Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?

Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years.  They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase.  That is open to discussion.

There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least.  Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment.  If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly.  To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.

Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned.  Instead, they are elected to public office.  If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander.  Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.

Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.

Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed.  It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.

For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled.  Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.

The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around."  But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case.  They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day.  Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior.  Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration  were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language.  They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech."  Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."

Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence.  An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.

That is what America is living with today.  If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions.  Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.

What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it.  Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters,  Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy. 

Almost half of the voters in  2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.

Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster.  If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.

"Mob" Rule apparently now acceptable in America

Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland."  It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.

Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today.  All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.

But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)?  Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone?  If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.

Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong.  Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.

Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.

The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist.  All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media.  What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."

For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all.  The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate.  There was emotional hurt but no violence.

How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT?  After all, they were after publicity.  Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away.  But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything.  Why?

Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like.  But they get to say them anyway.  News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down.  But I don't want to shut them down.  If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions.  But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.

When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.

Is Mr. Obama the reincarnation of LBJ?

Few politicians in the history of the world have been as successfully Machiavellian as was Lyndon Baines Johnson.  Most citizens remember him as an accomplished politician that served in the House of Representatives, then in the Senate, and ran successfully as JFK's Vice-President, becoming the Thirty-fifth President of the United States on the occasion of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  The most enduring memory is of his unsuccessful oversight of the Viet Nam "War," and his decision not to run for re-election because of the unpopularity that he suffered as a result.

Some have suggested that Mr. Obama's legacy will suffer a similar fate as a result of his lying about the effect on citizens of the passing of the "Affordable Healthcare Act," the false narratives used to conclude a treaty with Iran on limiting the production of Nuclear arms by Iran, and his readiness to govern through Executive Orders, rather than negotiating with Congress.  Be that as it may...and only history and time will reveal what the public wishes to see as the truth...it is worth some time to compare the manner in which these two politicians operated.

Time has revealed much about Johnson that was generally unknown to a majority of Americans until less than a decade ago.  He was a tyrant to his staff and his wife...and, actually, to anyone who did not have the power to advance his success...behind closed doors.  And in many ways he was a vulgar man by standards (today, perhaps discarded) of the time.  He was a genius in detecting the needs of those in power around him and in playing to those needs; he was seen by all as being on "their" side and who thought like "them" even when each of those people were on opposite sides of the spectrum.  It is easy to come to the conclusion that Johnson actually had no ideological belief...his ideology was his own success and rapid progression to positions of power.

There is a three volume study of LBJ written by Mr. Robert Allan Caro that, for the student of history and politics, is an essential read.

It is questionable that LBJ could have operated in the manner that provided some much personal and professional success today; the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras coupled with the pressure to fill a 24/7/365 news cycle makes creating different personas for different people and groups impossible.

However, to even a casual observer, there seem to be immense similarities between the approach to professional goals displayed by LBJ and by President Obama.

Let us start by eliminating any discussion of where they are different.  Mr. Obama seems to have a firm ideological point of view that is consistent and constant; LBJ did not seem to have any inherent ideology, shifting his public positions as was politically convenient.  LBJ was a master at manipulating his fellow politicians and seemed to enjoy the process if not the necessity; Mr. Obama has shown himself to not play with others well, ignoring Congress as much as possible and depending on Executive Orders and an obsequious Supreme Court to accomplish his goals.

Both had very clear goals.  LBJ wanted to become President of the United States.  Otherwise, his interest was in preserving his own power and reputation as a master of the political craft.  Mr. Obama also wanted to become President, but his over-arching desire was and is to move the governance of the United States of America to the Left of the political spectrum, seeking to adopt and establish a democratic socialist norm in Washington, and providing rigid governmental oversight of what has been a primary dependence on Capitalism as the basis for the United States of America.

Both saw deception as legitimate in accomplishing their aims.  LBJ would encourage his colleagues and others in power to see him as an ally regardless of his true purpose, hiding the truth until the very last moment, or supplying a rationale to opponents that caused them to not realize how they had been manipulated.  His deception was totally successful in that if discovered at all, it was after his goals had been accomplished or after his death.

Mr. Obama's skill was oratorical. When planned carefully and followed meticulously by utilizing the teleprompter, Mr. Obama's use of the English language was matched in the modern era only by President Reagan.  The language was nuanced in a manner that every listener or viewer could interpret the words used to be a reflection of each listeners beliefs and desires, much as was done in personal interactions by LBJ.  The listener was able...actually encouraged...to hear what they wanted to hear.  This was particularly true when Mr. Obama was campaigning...and even after a successful election he continued to campaign, leaving the drudgery of actually administering the government to his trusted assistants.

