“Why were you lurking under our window?” “Yes – yes, good point, Petunia! What were you doing under our windows, boy?” “Listening to the news,” said Harry in a resigned voice. His aunt and uncle exchanged looks of outrage. “Listening to the news! Again?” “Well, it changes every day, you see,” said Harry.” ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
As mentioned in an earlier post, I intentionally consume a lot of news; but occasionally I do try to step back and consider my habits. At this particular moment in British and American geopolitics there is so much happening and at such a fast pace that I have found myself trying to read more and more news on an increasing number of (vetted) platforms and relying on feeds to keep up instantaneously on coverage of a number of issues.
I don’t actually think this is healthy. For some people, perhaps, but right now, not for me. It’s not good for my focus, my productivity, or my heart rate. As someone who normally allows not a single notification alert option to be activated on any of her devices (with the exception of professional ones), I’m developing a curious compulsion to be kept up to the minute.
But more critically, at this moment I don’t think it’s good at supporting my intention to be informed. Not every flashing “breaking new” graphic (and goodness, aren’t those causing heart palpitations) denotes a fully fleshed and well sounded story. I’m trying an experiment for the next few days where I’m going to be checking in on the news once in the morning and once in the evening and going cold turkey betwixt. My theory is that not only will this free up quite a bit of emotional energy it will give the media landscape time to present more and better connected facts to me. I’m curious to see if this will turn out to be the case or not.
But this left me wondering: how do you, faithful SDS loyalists, consume your news? Do you rely on feeds, paper subscriptions, digital subscriptions, emails from well meaning elderly relatives, or water cooler chatter? How often a day do you check in with your information streams? Have you dialed up your intake of news lately, or intentionally scaled back?
“The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.” – Henry Cate
This latest news story requires its own post, otherwise the Weekend Links update will be unreadably long. The still-breaking story about Gen. Flynn’s leaving the administration after an unprecedented 24 days is ongoing but at the moment…it’s a mess. It’s a bonkers, ridiculous, upsetting mess.
Getting the timeline right still isn’t easy. By my count thus far…Kellyanne Conway has said Gen. Flynn resigned, but Press Secretary Spicer then said President Trump asked for his resignation. Spicer said Gen. Flynn was an internal issue for weeks, but President Trump last week told reporters he knew nothing of the DOJ’s or any report to the White House that the general was a potentially serious liability. Conway speaking yesterday for the WH says that the problem is that Gen. Flynn lied to VP Pence, but just two days ago said that the President had complete trust in the general, and Spicer again is now claiming that the WH knew about this issue (with the exception of the VP, apparently, who found out he was either deceived or misinformed following the story breaking). At the last press briefing, Spicer seemed to claim that no team member had contact with Russia during the campaign, which news sources seem to be contradicting this morning.
But in summary, as far as I can make out, the fundamental options seem to be that either the then-President-elect directed Gen. Flynn to have a conversation with the Russian ambassador discussing the possibility of easing sanctions when the new administration came to power, or Gen. Flynn did this on his own volition. Either option is against the law. We’re only talking orders of magnitude at this point.
At the last press briefing, Spicer seemed to claim that no team member had contact with Russia during the campaign, which news sources seem to be contradicting this morning. CNN is now reporting that aides for the first candidate then President-elect have been in routine communication with Russian officials for months. While not wholly unprecedented during a transition period between governments, the frequency of communications seems to have raised enough red flags to have the intelligence community alert both the sitting and in-coming presidents to the fact.
In summary again, either candidate/President-elect Trump knew both that these communications were happening–and that it was illegal or at the very least wildly inappropriate–and allowed them to continue, or he knew that it was happening but didn’t understand that it was illegal/inappropriate. Our options here are malice or incompetence.
Elected officials in general and Republicans in particular, if you think you can wait this latest scandal out, you are wrong. If after eight years of obstructing and scrutinizing an administration’s actions out of “principle,” you are suddenly unwilling to do the same now in the face of blatant incompetence and dangerous allegations of foreign collusion, you are lost as a political group. If you believe it’s more important to maintain party and partisan power than have a functioning, trustworthy, and respected government, you are unfit for office.
