If I do as I intend, I will not be writing to express anger, outrage, dread, or condemnation. Why? After all, I am a consistent Democratic voter whom most conservatives would call a definite liberal. I think we Americans are more likely to thrive, and more likely to achieve some reasonable version of e pluribus unum, when we draw Presidents from more of the talent pool than we so far have. So, I wanted to elect a woman.
I contributed money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and worked in it. On Election Day, I voted happily for Clinton and firmly against Trump. After the election, I have felt the grieving, among women I know, at Clinton’s winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College. Since Donald Trump took office, I have often disagreed with or disapproved of what he has said and done.
So why am I not writing to express anger, outrage, dread, or condemnation? Continue reading
That was the title of David Leonhardt’s column in the New York Times. He opened with this:
If you’re angry about President Trump’s decision on the Paris climate accord, I’m right there with you. But anger won’t solve the problem. So I encourage you to ponder this question: What would a more politically persuasive message about climate change sound like?
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do think it’s worth some humble reflection. So far, those of us agonizing over the planet’s future have failed to win over enough of our fellow citizens to accomplish what we desperately believe to be necessary.
Yesterday, President Trump announced that he intends to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord. Today, many Americans are registering their opinions about that. I could add my little piece, but I think it might be more important to try to understand how we came to this place. Continue reading
If U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously reported that another country had tried to meddle in our national elections by hacking, leaking, and tweeting, what would we expect our President and Congress to do? Continue reading