I started drawing in the fifties. In the sixties my interest in being an artist was growing to the degree that it took precedent over all other possible vocations. By the seventies I began to refine my focus, concentrating on printmaking and later performance and conceptual approaches within my oeuvre. It was at this point I began writing. Most of this early writing took the form of journals and either performance “spoken word” scripts or poetic narratives that reflected larger conceptual projects. Then it turned into songs. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when I was hired by PAPER magazine as a columnist did I realize I had a knack for opinionated essays. It’s fun to pontificate. A blog (like a column) is nothing more than a letter to the editor or op-ed. in the form of an essay, self-published on the internet. Like Dr. Fiona Hill stated in her testimony, referring to a Ukrainian op-ed, “Identify a peg and either agree or disagree in public.” Make your opinion known.
I’ve always been prolific. So when people say that they can’t keep up with the blog I don’t take offense. Another post is coming soon- like it or not. Some won’t read my writing specifically because it is a “blog.” They see it as self-indulgent and low brow. They need the objective stamp of approval of an editor and the formality of publishing to take my writing seriously. Others won’t read it because they know me too well and don’t need to be constantly reminded of my opinions. Yeah, yeah, you said that this morning…… Still others just aren’t interested. But for those of you that do take the time to check in regularly I am eternally grateful.
One thing that struck me in watching the impeachment inquiry hearings was the extreme loyalty of the Republican Party towards their leader President Donald J. Trump. Many call it “partisan,” but it seems to have mutated into something much more sinister. Partisan polarization in politics has been going on since the forming of the American Republic. It’s healthy to have a system rife with choices and opposing views. Wigs, Know-Nothings, Barn Burners, Greens, Communists, Working People’s, Democrats and Republicans are just a few of the political parties that historically have been available to Americans over the years. We operate in an open system filled with choice. Loyalty to a mindset or political party (right or left) is traditional and well within the bounds of the law. But what is happening within today’s Republican Party is something new and not just a little disconcerting.
The actions of this President, that more than half of the country view as criminal and reason for impeachment and possible removal from office, are being unwaveringly defended by his own party. Evidence of both his guilt and innocence, in the form of a transcript of a certain phone call, is held up by both sides as PROOF each side is correct. How can this be? It is logically impossible. The cult of personality that has formed around Trump has dropped critical thought in favor of some sort of mass hysterical hypnosis. “You are getting sleepy…..count backwards 100. 99, 98….the phone call was “perfect”…now squawk…” Like a bad nightclub act, the Republicans actually seem to believe they are all chickens. They don’t care if you believe it or not.
Plenty have warned of this blindness to facts, obsession over propaganda, reliance on falsehoods and commitment of undying loyalty to a corrupt leader being problematic. There’s more than a few historical examples; National Socialism being the most recent and decidedly horrifying. I don’t think we’re there yet. But the inability (or unwillingness) to think critically because of an insatiable lust for power or fear of reprisal from a petulant, aggressive, alien life form is troubling, to say the least.
I’m no expert. I’m just an artist blogger, an opinionated, armchair pundit. That said, I do value critical thought. I would like to think that if I were a Democrat presented with proof of Trump’s innocence, his genuine desire to root out corruption in the Ukraine, a simple reason for removing Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch from her post, evidence that $400 million and a meeting at the oval were held back through proper channels and not tied to a quid pro quo, official causation for Rudy Guliani’s involvement in U.S. foreign policy and clear indications that the President acted in good faith, I too would, if not defend him, at least not actively seek his removal from office. I’d let him lose the election. That would be utilizing a critical thought process. Until that happens, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the only defense that Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Sondland and a slew of others have is: “We were just following orders.” That sounds frighteningly familiar to me. The chickens have come home to roost. Look who just laid an egg!
No comments:
Post a Comment