Congressional leadership seems to be (finally, cautiously) starting to critique the White House, but overall the response thus far from the president’s own party has been craven. Some of my own representatives have been among the worst offenders–looking at you, Rep. Chaffetz–and no one seems to be willing to be the first to stand up and say, “In the face of this many allegations, this many procedural missteps in executive action, and this level of dysfunction, I demand investigations.”
I have said it before, I will say it again. I am not cheering for President Trump to fail; I did not and do not want the stability of my government undermined. But I did not vote for him because I believed that he was a fundamentally unsafe character with unsound plans and unformed opinions/goals, based on unconstitutional principles, who would put unqualified or unvetted people into power alongside him, to chaotic effect. It’s taken less than a month for him to prove me right.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
I’m a self-described news junkie who has followed several platforms and branches of the news media closely for my entire adult life. And as a current American expat, a former military brat with both current active duty and retired military family members, a staunch feminist, and someone who works in a field intimately influenced by the finance industry (to say nothing of international policy in dozens of countries on multiple continents)…there’s a lot to follow! I consume a lot of news and these days, as is well documented, a lot of it makes my angry, nervous, and downright pissed. As Solange put it, there’s “a lot to be mad about.”
Me during my first morning news check in.
That being said, one of the things that I’m really concerned about in the current American and British political moments is outrage fatigue. I’ve mentioned this in some comment conversations before, so I know I’m not alone in this worry. Anger is amazing fuel, it’s carried me through more than one challenge in my life. But I don’t believe it’s a perpetually sustaining source of power; it burns out. And it can occasional burn people out as well, when the burden of rising to every piece of bad news with rage simply becomes emotionally unsustainable and politically un-organize-able. I’m genuinely concerned that there are vested interests in the US who are betting that if they keep up a constant stream of conflict and splashy actions, people like me will eventually burn out–i.e., cease the opposition, allowing those vested interests to get away with much worse.
On the flip side, I also don’t believe that outraged reaction as a policy position is terribly effective–at least not in a permanent way, though I think it can be marvelously effective in the short term on the part of the citizenry! It may surprise some readers, but I am not in favor of single minded obstructionist strategies on the part of the left right now. By which I mean that if the president proposed policy broadly aligned with liberal principles, I’d expect leaders to support it (the trouble is that at the moment, the president has yet to put forward a policy I support, but I remain theoretically open to the notion). I railed against obstructionist behavior when conservative stoned walled President Obama, it would be hypocritical of me to support such behavior now. Being consistently against something is not the same thing as having a proactive platform of your own, something that I believe played out to Democratic disadvantage in the recent election. Anger fuels revolutions, but it’s usually taken cooler heads to turn revolt into civic progress rather than a short dive into tyranny or chaos. It’s not enough to emote in response to government actions we find immoral or unlawful, you have to mobilize. That takes organization, articulation of proactive positions and not just reactive ones, effort, and long term commitment…all of which can be difficult to sustain if you are operating from a place of near or actual burnout.
Me checking in during my afternoon news-and-tea break after a few hours away from the internet.
I know for a fact that I’m susceptible to outrage fatigue. And I also know that I plan on being more political involved and engaged than I have been heretofore. Meaning that I’m going to need a thicker skin, a longer battery life, and several recharging stations along the way. To that end, I’m more committed than ever to emotional self care practices and keeping my emotional energy well tended and focused. I’m still learning, but if like me you’ve stared responding to “BREAKING NEWS” signs with cringes and expletives, here are a few things that I’ve found that keep me even keeled when I want to panic or smash things.
Top Tips Thus Far From Someone Still Figuring it Out:
Don’t pick fights for the sake of fighting. Plenty of people are doing that already. If you feel so inclined to join the fray, have at it, but know that you’re expending emotional energy that may be better served elsewhere and that you may need later. Personally, at the moment I’ve given up trying to change a lot of people’s minds through arguing. Where I can find respectful conversations, I engage. Where I find flame wars, I avoid.
