Human Rights Advocate and Electronic Editorial Journalist :focus on issuesues of Women s Rights, Human Rights in Iran, Founder: Tenth Wall Defense of Baha'i s in Iran and #TenthWall
The low representation of women in politics remains one of the most obvious obstacles preventing us from achieving gender equality in the world. In the Republic of Moldova, a medium income country in Eastern Europe that ranks 50th in the most recent Gender Inequality Index, we want to increase the pace of change and ensure that more women are getting involved in elections as candidates, voters, and electoral staff. In a context where gender inequality is constantly dismissed as a non-issue, we had to have data to back up our claims and push for change. So we partnered with the Moldovan Central Electoral Commission and developed the first-ever national set of statistics related to the participation of women and men in elections.
More than 600 women attended UNDP-supported policy forums to urge Moldovan MPs to adopt the 40 percent quota for the least represented gender. Photo: UN Moldova
The low representation of women in politics remains one of the most obvious obstacles preventing us from achieving gender equality in the world.
In the Republic of Moldova, a medium income country in Eastern Europe that ranks 50th in the most recent Gender Inequality Index, we want to increase the pace of change and ensure that more women are getting involved in elections as candidates, voters, and electoral staff.
To our surprise, the first thing we learned was that women in Moldova do get involved in politics.
At the local level, there is a massive representation of women in political parties and in electoral bodies. However, the higher the decision-making level we were looking at, the fewer women we could find. For example, even though membership rates in political parties for men and women are strikingly similar, only two out of 46 political parties in the country are headed by women.
This discrepancy is one of the reasons Moldova has recently adopted a 40 percent quota for the least represented gender in governmental offices and on the electoral lists for local and parliamentary elections. But according to our data, this has not led to the expected increase in representation for women.
While women make up nearly half of political party membership, the percentage of women members who are active in party structures declines as the geographic level increases. Source: OMNIBUS CBS-AXA, December 2015
Quotas for women and men in decision-making positions are one of the most common ways of ensuring that women don’t have to face the glass ceiling when advancing in the ranks of political parties and that they have equal chances to be represented in governments and legislatures.
However, sometimes the provisions of quota legislation can be too weak to have an impact.
In Moldova, the recently adopted law does not make any specifications about the placement of women and men in the candidate lists. This omission may seem innocuous, but the reality is that women often find themselves relegated to the bottom of lists, with only one in five candidates at the top being a woman.
We believe that things can only be changed if the problem is acknowledged. To reach that point, three things must happen:
The electoral authority must acknowledge the problem and be cooperative in finding ways to fix it;
A complete electoral database must be set up to allow for continuous in-depth analysis of data and trends that could be used to redesign public policies and bridge gender gaps; and
Partnerships need to be established between the government, civil society, and international organizations like UNDP and UN Women to support the advancement of women in political and public life.
Only then will we be able to say we are moving towards a more equal world for women and men.
NEW YORK SUN In the Bernie Sanders Fight This Scribe Is With ‘Her’ — Debbie Wasserman Schultz by Seth Lipsky July 26, 2016 In the great Bernie Sanders battle, I’m with her. Not Hillary Clinton, though I’m not a Hillary hater. In the fight that’s ripping the Democratic Party down the middle, the “her” I’m […]
Hilary Jacobs HendelPsychotherapist/Author/Blogger: Writing on Emotions and The Change Triangle, A Map to Feeling Better
We see it on social media, hear it on television, read it in newspapers. We see in the everyday election rhetoric for president of the United States: men so enraged at women that they are driven to threaten, intimidate, name call and worse.
You can easily find tweets with horrific messages designed to degrade and humiliate women. During the election, it was not uncommon for Trump to unabashedly slander women such as Fox News’s Megyn Kelly.
I want to consider this hate that some men have for women, whether in public on social media, or in private, where abuse by men against women is still all too common. The men who write these words seem to lack empathy. What causes that?
Because men can’t ― and shouldn’t ― get over their emotions
As a psychotherapist who studies trauma, shame and emotions, I recognize this kind of hate as a symptom of what some psychotherapists call “small ‘t’ trauma,” or what happens when the brain has to accommodate to environments that cause repeated emotional pain or neglect on a regular basis.
We live in a culture that refuses to recognize that men ― even Donald Trump ― have the same emotional needs as women. Because emotions are universal across sex, gender and culture, men (just like women) need an outlet for their pain, sadness, fears and loneliness. This statement alone will evoke protest, despite its biological fact and clinical findings.
