nomination process as events happen. Rumors are that Buddha and Moses are considering entering the race.”
“You’ll have a good, secure life when being alive means more to you than security, love more than money, your freedom more than public or partisan opinion, when the mood of Beethoven’s or Bach’s music becomes the mood of your whole life … when your thinking is in harmony, and no longer in conflict, with your feelings … when you let yourself be guided by the thoughts of great sages and no longer by the crimes of great warriors … when you pay the men and women who teach your children better than the politicians; when truths inspire you and empty formulas repel you; when you communicate with your fellow workers in foreign countries directly, and no longer through diplomats…” ― Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man!
There have been many theories proposed for the policies held by Trump and his Republican supporters. They include “Greed Theory.” The Republicans are held to be greedier than most people and only want to accumulate as much money as they can. Another is “Hate Theory.” This theory holds that since most Republicans are White European in ancestry, they loath and detest any people who are different then they are. This includes Asians, Blacks, Indians, Latinos and any immigrants not from Europe.
About a week later, I was substitute teaching in a Casa Grande High School. I drew an eleventh-grade social studies class. The teacher had left an assignment wherein the students had to find certain terms and concepts associated with the second industrial revolution and write definitions for each of them. Included among such terms as: robber barons, corporations, patents and trusts was the term “Social Darwinism.” One of the students asked me to explain it beyond the simple definition she found on line. I tried to recall my ideas relating to this concept from many years ago. I gave her my explanation and then later I looked up the definition at Wikipedia. I was struck at how well my memory had served me. It was at that point that the proverbial light bulb or blinding light of inspiration hit me. I suddenly realized that the Republican Party was not just trying to create elite systems but they were also trying to build on the theories of Herbert Spencer. The following excerpt explains this theory very well as it applies to many current concepts such as: trickle down theory, privatization, corporate welfare and tax reform.
So, there you have it. Trump and the Republican Party are not greedy, hateful or fearful of others, they simply do not believe that you have a right to anything unless you are also rich and successful and White like they are. Based on the concepts of Social Darwinism, they have the right to whatever you have if they can find a way to take it away from you. If you cannot keep it, that means you are inferior. If you are inferior, you have no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to Social Darwinism, the elite will eventually Trump the poor because they are stronger, smarter and more fit. This will eventually result in a society wherein everyone is fit, and everyone is trying to screw everyone else.
Over the past few months, the vitriol between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters has increased in both intensity and animosity. I have had numerous arguments with Bernie supporters. I suspect many of them were once my friends and are now no longer so. This is interesting since you would think that we would have more in common than not. It would not surprise me if you were a Republican or Trump supporter and banished me from your Facebook, Twitter or any other list of friends that you maintained. However, it seems sad that so much rancor has been generated by the Hillary/Bernie battle as to result in lost friendships when we have so much in common. I must take some of the responsibility though since I am not and never will be one to shy away from a fight. If a fight is what you want, I will give it to you and no holds barred. I support my candidate and I will explain my reasons but when you get personal or insulting that is the end of the line. It would seem to be a line that is easily crossed and that reasons and emotions are two very different things.
Once upon a time, I thought debates were the answer to the question of “how do we discover the truth?” I thought that if you put two intelligent people together and each took opposing positions on an issue, that through the interplay of ideas the truth would emerge. If you think about this a bit, it is the basis for our judicial system in America. One side argues for the defendant, the other side argues for the prosecution or against the defendant. It is also the basis for an academic exercise called Dialectical Research or Dialectical Inquiry.
A dialectical investigation is a form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic, aiming to discover truth through examining and interrogating competing ideas, perspectives or arguments. This latter method is often applied through the use of case studies in which students or investigators discuss real world examples of complex situations. The purpose of a case study is to provide a more thorough analysis of a situation or “case” which will reveal interesting information to the reader. As I use them in my classrooms, my goal for my students is to help them understand how to better form strategies for success in business.
Unfortunately, in the real world the strategy of debate does not work. Debates are a waste of time when honest discussion takes second place to winning or looking good. Dialectical Inquiry is also often useless since the complexity of the subject can be beyond the ability of many students to grasp. Real world situations are froth with uncertainty, volatility, complexity and ambiguity or as some have called it VUCA. VUCA is an acronym used by the military to describe or reflect on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of general conditions and situations. Many complex situations are seldom able to be accurately modeled leading in most instances to weak images or portrayals of the actual situation. This is why debaters opt for simple explanations rather than complex explanations. Another example of this watering down of reality is a Hollywood movie depiction of a supposed “true” story. Recent movies that come to mind include the following:
I have watched several of the debates now and I see no evidence that truth is being discovered. The debates have become hyperbolic spectacles of insults, half-truths, reality distortions, innuendos and petty personal attacks. I doubt if anyone has found much truth in these debates never mind elucidations of complex policy positions for any of the candidates. Trump 
will build a giant wall. Cruz will fix Syria. Rubio will fix health care. Sanders will fix inequality in America. Hillary will fix Obamacare. Do you know how any of the candidates will accomplish these lofty goals? Of course not, since they know that the “debates” are no place for such a complex discussion. Trump perhaps realizes this fact better than anyone and has kept his discussion and clarification of his policy positions to less than fifteen second descriptions. The general consensus seems to be that if a candidate cannot explain their position on any subject in less than fifteen seconds, they are doomed, i.e., they lose.
On a more personal level, I have a problem with debates. I have a few friends who love to debate. I have noted as a result of recent discussions with them concerning the Presidential elections that do not want to understand or clarify any issues, they just want to argue or perhaps debate. I say that they want to argue, because their main agenda seems to be looking good or advancing their points and not understanding my points. They often enter into these contests (Since that is what a debate means to them. It seems to be a contest between winning their points and looking good or losing their points and looking bad.) with a pretense of trying to understand why I think or feel a certain way. Sometimes, they start the “debate” with a flat out rejection of my position or with a declaration such as “you are dead wrong” or “you don’t know what you are talking about.” I confess that such latter utterances often preclude my disposition to have a rational discussion with them. I see no point in it.
Aging Capriciously 