Don’t be afraid to enjoy frivolous things that bring your pleasure–and don’t let anyone shame you for it. Yes, there’s a lot of bad stuff happening all over the globe at the moment. That doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to enjoy and share small things that make you happy. I remember a criticism leveled at me waaaaaay back in the earlier days of my blogging where someone informed me that I couldn’t be a “real” feminist because I mostly wrote humor posts at the time. A couple of years later, I was called a “stupid/shallow” woman for talking about my love of fashion and beauty. At the time, these (fairly minor) critiques caused me a lot of self-doubt…which was precisely their intent. Today my response is a bellowing, “Nonsense!” As if it’s impossible to have a sense of humor, and like lipstick, and have thoughts about the wage gap, parental leave, and social constructs all at the same time. Everyday pleasures are important and people interested in shaming you do not have your best interests at heart.
Avoid toxicity. Sometimes we need to engage in hard conversations and go to tough places, usually because there is a reward to earn or a morally good fight to be undertaken. Sometimes, there is no discernible good in exposing yourself to certain platforms or people–sometimes being in those places can cause you damage. In those cases, do not give those people or platforms your time, attention, or money.
Maintain your internal bullshit barometer. We live in a consumer media world largely based on provocation and reaction, it takes effort to maintain a critical eye and perspective. Do not get worked up over, much less share information without vetting it first. If and when you find your control over your own perspective shifting to all-to-easily agree with the last article you read or pundit you listened to, it’s time for a break.
Actively seek out things that make you feel happy. Legal and innocuous, I stress! Whether that’s time with your partner or friends, reading a book, exercise, stand up comedy, podcasts, puppy videos…no matter. It’s ridiculously easy to feel like the world is a terrible place and the only logical course of action is to ball up in a corner by ourselves somewhere. Just remember, that’s the argument that got us into our current political predicament! Go find things that spark joy and make them a part of your daily routine.
Unplug from time to time. Barring nuclear disaster (which, depending on your point of view at the moment may in fact be a credible threat), there will be more bad news coming down the pike shortly and, if you are committed to your cause, you will be required to act in some way in response. Allocate your attention accordingly.
Conserve your energy where you can. Not every tweet, pronouncement, or even action is a Defcon 1 level threat. In fact, some of the news right is laugh out loud ridiculous. Find the humor where possible, and allocate your energy where it’s needed.
What about you? What emotional habits have you had to cultivate in the 21st century news and political climate? What works for you and what doesn’t?
“The first requirement of politics is not intellect or stamina but patience. Politics is a very long run game and the tortoise will usually beat the hare.” – John Major
As you may imagine, I’ve been following political news closely over the past couple of weeks (sidenote, how the hell has it only been two week of this presidency?) but I’ve also been following my friends and colleagues reactions to said news. I’m privileged to know some really incredible people, including activists who have spent years campaigning for causes and work that are near and dear to their hearts, and I’m awed to know them.
In seeing how my more engaged friends are springing to action, I’ve been thinking about how a relative newbie like myself can do better. There are a lot of think pieces out there at the moment, about how people can and should go about political engagement, but I feel like I’ve been able to dilute everything I’ve read into three basic lines of advice. This is for myself as much as anyone else.
Read. Inform yourself on what’s going on and gather as much information you can to make sure that you are literate in current affairs. Vet your sources–when in doubt, research the author’s background or other reporting, and ditto for the platforms that articles and reporting appear on. Don’t overreact to any piece of incendiary information that comes your way without properly and critical examining. Be the first line of defense against sharing fake new or misinformation. Make it point to read credible reporting and information provided by platforms that you may usually disagree with! There is no hope of common ground where it can be found without understanding the opposing stance, and you have no hope of changing anyone’s mind if you don’t understand what their position is in the first place. Challenge your own POV as well so that you can formulate and articulate your own position on issues clearly and responsibly.
Focus. Outrage fatigue is a real threat right now (whatever your political suasion) but it benefits absolutely no one. With so much information flying around, and different issues arising so quickly, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and unsure of where to even start trying to affect change. My advice is to decide what your top issues are and broadly stick to them in terms of donation, activities, and effort. Attend events and meetings (including local political gatherings, protests, events with representatives, or town hall meetings) where these issues are going to topics of debate and feedback, and come armed with facts to make arguments and support your positions. Not everyone can spearhead every fight, and that’s okay. There are a lot of angry, woke people doing a lot of good work right now and you are not required to be everywhere at once if you do not have the capacity. Pick your battles, quite literally.