CHIP SOMODEVILLA VIA GETTY IMAGES
Charles Darwin and William James wrote about the role of emotions in the turn of the century, but our society was already puritanical. In the time since, emotion researchers such as Silvan Tomkins, Paul Ekman, Antonio Damasio, Diana Fosha and many others have demonstrated the universality of emotions across culture, gender and sex.
But the mantra, “mind over matter” ― which is code for “get over your emotions” ― still dominates our society, at great cost, and mostly at great cost to men. The problem is we cannot “just get over” our emotions.
We have basically two categories of emotions. We have core emotions, like anger, joy and sadness, which are evolutionarily designed for survival purposes and pre-wired into our middle brains, and we have inhibitory emotions: anxiety, shame and guilt, which serve to block core emotions.
Core emotions are unconsciously set off when something or someone poses danger or pleasure. We can’t stop them from being triggered—they are not subject to conscious control. If a tiger bursts onto the scene, for example, humans had better run before the conscious awareness of danger sets in, or we’d be dead as a species.
Men and women have the exact same core emotions. We all have sadness, fear, anger and joy. We all have needs for love, connection, acceptance and emotional safety. As babies, children and adults, when it’s favorable for us to express our emotions, they resolve and we feel calm and positively connected to others.
XINHUA NEWS AGENCY VIA GETTY IMAGES
People protest against Donald Trump on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.
The source of men’s aggression
We learn in our culture ― through our religion, family, peer groups, or all of the above ― that our emotions are not wanted, and worse, shameful. They stay in our mind and body unresolved. Blocked. When we lose connection to our core emotions, we lose connection to ourselves. We feel disconnected from others as well.
It can get worse from there, depending on the level of emotional deprivation. The more deprivation, the more anger, rage and shame. These are toxic emotional cocktails and they cause major symptoms, one of which is aggression.
Science proves that both men and women need love and attachment. The research is conclusive. But in our culture, boys are shamed into renouncing their inborn needs for affection. We first see signs of this in preschools and elementary schools when bullying behavior begins. There is a connection between thwarted emotions and aggression.
When women become toxic for men
The truth is, men who hate women really hate their own emotional needs, the very needs women are culturally allowed to display. Because many men are shamed into disavowing these fundamental aspects of themselves, they cannot tolerate women, who in our culture are the keeper of the tender feelings.
Men are forced to disavow large parts of themselves to fit into their fathers’, friends’, and communities’ definition of what it means to be a “real man.” So they must hate those emotions that women get to have. In a way, as a result, women become toxic for men. Essentially, it feels better to hate women than to hate their own tender feeleings, as if a starving person would resent someone eating a lot of food. Men need to hate the “feminine.”
The mask we live in is our danger
We can change the culture with education on emotions. In the documentary The Mask You Live In, filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom follows boys and young men as they struggle to stay true to their authentic selves and their feelings while negotiating America’s narrow definition of masculinity. If boys and men could own the full range of their emotions, not just anger, joy, excitment and sexual excitement, we would see trends in rage and aggression towards women reverse.
JEFF SWENSEN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Memorabilia is sold before Republican candidate for President Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally at Atlantic Aviation on June 11, 2016 in Moon Township, Pennsylvania.
Here’s why: When we block our core emotions, like sadness and fear, and needs for intimacy with inhibitory emotions such as shame, anxiety and guilt, we develop symptoms such as aggression, depression, anxiety and addictions. Symptoms go away when we become reacquainted with our core emotions.
I’m not saying that everyone will be aware they have those feelings. We learn to bury them and defend against feeling them, to protect against ridicule of which both men and women are guilty. But we can recover. The human brain is both resilient and capable of change and healing.
Healing begins with education, recognition and compassion about what it means to be a “real man” or a “real woman.” Men and women at the highest levels of society ― coaches, mentors, politicians ― must speak out about this “cultural mistake” that we just ignore emotions and “get over it.” We learn in high school that we have a stomach, heart, muscles and lungs. Why are we not taught about our emotions? There is knowledge available to help mankind find its collective empathy once again. And it will benefit us all.
For more posts on emotions, please check out my blog and articles on The Change Triangle, A Map To Recovering Your Authentic Self. Sign up to receive new posts and book updates (Random House, 2017).
Muslims need political Islam; that is the fundamental premise of Islamism. We need our governments to be Islamic, our laws compliant with the Shari’ah, our religion manifested in the institutions of the state.When authority is divorced from Revelation, the result is inevitably flawed, corrupt, and oppressive government.