The spotlight of modern communications prevented Mr. Obama from achieving the level of success LBJ enjoyed in hiding conflicting positions taken with different groups and individuals...but Mr. Obama took what can arguably be called the "Goebbels approach" to that challenge; when lying, do it consistently, never acknowledge it as a lie and imply that those who insist on claiming that a lie was told are doing so because of personal animus or racial animus.  As did LBJ, Mr. Obama was able to keep the media on his side by providing "leaks" and interviews to those media outlets that presented him in the most favorable light.

Both surrounded themselves with people who served them, placing family, country and mores far below their dedication to his success.

Mr. Obama's accomplishments prior to being elected to public office have been sealed.  When they become available, it would not be surprising to see some evidence of an intense study by Mr. Obama of LBJ's life and the means used to gain power.  They both show more than the average level of vanity, temper (and the need to hide that most of the time), high opinion of themselves, looked down on others as "less than" and were ready to sacrifice everything to the accomplishment of their goals.

It is too bad that our public schools have virtually abandoned teaching anything remotely resembling perceptive history or even current events, much less in anything like an objective manner.

We have forgotten...

Those on the Left speak of the Constitution as a "living breathing" document.  Under this definition, they declare that it has not only the right, but in the natural order of things, to evolve to be useful to today's United States of America.

This is utter hogwash.  It is an attempt by those who don't like what the Constitution contains, with special emphasis on its limitations of government authority and huge areas not written of, to try to claim authority for their actions today from the ultimate secular authority...the documents founding this nation's government.

Years ago, I visited our Capitol.  I looked at the original Constitution.  It was paper, ... inert.  It did not have a pulse or a heartbeat.  It decidedly was NOT a "living, breathing" document.  Like a contract written today, it says what it says; the clear meaning of the words are easily discernible simply by reading the document.

What no longer exists today is the public's general knowledge of the Constitution and the attitude of those that created it...an attitude largely ascribed to by the general populace of the time.  For whatever reason, today's educational system doesn't teach American History in anything close to a comprehensive manner; ask a young person or a student about the founding fathers and their points of view regarding government and you get blank stares.  Our educational failings have the potential to destroy the America that the founding fathers attempted to create.

The interpretation of the Constitution is NOT an exercise in creative writing or free association mental gymnastics.  Just as with laws written by Congress, it is a matter of looking at the clear and normal meaning of the written words, and supplementing that with a reading of the contemporaneous writings and utterances of those who created and voted to adopt it.  This approach is absolutely logical and does not require a "rocket scientist."

Those of us who were "educated" before students were given equal rights with educators and parents and allowed to dictate what and how they should be taught know just how much antipathy the founding fathers had for government.  They had suffered from the not-so-tender mercies of the English Government, and realized the danger that granting power to any government posed to individual freedoms.  Jefferson said it best, and is most often referenced, when he said that ultimately all government becomes the enemy of individual freedoms.  So...if they disliked government so much, why did they write the Constitution and create another one for themselves?  Does anyone think that they felt that they could do it better and create a ruling body that would be benign and no threat to the people?

They did not!

There was one over-riding reason for creating a Government of the United States of America: to protect it against another nations attempt to take over and govern the people of the colonies.  In other words...to defend the country's autonomy.

All the rest is an attempt to prevent the Government from encroaching on its citizens.  It took no position about individual action regarding other individuals; the founding fathers were concerned with limiting government action that would effect citizens.  Militias were not the creation of the government; people created their own...and that right, with the effect of making hugely difficult any government desire to control the citizens by disarming them, to possess arms and be able to defend themselves against ANY government, including our own if it became the enemy, is right there in writing.  The right to rise up and overcome any government is made clear in our Declaration of Independence and does not have any exception for our own government; all can develop a threat and require revolt.

Read the comments, letters and other documents left by the Founding Fathers, with particular emphasis on those who signed the Constitution.  Their attitude was never about how to give the national government power or how to make it efficient; while one was needed for defense, in all other things it was perceived as a nascent threat to the freedom that has just been won on the battlefield, and the Founding Fathers fondest hope was that the government would practice the art of benign neglect in all areas of the colonists lives with the singular exception of defense of the nation.

Truly, the fears of the Founding Fathers have come to pass.  But the foolishness of a paper document "living and breathing" is just an exercise in creative writing...with the emphasis on creative!  It was the Founding Fathers who were living and breathing...and they were living and breathing the collective fear of just how dangerous government could become to the citizens over which it might develop power.  Their desire was to limit governmental power of citizens.  Thus, they did what they could to make the government inefficient and put in what they hoped would serve as checks and balances.  Unfortunately, those who gain positions of power adopt and adjust, and also connive, to extend power and avoid answering to the people.

If there is any hope of saving the creation that once was the United States of America, the voting public needs to learn...and in some cases re-learn...the attitudes and intent of the living, breathing Founding Fathers.  Therein is the key to understanding our Constitution.