Act. Clicks are not actions. Sharing articles, memes, videos, or any other kind of content on social media is not action. Arguing with people online is not action, and it’s seldom productive anyway. Signing petitions, making donations, showing up in person to events, volunteering your time or talents, calling/engaging with your representatives…that’s action. Don’t confuse emotional venting with being involved.
How about you? What advice have you found useful in evaluating your involvement in politics? What actions are you taking in response to the political climate–regardless of party?
“Your silence will not protect you.” – Audre Lorde
So. To recap this week. The Johnson Amendment might be on the chopping block next, we’ve hung up the phone on Australia because the president was tired and grumpy and apparently no one put him down for a nap before he talked to the head of another nation, the Mexico situation is ongoing, we’re firing lawyers who disagree with presidential orders (that haven’t been legally vetted in the first instance), we’re purposefully choosing not to mention Jews in the official statement on Holocaust Remembrance day (to which, how?), and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is less necessary at regular meetings of our security council than the president’s special adviser.
Meanwhile violence in the Ukraine is heating up (something I don’t think there’s been enough reporting on in the US, especially given that the Treasury has now has eased a sanction against trading with the FSB, also known as the descendant organization to the KGB), tensions with Iran are ticking up, the administration apparently decided on a military action in Yemen over dinner with dreadful results, the president used a prayer breakfast to needle a celebrity about TV ratings, a spokeswoman seems to have invented a massacre out of whole cloth to defend the administration’s immigration ban, and the president AND his press secretary don’t seem to be entirely sure who Frederick Douglas is or that he’s been dead for a minute.
We are so far past ridiculous now that I’m not even sure what term needs to be used.
Here are you links, kittens, and share anything worth signal boosting, political or petty, in the comments!
Speaking of, I’ve been making it a point to read and share conservative POVs this week, as part of sense checking myself and avoid my personal instinct (panic. All the time. No breaks). This piece, from The National Review is a more measured read as to why Mr. Bannon’s style may have served the president well campaigning, but poorly in governing.
Goodness. Well, let us all hope and pray for the arrival of Mr. Trumps fourth wife, in that case…
This piece from The Guardian was an interesting read and argues (as an earlier writer did) that we’ve all been worried about an Orwellian future, when we should have been worried about a Huxley-ian one.
If you’re looking for some pretty right now, this artist has appeared a ton of places and her work is a fab take on pop art. I’m thinking of buying a couple pieces eventually!
“Siblings: children of the same parents, each of whom is perfectly normal until they get together.” ― Sam Levenson
One of the great things about my relationship with my siblings is how different we are. If you line us up we look nothing alike, we’re a perfect hodgepodge of kin features in that we all look like some member of our extended family, but nothing like one another. One brother and I both took degrees in history, but mine was in medieval Europe, his in 20th century America. Another brother is thinking about going into medicine, while the youngest sister is focused on art and languages. We have few overlapping interests or hobbies. One of the boys is a fairly proud dandy, the other a self-proclaimed man’s man. Some of us are religious, others aren’t. We also run the political gamut: the girls are liberal, though each of us have different pet policy concerns, one brother is libertarian, the other is very conservative.
And you know what? We get along.
Oh yes, we argue–it’s practically a requirement in our household–we debate, we disagree forcefully. But we also just talk, share ideas or interesting facts, set out our opinions, and back them up–also a requirement in our household. And we usually are able to say, “I disagree, but I see where you’re coming from,” and move on to the next conversation or activity with no acrimony.
Dignity? Not so much. Solidarity? Always.