OK. It should be obvious, but seems somehow to be overlooked; if Muslims need political Islam, political Islam also needs Muslims.
If Islamism is going to develop beyond being a mere niche in the political spectrum, like other ideologically-based marginal parties, like, say, Communists or ultra-Right-wingers or environmentalists; the Islamists are going to have to start translating our ideology into articulate policy positions that address the real concerns and conditions of the masses.
I’m afraid that what has been happening over the last several years has been the opposite.
Rather than deepening their identification with the common people, Islamist parties have been reaching…
Multiple media outlets reported on Thursday that Donald Trump has chosen Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to join his ticket in the vice president slot. Nationally, Pence is perhaps best known for signing into law a mean-spirited “religious liberty” bill targeting LGBTQ people—then revising the measure after its discriminatory purpose sparked coast-to-coast outcry. The religious liberty flap demonstrated that Pence is casually anti-gay, startlingly craven, and extraordinarily vacuous. All these qualities make him the ideal choice for Trump’s vice president.
MARK JOSEPH STERN
Mark Joseph Stern is a writer forSlate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.
A refresher on Pence’s most infamous controversy: In March of 2015, the governor signed a Religious Freedom Restoration Law (known as RFRAs) sent to him by culture warriors in Indiana’s Republican-dominated legislature. He signed the bill in a private ceremony to which he invited a handful of leading anti-LGBTQ activists. While the law largely mirrored the federal RFRA that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993, it differed in several key ways: First, it allowed a religious defense to be raised in a private cause of action, not just against the government; and second, it explicitly applied to for-profit businesses and corporations.
Republican legislators had forced the bill through in response to several lawsuits in states that forbid anti-LGBTQ discrimination, arguing that religious businesses should have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. While Indiana does not actually forbid anti-LGBTQ discrimination, some cities do, and the measure was meant to let businesses ignore these statutes if serving same-sex couples would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. It’s not totally clear that Pence understood this at the time. But he quickly grasped the danger of the bill when its passage sparked a campaign against his state for legalizing discrimination.
Initially, Pence doubled down, defending the bill in extremely confused terms. But when the backlash reached a boiling point, Pence agreed to “fix” the bill by adding a provision that explicitly prohibited it from legalizing anti-LGBTQ discrimination. All the while, Pence continued to paint himself as a victim of misguided and opportunistic outrage—even though his willingness to revise the bill seemed to prove that its critics were right all along.
In retrospect, this self-made calamity was the perfect audition to become Trump’s vice president. In signing the bill without, it seems, understanding exactly what it did, Pence demonstrated his willingness to sign onto his powerful allies’ agenda without much critical thought. In defending it afterward, he displayed a tendency toward knee-jerk defensiveness, even as the magnitude of his error became increasingly clear. Then, in following the polls and agreeing to a “fix,” Pence signaled that the court of public opinion will always outweigh other interests.
What more could Trump want in a VP pick? Pence is a fatuous yes-man, a milquetoast mook with no strong convictions other than a desire to win and be popular. He will faithfully follow Trump’s whims and commands, even as they lead him (and the country) toward the abyss. An unprincipled puppet is exactly what Trump needs for vice president. And it is exactly what he has in Mike Pence.
Peter Wehner is surely right that there is nothing Christian about Donald Trump’s “theology.” But he is wrong to associate it instead with Friedrich Nietzsche, of whom Mr. Trump is at most a crude parody.
Nietzsche was harshly critical of Christianity for what he deemed its hostility to everything natural and essential to human flourishing. He was equally unsparing in his critiques of many other purported pathologies, some akin to those on vivid display in the Trump phenomenon.
Mr. Wehner’s summary of “Nietzschean morality” is a simplistic caricature. Nietzsche was convinced that power relations are fundamental to everything that goes on in life and the world (religions and moralities included). So to condemn power is to condemn life, and affirming life requires affirming power, which he does.
But that is no blanket endorsement of all expressions of the basic disposition he calls “will to power.” Power for Nietzsche is the name of the game, but what is at stake in it is something more: the fragile possibility of a “higher” humanity.
Nietzsche’s moral vision revolves around the idea of realizing this possibility, upgrading rather than degrading power relations in human affairs. Mr. Trump’s, to put it mildly, does not.
Nietzsche the master psychopathologist would have a field day with it.
RICHARD SCHACHT
Santa Fe, N.M.
The writer, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Illinois (Urbana), is a past executive director of the North American Nietzsche Society.
