Thoughtful and spot on. Thanks for mentioning our prison system and the death penalty because these are abhorrently too often ignored. Nothing says more about the character of people and their culture than how they treat those shunned by society.
i love this: "To me, a more perfect union is one in which every citizen is treated with dignity and respect. It’s a union in which each person gets a vote, and is able to cast that vote without undue strain: ie, standing on line for five hours, as so many are forced to do, particularly in poor communities and communities which are heavily populated by people of color. It’s a union that aspires to lift all people up; if that means those among us with the most have to pay more than people who have the least in order to ensure greater prosperity for all, that’s fine by me. A more perfect union is one which does not demonize others based on nation of origin, preferred language, skin color, gender, sexual identity, or religion. It’s one in which we assume other Americans to be our equals. Ask yourself if Donald Trump represents these ideals."
I think most of us (your readers) appreciate your writing about the campaign/election because it is uppermost in our minds also (i.e., we are terrified). You always bring some clarity and also your trademark humor to a subject that can be grim and bleak, so please feel free to continue sharing your well thought-out opinions.
There is something I’ve noticed lately that a great many people have been doing, myself included, that you have also done in this essay. I’ve been trying to understand why.
I'm constantly hearing people refer to him as ‘Trump’ but to her as ‘Kamala’. (Honestly, I rarely refer to him as anything other than Cinnamon Hitler.) For me I think it’s a combination of things. One, I’m obviously showing off the fact that I know how to properly pronounce her name. I’m snooty that way. But I think it’s simply that she seems like someone approachable. I can imagine her saying “Please call me Kamala” in order to put you at ease. Whereas that mostly melted circus peanut probably tries to make Barron call him Mr. President. Because only Ivanka gets to call him Daddy. (Made myself a little nauseous just now.)
I suspect it's because "Kamala" and "Trump" are such distinctive names that we latch onto them. Same reason people took to calling George W. Bush "W." In Trump's case, it may also have something to do with the way we imagine he sees himself - more formal and domineering - which probably has something to do with how we refer to him. With Kamala, it's the opposite. We see her as more approachable. Also "Harris" just isn't as distinctive.
It also has to do with misogyny/gender bias and in VP Harris’s case also racial bias. Women are frequently referred to by their first name as it is less formal, deserving of less respect. Calling Female Deputy Prime Ministers By Their First Names Is Gender Biashttps://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2023/01/18/calling-female-government-leaders-by-their-first-names-is-gender-bias/#open-web-0
Well put, Michael. I agree that the basic premise of the Constitution, to form a *more* perfect union, was done so to inspire us to aspire to become ever better. It is brilliant in its simplicity.
Did you read the Atlantic's first paragraph in one of their print articles, "Dispatches." It is perfect.
For the third time in eight years, Americans have to decide whether they want Donald Trump to be their president. No voter could be ignorant by now about who he is. Opinions about Trump aren't just hardened - they're dried out and exhausted. The man's character has been in our faces for so long, blatant and unchanging, that it kills the possibility of new thoughts, which explains the strange mix of boredom and dread in our politics.
"Fairly good" refers to the progress made over the last couple hundred by all people. It certainly doesn't mean there isn't further to go. But when you look at where we started to where we are, I think it's hard to deny that we've come a long way, baby.
I mean, if you're talking about how we don't have an publicly acknowledged slave trade, sure, though I daresay quite a few of our undocumented agricultural workers might have a few insights on that. If you're speaking of no more public hangings in the town square, sure, that's true, but there's still plenty of folks being dragged in barbed wire behind trucks in parts of the country. We've got near half the country perfectly fine (though wildly uninformed in their own reality) with transitioning from a illiberal democracy/plutocracy that aspires to true democracy to an outright autocracy. Women only got the vote a hundred years ago. We're outpacing our spiritual growth with utter addiction to lazy dopamine tech. You're a good guy, I like that you have an optimistic lens. I have it as well, but it's less about our nationalism and more about the human soul. But I do not see us coming a 'long' way. A ways, yes. Not nearly enough, not even close, as evidenced by all the lost Black, Brown, LBGTQ, and Female lives. If anything, we were peaking in the 60s and 70s with cultural and emotional evolution, but then Reaganism turned that clock back. The Clinton and Obama years were good periods of short term progress, but....now? We're a lot closer to 1600s feudalism than we've been since then. :(
No need to apologize. There aren't many cheery alternatives, and it's a crucial election.