Over the weekend I got a call from my sister at 2am (mild panic attack there) excitedly asking for feedback in crafting a sign she was carrying to DC to protest the Immigration Ban. Later that same day I felt the need to sense check myself about a piece of military policy news, specifically that the National Security Council had been restructured and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff effectively demoted in the council and chief strategist Mr. Bannon elevated over them. Bleeding heart liberal I may be, but I’m also a military brat whose father has served all over the world, including the Pentagon. I believe that this change is downright bad and the preference of a media strategist over a four star general in regularly discussing and determining military policy absurd. I knew right away what my opinion was, but I wanted to check in with my conservative brother, currently active duty in the Air Force and combat experienced, to see if his experience and perspective could add any nuance to my pretty instantaneous negative reaction. We ended up having a great chat about our opinions of the new administration and political trends.
That was my Sunday. Monday I attended a immigration ban protest myself outside of Downing Street after work. Put together, it was a good reminder that as I work to be more involved in the causes I care about, to signal boost what I think needs to be promoted and decry what I believe to be wrong, there are good and intelligent people doing the same across the aisle from me. And that, as different as we are, by communicating well and committing respect and debate, we often find surprising overlaps and common causes.
Unless we’re talking board games. Then it’s scorched earth war.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – Constitution of the United States of America
Two posts in one day, you lucky darlings. But the news of the Executive Order issued by President Trump banning access to the country from several (Islamic) countries has broken and rather consumed our day here at SDS headquarters. He’s not calling it a #MuslimBan (though General Flynn’s son is, for what that’s worth)…but it’s a ban on Muslims. You know how we can tell? Because President Trump also directed that priority for immigration should be given to people from the Middle East…who are Christian. But let’s set that aside for a moment.
I’m not going to speculate on how much ammunition this will give to terrorist groups, some of whom have already apparently used the EO in recruiting efforts. Or how this might affect my brother and countless others currently serving in the armed forces.
I’m not going to touch the fact that this EO, steeped in racial tensions and fearmongering, was issued on Holocaust Memorial day.
Instead, I want to talk about some personal background, some legal realities, and the question of motive.
To recap.
On my father’s side, his mother was the daughter of immigrants from Slovakia. They were Roman Catholic at a time when Catholics and immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were viewed as suspect and fundamentally Un-American. My grandmother married a WASP from New York and bore three children, one of whom is my father who served most of my life in the US Air Force. One of my brothers has followed him into service.
On my mother’s side, I am descended from religious converts who came from Scotland and elsewhere to the deserts of the American West to join in a small and somewhat persecuted religious movement–Mormonism. This movement had an extermination order issued against them as a group at one point and were eventually driven out of what then constituted the boundaries of the country. My mother descends from this religious minority, now considered one of the most conservative and patriotic subsections of the country. My dad later converted to this faith and this heritage. I’ve left the former, but carry the latter with me always.
That’s my immigrant and religious minority legacy. Why do I repeat this? Because I’m not special. Most Americans have some kind of story like this in their background, this intertwining of minority and immigrant stories goes right back to our founding myths and has been our day-to-day lived reality for the better part of three centuries. Cracking down on immigrants, especially when you are using religion as part of your reasoning is fundamentally counter intuitive to our national history and story.
Years later, I’m now an immigrant in a Western nation at this very moment. I followed all the laws to legally enter this country and work here, and I have the paperwork to prove it. That is how international immigration and laws work. I’m lucky. I’m white, educated, English speaking, but I’m still an immigrant. My life is here and it is dependent on the goodwill of two governments. If I boarded a plane in the US and arrived in London only to be detained at the border because the Prime Minister had decided that in defiance of laws and regulations in two countries, my right to entry (again, documented in two countries) was suddenly invalidated, I have no idea where I’d be. Catatonic in a corner perhaps. Propublica estimates that up to half a million people are potentially in this situation now. The Washington Post is reporting that the language of the recent executive order that has brought this mess about also applies to people with dual nationalities…aka…citizens of the US. Huffinton Post reports ditto for Green Card holders. Representatives of the government under which I currently live are also reporting that they could not access the US under this EO, which doesn’t make me overly optimistic for continued operational goodwill across borders.
Why do I bring all this up? Because, like me, we are talking about people who have already passed multitudes of tests and requirements to gain access to the country.