UPDATE (May 6, 2016): Please note that the following article was written just prior to the Republican primaries. With Trump now the presumptive nominee, I recognize that a lot of hard decisions have to be made and the definition of “Trump Supporter” will obviously begin to change. The following is written specifically for those who have been die-hard Trump supporters from the beginning, and I still believe it applies. For those who have not previously been Trump supporters, I still believe it gives you some things to consider, and I strongly recommend you read my other article Why This Christian Won’t Be Plugging His Nose and Voting for Trump or Clinton if you are struggling with what to do.
Dear Trump Supporter,
Let me start by saying that I get it. I get the frustration.
I, too, am tired of all the PC language that has dominated our culture. I’m tired of having to be careful about everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) I say for fear of accidentally offending someone and dealing with hyped up repercussions.
I, too, am sickened with politics as usual – with a stagnant, do-nothing government. I’m tired of unmet promises and of wimpy politicians who won’t stand up for what is right and what needs to be done.
I, too, am concerned about our nation’s security, knowing there are people out there who absolutely hate us and will stop at nothing to destroy us – even to the point of trying to disguise themselves amongst us if they can.
I, too, worry about our world’s economy, with other countries engaging in unfair trade practices. I’m worried about our own nation’s economy, and I’m worried about my next paycheck.
I, too, am frustrated by an ever expanding federal government, continually imposing its rules upon us, forcing us to buy a product we may not want, and telling us what we are allowed to believe…or else.
I, too, am concerned about where our country is headed. I want to see our nation great again.
So I get it.
I get the allure of a charismatic person who speaks his mind, who appears above the fray, and seems to epitomize success.
Why wouldn’t we want an accomplished businessman to run the “business” of the states? Why wouldn’t we want a person who could not care less what people think to break through the barriers of our hypersensitive speech. Why wouldn’t we root for someone radically different than what we’ve seen before in Washington, who promises to get stuff done, while at the same time makes us laugh?
But this is not about Donald Trump. No, this is about you.
For the Donald has said and done a number of things that many analysts have stated should have knocked him out of the race. But rather than causing him to lose ground with you, you have stood faithful. In fact, with each successive event, you not only did not let it bother you, you applauded him all the more.
Therefore, I can assume that the things he has said and done are not only acceptable to you, but are the kinds of things you think will make America great.
So while I get the frustration, I just want you to be aware – if you are a Trump supporter, these are the things I assume about you:
1) You think a great America consists of disrespecting our nation’s veterans, particularly our POW’s.
On July 18, 2015, Trump said of former Navy pilot and POW John McCain, ““He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” McCain had spent 5 ½ years as a prisoner at the famous Hanoi Hilton in North Vietnam, where he was regularly tortured.
Trump later denied saying McCain wasn’t a war hero. He went on to claim that he was a better leader on veterans’ issues than McCain, stating that he had put on benefits for foundations like Wounded Warriors. In a recent analysis, Forbes magazine reported:
The Donald J. Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 (the most recent year available), according to the non-profit’s 990 tax forms from those years. Of that, only $57,000 has been donated to seven organizations that directly benefit military veterans or their families.
In other words, “leading” on veterans’ issues means dedicating just a little over 1%. Forbes went on to state:
Wounded Warriors was not among the organizations Trump’s foundation gave to in that time period. Forbes also found that Trump, who we estimate is worth $4.5 billion, has not made personal contributions to his foundation during the same time period.
(UPDATE: After this article was posted Trump sponsored an event that raised $6 million for Wounded Warriors. The timing is interesting to me that just shortly before the primaries he decided to increase his giving suddenly from $57,000 to $6,057,000 and for Wounded Warriors which he previously claimed to have given to but as per above he had not – see point #5 below)
Also worth noting, around the time McCain was being held prisoner after voluntarily enlisting as a Navy pilot, Trump had received four student deferments from the draft and a medical deferment after school, though he’d been active in sports.
So I can only assume since, after all this, you are still very excited to place Trump as the leader of our nation’s military, that respect and support for our military personnel and veterans is not that important to you.
2) You believe that in a great America it’s okay to mock people with physical disabilities.
At a rally in South Carolina last year, Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a reporter known to have a condition called arthrogryposis which affects joint movements. Because Kovaleski denied that a 2001 article he’d written supported one of Trump’s claims, Trump publicly “imitated” Kovaleski, jerking his arms about in a manner reminiscent of the disability’s symptoms. Though Kovaleski had covered Trump extensively during the 80’s and early 90’s, meeting with him repeatedly and knowing each other on a first name basis, Trump denied he was mocking Kovaleski’s appearance, claiming that he didn’t even know him.