Thoughtful and spot on. Thanks for mentioning our prison system and the death penalty because these are abhorrently too often ignored. Nothing says more about the character of people and their culture than how they treat those shunned by society.
dear michael,
another thoughtful, beautiful piece.
i love this: "To me, a more perfect union is one in which every citizen is treated with dignity and respect. It’s a union in which each person gets a vote, and is able to cast that vote without undue strain: ie, standing on line for five hours, as so many are forced to do, particularly in poor communities and communities which are heavily populated by people of color. It’s a union that aspires to lift all people up; if that means those among us with the most have to pay more than people who have the least in order to ensure greater prosperity for all, that’s fine by me. A more perfect union is one which does not demonize others based on nation of origin, preferred language, skin color, gender, sexual identity, or religion. It’s one in which we assume other Americans to be our equals. Ask yourself if Donald Trump represents these ideals."
thank you for sharing!
love
myq
As always, thank you for your careful reading.
I think most of us (your readers) appreciate your writing about the campaign/election because it is uppermost in our minds also (i.e., we are terrified). You always bring some clarity and also your trademark humor to a subject that can be grim and bleak, so please feel free to continue sharing your well thought-out opinions.
There is something I’ve noticed lately that a great many people have been doing, myself included, that you have also done in this essay. I’ve been trying to understand why.
I'm constantly hearing people refer to him as ‘Trump’ but to her as ‘Kamala’. (Honestly, I rarely refer to him as anything other than Cinnamon Hitler.) For me I think it’s a combination of things. One, I’m obviously showing off the fact that I know how to properly pronounce her name. I’m snooty that way. But I think it’s simply that she seems like someone approachable. I can imagine her saying “Please call me Kamala” in order to put you at ease. Whereas that mostly melted circus peanut probably tries to make Barron call him Mr. President. Because only Ivanka gets to call him Daddy. (Made myself a little nauseous just now.)
Just found it all a wee bit curious.
I suspect it's because "Kamala" and "Trump" are such distinctive names that we latch onto them. Same reason people took to calling George W. Bush "W." In Trump's case, it may also have something to do with the way we imagine he sees himself - more formal and domineering - which probably has something to do with how we refer to him. With Kamala, it's the opposite. We see her as more approachable. Also "Harris" just isn't as distinctive.
It also has to do with misogyny/gender bias and in VP Harris’s case also racial bias. Women are frequently referred to by their first name as it is less formal, deserving of less respect. Calling Female Deputy Prime Ministers By Their First Names Is Gender Biashttps://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2023/01/18/calling-female-government-leaders-by-their-first-names-is-gender-bias/#open-web-0
Why would you do cinnamon dirty like that?
Well put, Michael. I agree that the basic premise of the Constitution, to form a *more* perfect union, was done so to inspire us to aspire to become ever better. It is brilliant in its simplicity.
I wrote an article you may find layers well into yours. It's about the pursuit of happiness. Another cleverly simple ideal: https://danstocke.substack.com/p/the-pursuit-of-happiness-2024
My idea of a perfect union is a lot like yours. I think we need voices like yours. I worry constantly right now, but pray that things will be OK.
I love your posts. They are so realistic, thoughtful, and soothing.
Did you read the Atlantic's first paragraph in one of their print articles, "Dispatches." It is perfect.
For the third time in eight years, Americans have to decide whether they want Donald Trump to be their president. No voter could be ignorant by now about who he is. Opinions about Trump aren't just hardened - they're dried out and exhausted. The man's character has been in our faces for so long, blatant and unchanging, that it kills the possibility of new thoughts, which explains the strange mix of boredom and dread in our politics.
keep writing what you're writing. every voice like yours helps reassure the rest of us we aren't taking crazy pills.
Unfortunately, Mike, I think your perception of 'we've done a fairly good job' in respect to constitutional freedoms only applies to us whiteboys.
I think the rest of the tribal food pyramid, by and large, would beg to differ.
"Fairly good" refers to the progress made over the last couple hundred by all people. It certainly doesn't mean there isn't further to go. But when you look at where we started to where we are, I think it's hard to deny that we've come a long way, baby.
I mean, if you're talking about how we don't have an publicly acknowledged slave trade, sure, though I daresay quite a few of our undocumented agricultural workers might have a few insights on that. If you're speaking of no more public hangings in the town square, sure, that's true, but there's still plenty of folks being dragged in barbed wire behind trucks in parts of the country. We've got near half the country perfectly fine (though wildly uninformed in their own reality) with transitioning from a illiberal democracy/plutocracy that aspires to true democracy to an outright autocracy. Women only got the vote a hundred years ago. We're outpacing our spiritual growth with utter addiction to lazy dopamine tech. You're a good guy, I like that you have an optimistic lens. I have it as well, but it's less about our nationalism and more about the human soul. But I do not see us coming a 'long' way. A ways, yes. Not nearly enough, not even close, as evidenced by all the lost Black, Brown, LBGTQ, and Female lives. If anything, we were peaking in the 60s and 70s with cultural and emotional evolution, but then Reaganism turned that clock back. The Clinton and Obama years were good periods of short term progress, but....now? We're a lot closer to 1600s feudalism than we've been since then. :(