There a lot of genuinely necessary conversation and work to do to create a safe, viable immigration network in the 21st century world. But do you know what really is pissing me off? It’s that the basis for this EO is due to fears and anxieties concerning illegal immigration and religious backgrounds. People who have the paperwork to get into this country have, in many cases, already passed a vetting process far more grueling than anyone currently being considered for a position in Mr. Trump’s cabinet! And freedom of worship was one of the first things the Founding Fathers enshrined.
And so, people who voted for this–including some of you who told me that these kinds of actions or bans would never come to fruition: do not tell me that the problem is illegal immigration, and then turn around and start detaining or denying entry first to those who already legally live and work in the US, including citizens. Do not tell me you consider the constitution sacrosanct but then impose a religious litmus test on entry in violation of the Bill of Rights. Do not cite the 9/11 attacks or recent lone wolf actors as a basis for this ban and then apply it to countries who citizens didn’t participate in those atrocities.
You’re either delusional about your motives, or you’re lying.
“I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will.” ― Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre
In case you missed it, the Womens March on Washington (and sister marches around the world, including the one I participated in in London) might have made some records. The coverage is still coming in and it’s amazing to see — more amazing to have participated in. You can see some my images here, but this is a story worth following and watching. To say nothing of joining in. Welcome to the Grab Back.
Oh yeah, and the US has a new president who doesn’t seem to be “pivoting” from his campaign persona in any way. Shock, surprise. I watched his inauguration because I’m a citizen and think it’s important to support the process of free government. The new First Lady looked absolutely lovely, and I thought it was gracious and correct for Secretary Clinton to show up in spite of how awful I expect it felt. The speech was Orwellian, but bang on from the tone of his campaign. The next day I laced up my shoes and hit the streets to make it clear that he was not elected with a mandate and I will be supporting the issues that I care about with my time, my money, and my voice. Because again, I think it’s important to support the process of free government. This is how it works.
Here are your links, kittens. Tell me what you got up to this weekend.
I found this piece at Politico a very timely read. It opines that President Trump’s hostility towards the press may be a blessing in disguise. If the traditional lines of communication between the administration and the media are clipped, the press can and should (this writer argues) fan out to the myriad unofficial lines instead and take up the opportunity to do more and more extensive investigative reporting.
Also, what did the administration do on Day 2? Malign the press in the face of documented facts and figures, and talk a lot about himself in his “reach out” to the CIA.
An interesting piece on the physical logistics of changing over an administration.
An important reminder about some of the realities of race and privilege, especially when it comes to assembly. I for one, know I can do better and I intend to.
This SNL from Asiz Ansari was great and nicely nuanced against hysteria. We’ll be fine and the people ultimately set the tone for change, and if yesterday is any indication…
STOP. I swear every time I read an article like this, my heart breaks a little. I know there are more important immediate issues, such as the civilian lives in the crosshairs right now, but this hateful and deliberate dismantling of human history is also hideous
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.” ― Mark Twain
I wished President Obama well when he was inaugurated, I liked and supported a majority of his policies, and I have tremendous respect for the respect in turn that he seemed to have for his office in terms of his temperament and behavior. I believe he would have been justified many times in his presidency in lashing out in anger against the blatant disrespect and obstructionism thrown in his face, and I admire him for choosing not to do so. I understand that he was keen to avoid negative racial stereotypes (such as being an “angry black man”) but even in that, I admire his understanding that what the president does sets a precedence. He seemed very keen to always be in control of his self presentation as an aspect of his office.
image via Wikipedia
If nothing else, I believe a lesson learned for all the citizenry from this political cycle is that a number of expectations Americans have for their political leaders are not necessarily enshrined in law, but rather in precedent and convention. For example, it is correct that the president is not required by law to divest his business interests, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s expected that a man or woman in that position would. That’s what precedent and convention say s/he should do. For all we whine and complain about politicians, there are some age old notions and assumptions that we as a culture cling to about how people in public life ought to behave. It’s the difference between being a public person and being a celebrity and why sex scandals can bring down the one and jumpstart a Kardashian style family empire in the other. I happen to like the distinction because I believe fundamentally that entertainment and politics should be different and want my leaders to follow a degree of convention that I do not expect from celebrities and entertainers.