Not convinced? You decide:
In other instances, Trump has been accused of mocking Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed from the waist down, and of making fun of a protestor for being overweight.
For any other public figure making such disparaging remarks it could be almost career ending. But since you not only seem to have given him a pass but applauded him along the way, perhaps it even says something about you. Could it be that you thought his mockery was quite funny, too?
3) You think a great America is where a woman’s purpose is to be a beautiful piece of a**.
Trump famously said in an interview with Esquire in 1991, “”You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of a**.” Granted, that was in 1991, but while his views of many different things have frequently changed throughout the years, there’s no evidence that his views on women have.
And while he doesn’t hesitate to compliment the physical appearance of women, he also just as easily degrades them as well: insulting the face of Carly Fiorina, saying a female columnist had “the Face of a Dog,” calling a lawyer “disgusting” for needing a break to pump breast milk, and implying debate moderator Megyn Kelly was asking tough questions because of menstruation.
This is not to mention disrespecting his own first wife Ivana by having an affair and marrying his mistress who was 17 years his junior. Ironically, Trump tweeted in April of last year, “If Hillary can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” So if it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault that her husband had an affair, was it Ivana’s fault Trump had his? Should we assume that his 2nd marriage didn’t last because she didn’t satisfy him either? To his “credit” he seems satisfied for now with his 3rdwife whom he married when he was 58 and she was 34.
Any self-respecting man would not stand for allowing another man to say to his spouse or girlfriend some of the things Trump has said to other women. So why do we allow Trump to get away with what he says without recourse?
It is also difficult for me to understand why so many women support what he says. Could it be if you are female and support him you simply think less of yourself, and could it be if you’re male and support him you’re just less of a man?
4) You hope for a great America that strongly dislikes or refuses to accept entire people groups (and there’s a word for that).
Last year Trump made controversial comments that Mexico was sending us drug dealers and rapists as an argument for why we should round up and deport millions of illegals and build a wall. He also proposed that we put a ban on all Muslim immigrants.
Many, as a result, have accused him of being a “racist.” That’s a tough label to stick on those statements alone, however, because officially he is arguing for the segregation of illegal activities and ideologies rather than any specific race – though, it’s hard to deny that his proposals would end up affecting large groups of certain races or ethnicities.
But it’s the continued pattern of activities and statements over a period of time that has many designating the label. Perhaps it was because he tweeted out a graphic falsely claiming that the majority of white murders are perpetrated by blacks. Perhaps it was because he was his complicit in the beating of a “Black Lives Matter” protester at one of his rallies. Perhaps it’s not just his own actions but the fact that his own father was involved in a segregation scandal through his real estate business.
Yes, in our PC world sometime we get a little hypersensitive, but when the verbiage and actions of an individual keep adding up, there’s a point in which you simply have to call it what it is.
But if that label of “racism” won’t stick, there’s another word that should. Its definition is:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, that word is “bigot.”
Dictionary.com has the broader definition of “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” With his aggressive attack style, it’s hard to imagine a person more intolerant of other’s beliefs or opinions than Trump.
As Dana Milbank states in his Washington Post article, “It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot.
As a Trump supporter you have not only failed to hold him accountable for any such statements or actions, you have often openly cheered him. Is it possible that one of these definitions also fits you?
5) You look forward to a great America that is politics as usual.
In the last two decades Trump has gone from being a Republican to an independent to a Democrat and back to Republican.
He previously supported universal healthcare but now opposes it. He once proposed a tax increase on the rich but now stands against it. In 2010 he praised President Obama as having done a good job but now describes him as “incompetent.” In 2008 he supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign and In 2012 he said she was a terrific woman; but now he states that she is “the worst Secretary of State in the history of our nation.”
He once said he was “very pro-choice” and now he says he is “very pro-life.” In 2000 he supported longer waiting periods on gun purchases and a ban on assault weapons but now is against those.
Up until 2011 he had made more financial contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
Just on the recent campaign trail itself he has flip-flopped on issues such as ISIS, Syria, Afghanistan, Planned Parenthood, military spending and the flat tax.
Despite the overall impression he has of being a straight-talker there is no way anyone can know where he truly stands on any issue. Instead of being the outsider, he ultimately ends up saying what people want to hear rather than standing firm on anything.
Many Trump supporters will defend that politicians change their positions all the time. I rest my case.
Trump is politics as usual and you support it.
6) You fight for a great America where the ends justify the means and things like faith and character do not matter.
In your frustration and desperation for change you have compromised some of the very things that were once important to you.
There was a time where the particular faith of the President was of extreme importance to you. Right or wrong, many of you even questioned in the last campaign whether we could trust a Mormon president. You questioned the legitimacy of President Obama’s faith, arguing that he is really a Muslim. But now you strongly endorse a candidate who is clearly not Christian.
Yes, I said it. I am almost always one who declares you cannot judge another person’s heart – that we will be surprised in the end who will actually make it to heaven. But in this case, aside from his recent misstatement of “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians;” aside from the truth that in spite of his claim that the Bible is his favorite book, he can’t name a single favorite verse; aside from the fact that the church he claims to attend has said he is not an “active member” (not one of these alone would necessarily disqualify a person from being a “Christian”) he also has admitted that he never asks God for forgiveness – a central tenet to the Christian faith. Add in his questionable moral behaviors, his “love of money,” his ultimate lack of humility, and his complete disrespect for others (all indicators that he does not follow Christ nor represent his character) and I’ll say it again: Trump is not a Christian.
For many of you that has never been an important qualifier and at least you are being consistent (though I think it should still give pause to the fact he is trying to pass himself off as something he is not). But for others, it has always been important. Why is it not now?
Aside from this, there are other qualities you have also compromised on.
Many of you were the first to question President Clinton’s legitimacy to the office because of his extra-marital affairs and yet you still “stand by your man” when it comes to questions about Trump’s past love life.
You stand by him when he questions whether an American citizen born in Canada, the son of a grassroots activist for Reagan, can be president and yet you have zero reservations about that fact that Trump’s former Soviet Union born wife, the daughter of a card-carrying communist, would be joining him in the White House (For the record, I am not questioning the patriotism of Melania Trump. I have met several former Soviet born individuals who have a great passion for America. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy here).
In addition, 22 writers for National Review, considered the bastion of conservative thought, just came out to declare that Trump is not a true conservative and, in fact, is a “huckster” and a “menace to American conservatism.”
And as much opposition Trump has expressed toward so many leaders at home and abroad, the one person he has expressed admiration for is Russian president (some would say dictator) and communist Vladimir Putin.
In short, in your effort to try to make America great, you have compromised on all that you once believed…or maybe you never really did.
7) You believe in a great America in which the best way to win is to bully (and maybe you’re a bully, too).
We promote anti-bullying campaigns in our nation’s schools and put out statistic showing its links to teen suicide. Yet many of you are making a hero out of one of America’s most well-known bullies.
It’s no secret that when challenged, Trump’s modus operandi is to attack a person’s character rather than substantively address the issue. No one who has questioned him is free from his degrading wrath.
HIs decision to publically give out Lindsey Graham’s cell phone number and social media bashing brings to mind the maturity and scheming of a teenage Mean Girl who belittles everyone around her. Only this Mean Girl you want to make into the school Principal.
Bullying, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “involves repeated exposure of one person to physical and/or relational aggression where the victim is hurt with teasing, name calling, mockery, threats, harassment, taunting, social exclusion or rumors”—or, to put it more concisely, the entire Trump doctrine.
Many mental health professionals have come out to say that Trump meets the classic symptoms of a Narcissist. They opened up about this out of great concern for what a Trump presidency could mean, in spite of a professional rule (as stated in this article) that you are not normally supposed to publicly comment on the mental state of an individual without directly examining them.
As clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis says in the article, “To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder [which Narcissism is part of]: it’s antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That’s what he’s doing.”
Narcissists also have a tendency to be dishonest. Licensed clinical social worker Wendy Terrie Behary, states, “Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth.”
Michaelis adds, “He’s applying for the greatest job in the land, the greatest task of which is to serve, but there’s nothing about the man that is service-oriented. He’s only serving himself.”
So why support a narcissist and a bully? Is it, again, because the ends justify the means and you’re happy for him to do the dirty work? Or is it, like in all the movies, bullies have their sidekicks? If you’re a supporter, are you a bully, too?
Of course, bullying works, as long as the bully’s on your side. And as shown by his record of flip flopping and dishonesty, there’s no guarantee which side he’ll be. One day this bully might end up in the highest authoritative office in the land. A lot of what he says may be funny now, but if you ever disagree with him, some day he might be bullying you.
8) You dream of a great America with a strong central government that monitors and controls civil liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press (and possibly even the right to bear arms).
Trump has already hinted he would use Executive Orders to the same degree President Obama did, for which Obama “led the way.”
He has also said that we should place surveillance on certain houses of worship and has been open to the idea of keeping a database on people in the U.S. who practice a particular faith. For many of you this idea of the Federal government monitoring and tracking these individuals and places doesn’t bother you because he was referring to Muslims and Muslims right now scare you.
But what happens when an extremist who claims your faith does something terrible and the Federal government decides it’s time to start monitoring you?
And in terms of speech, Trump has already demonstrated he’ll use whatever means necessary (giving out a person’s cell phone #, having protesters thrown out, verbally assaulting and social media bullying, and even boycotting debates) in order to silence his opponents.
Furthermore, there was his questionable statement about closing down the internet:
“We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way… Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”
In regards to the press, Trump has threatened to sue the Washington Post for reporting on one of his bankruptcies. His own lawyer once warned a newspaper that if they reported about rape allegations against Trump, he was going to mess up the reporters’ life. He stated, “Tread very f—ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f—ing disgusting.”
Now if he’s currently willing to use whatever weapons he has available to him to try to quell any opposing views or press reports, what happens when he has the chief lawyer of the land (the Attorney General), Homeland Security, the FBI, the Bureau of Land Management, the IRS, the ATF, and other Federal offices at his disposal to continue to do the same?
In terms of gun control, many fear that President Obama’s gun control measures are a secret conspiratorial means via which the government will eventually collect all guns and take over dictatorial powers of the states. However, when you think about it, it’s not a President who makes enemies of all the gun-owning individuals that has a chance of taking dictatorial control. It’s going to be the one who has pretended all along to be your friend (the one who continually changes positions, even on issues like this, in order to say what people want to hear) who ultimately will have you duped.
Recently, Trump claimed he was so much loved, he could stand in the middle of a street and shoot someone and not lose any votes.
First, does he think families of shooting victims really find that funny?
Second, why is he even thinking about shooting anybody?
Third, what does that mean he is saying about you? Does he really think you’re that blind of a follower that you just wouldn’t care?
Fourth, what are the implications for putting a bully, so sure of himself he feels he has zero accountability, in charge of the highest office in the land?
Will he then feel he is able to order the shooting or removal of anyone he wants and never lose your unwavering support?
Trump’s rise in power has been very unpredictable. I honestly did not feel he would get this far; so it is hard for me to predict the final outcome of this year’s primaries and election. That said, if you are a Trump supporter I also assume of you one of the following two possibilities:
9a) You think a great America is one that looks like Hillary Clinton.
Early on, many speculated that Clinton hoped for Trump to be the GOP candidate because he is the one she could most easily defeat. Some conspiratorialists have even speculated that Trump is a Clinton “plant” designed to wreak havoc in the GOP.
Trump has indeed deeply divided the Republican party with many conservatives coming strongly against him. He has also alienated a large portion of the Hispanic vote. And neither he (nor any GOP candidate) ever really had the African American vote; but because of his bigotry and racism he’s quickly losing many of the white voters who care about them.
As to myself, many would describe me as an Evangelical Conservative (though that label is a lot wider than people think and it would be hard to nail me down on every issue). And while I feel that neither party has done a good job of representing my views, since 1986 I have always ended up siding with the Republican candidate. Though I have often been unsatisfied with the eventual Republican nominee, I ultimately each time ended up voting for that person (as a lesser of two evils choice) because they more closely represented my concerns.
If the eventual nominees, however, end up being Clinton and Trump, I will not in good conscience be able to vote for either one. The choices to me would be either a slow death (Clinton, by continuing in some of the same policies of her predecessors that are hurting this country) or potential disaster (Trump, because of the reasons outlined above). My vote, therefore, in good conscience would have to go to an independent or a write-in…and there are many just like me. Translation: the eventual winner would be Clinton; so I assume Trump supporters are comfortable with that.
Or…
9b) You think a great America is one that looks like Donald Trump.
Trump has promised to “make America great again,” invoking the idea of making it great like the past. Most discerning people now recognizes that there are things in our past that were good, such as things your “momma” or “daddy” taught you about honesty, hard work and respect, and there were things in our past that were bad, such as bigotry, misogyny, and abuse of power.
So far Trump’s demonstration of “great” seems to be a return to our past in what was bad, while ignoring the things that were good.
Many conservatives themselves, including “Tea Party” leaders, have said that Trump is actually dangerous for America.
And yet, you as a Trump supporter, so far have ignored this, along with all the other warning flags.
It’s like watching a girl in a bad relationship – the kind where the physical abuse actually starts once he puts on the marriage ring. She ignores everyone’s advisement that he is bad for her, even though all the warning signs (the verbal assaults, the dishonesty, the manipulation) were already there to see.
Remember, the Donald is playing “nice” right now in order to get elected. There’s no telling what he’ll do once he has the ring.
In 1 Samuel 8 (that’s pronounced “first Samuel eight”), the prophet Samuel warned the people of Israel that their demand for a king would result in the king’s abuse of power, but the people would not listen.
While he may not claim to be a prophet, Libertarian author David Boaz heeds a similar warning now for us when he wrote for the National Review:
Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign. Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation, bans on Muslim immigration, shutting down mosques, and building a wall around America. America is an exceptional nation in large part because we’ve aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone. Equally troubling is his idea of the presidency—his promise that he’s the guy, the man on a white horse, who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people, hire the best people, and fix everything. He doesn’t talk about policy or working with Congress. He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat. It’s a vision to make the last 16 years of executive abuse of power seem modest.
But it’s not so much Trump I am concerned about as the people. Are we really now the kind of people who want such a king? Does this person really represent our values? Does he really represent you?
Now if you are a Trump supporter, perhaps I’ve made some wrong assumptions. Perhaps you are a very kind and loving individual who has always honored our nation’s military and would never degrade a single person. Perhaps you love people from all walks of life and you get along well with even those you disagree. Perhaps you live to serve others rather than pushing to get your own way.
But when you idly sit by as he says the things he says and his berating of people’s lives causes you to raise your hands in further praise I just have to be honest about the assumptions I make of you.
And if I’m wrong, prove me so. Stand up to him now and then…hold him accountable. Tell him you think he has the skills that it takes and he can still make America great, but if he devalues another soul you won’t put up with it.
But if not then, well, I’ve already listed it.
The question to ask is: are the things I’ve listed what makes America great? If not, when is it great?
America is great when after some kind of trial people from all walks of life come together in prayer and support.
America is great when we see someone in need and groups band together to try and meet it.
America is great when a person in a uniform is eating out and someone pays their tab, thanking them for their service.
America is great when a person in a wheelchair needs to get through a door and a stranger rushes up to hold it open.
America is great when two individuals can disagree but can still have a friendly one on one discussion.
In some sense, America is already great as long as we make a habit and continue to do the things we get right.
But in this day and age when there are still things we get wrong, are you sure the answer is to introduce more vitriol and hate? Is that what will make America more great?
If Trump were to get the nomination and then go on to win the presidential election, that means one thing: that Trump (through his actions and his words) represents what the majority of Americans have become and want more of. That means Trump is America and America is Trump.
If that is the case, then America not only will not be great…I’m not even sure America is or will be even any good.
So the question is…America, are you great or are you Trump?
I guess we’ll start to get a picture soon, beginning Feb 1 (pronounced “first).
Your honest opinions are valuable to me. Please share with me your thoughts in the comments section below. Also, if you enjoyed this article and would like to receive future updates, please sign up for my newsletter below or like me on Facebook.
via Nervana Mahmoud
@Nervana_1
Doctor, Commentator and Writer on Middle East Issues. Blog http://nervana1.org featured by Economist on Egypt. BBC 100 women 2013. RT≠ endorsement
The low representation of women in politics remains one of the most obvious obstacles preventing us from achieving gender equality in the world. In the Republic of Moldova, a medium income country in Eastern Europe that ranks 50th in the most recent Gender Inequality Index, we want to increase the pace of change and ensure that more women are getting involved in elections as candidates, voters, and electoral staff. In a context where gender inequality is constantly dismissed as a non-issue, we had to have data to back up our claims and push for change. So we partnered with the Moldovan Central Electoral Commission and developed the first-ever national set of statistics related to the participation of women and men in elections.
While women make up nearly half of political party membership, the percentage of women members who are active in party structures declines as the geographic level increases. Source: OMNIBUS CBS-AXA, December 2015
Jul 11, 2016We need more women in politics – Here’s how to make quotas work
Jul 7, 2016Peacebuilding through parliaments
Apr 19, 2016Paris. Women. Now what?
NEW YORK SUN In the Bernie Sanders Fight This Scribe Is With ‘Her’ — Debbie Wasserman Schultz by Seth Lipsky July 26, 2016 In the great Bernie Sanders battle, I’m with her. Not Hillary Clinton, though I’m not a Hillary hater. In the fight that’s ripping the Democratic Party down the middle, the “her” I’m […]
Mark Geoffrey Kirshner 