Of course, that is not the world we are living in. Information and entertainment have become dangerously entwined. But what I find amazing about this in the current moment is that one of the architects of this media landscape…is Donald Trump himself. He was an early reality TV star, a genre that purposefully blurs the line between fact and fiction. He parlayed brand into entertainment, entertainment to media prominence, prominence to the illusion of being a reputable commentator, commentator to candidate, and now elected office.
President Trump is a celebrity first and foremost. This is what has allowed him to survive scandals and kerfuffles that would have brought down a traditional politician in his same shoes. Several supporters hold this up as a virtue, that he cannot be unmade by violations of convention that would taint a more conventional candidate, but I see fundamental danger in it. Celebrities are expected to get ratings, get people talking about them, and get rich off their brand. Elected officials are expected to govern. I don’t trust that he’s made this distinction in his own mind between being media famous and being politically powerful.
My personal prediction is that President Trump will not last a full term of office. I think that impeachment due to his numerous existing and potential future conflicts of interest is very likely. I also think that it’s very likely that the constraints of the office and government bureaucracy (slow by design) may prove frustrating to an obviously impatient man and he may simply quit. His prominence rose out of his own propagation of false news, something that I believe very likely to be turned against him during his term of office–something he has already (ironically, in my opinion) started complaining of. In short, I think his inability to accept the conventions of behavior and action that American’s have historically expected of their leaders may undo him. I think that people may have been willing to accept a media personality on the trail, but will expect a more conventional leader in office…and I don’t think he has it in him. It’s not what’s made him “successful,” and his behavior thus far doesn’t lead me to believe he will make the transition.
Of course, I may be proven wrong and he will turn out great, or at the very least his government will keep a rein on him. I’d actually love to proven wrong and that a man who thus far has seemed uniquely temperamentally unfit, professionally unqualified, and borderline hilariously thin skinned will do a good job. I’ll be the first to put up my hand and declare, “Yep, I got this one way off!” But I doubt it.
“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” ― Albert Einstein
For obvious reasons, politics is on my mind this week.
Something I’ve probably not spent enough time thinking through is how politics affects my money choices. A lot of the “big” purchases normally associated with American politics are simply not part of our lives at the moment. We have only ever bought one car and that was from a family member, we have never bought a house, and the biggest choice we’ve made is to live and work abroad which obviously makes an impact in our taxes and expenses. I know that political policy informs my life day to day, but I’d never really really done an examination as to how or how intimately.
That started to change last year after the Brexit vote. It was a political decision that had and will have enormous consequences for the industry I work in, to the tune of millions and perhaps billions of pounds. Of course I know that every budget the US Congress has passed in my lifetime has affected me, but this was the first time that I felt the financial implications of politics hit my work and wallet directly since the Great Recession. It was sobering and it changed several of our potential futures.
image via Death to the Stock Photo
We love living in London, the idea of ever leaving cracks my heart…but we do occasionally take a look at career opportunities back in the States where we’d be likely to make larger paychecks (Jeff in particular). Meanwhile the exchange rate is now much less favorable to us than it once was, with more uncertainty in the forecast. Given these financial realities, influenced by international and local politics, it’s not inconceivable that we may move back to the States or to another country at some point. If we do our taxation will change, so will other political realities.
As the future of the Affordable Care Act is currently in a state of limbo in the States, I just had the cervical exam I’m entitled to as a person who pays UK taxes that funds the NHS–I won’t call it “free.” I’m also provided access to regular birth control at no additional cost to me and regular dentistry (joke about UK teeth care all you want, I still get mine checked out every six month and it costs a fraction of what it would in the States). On the flip side, there are legitimate critiques for a system that many find bureaucratic and overstretched, and that some people dislike.
Money and politics are a constant trade off for what we have, what we want, what we are able to provide for ourselves, and what we deem that government/society/employers should provide for us. The financial choices I/we have made are personal ones, but they are political as well. As the saying goes, “The personal is political.”
But we’ve not yet really parsed out how politics will affect our desire to invest, to save, to retire. These still feel like “far away” problems, even though I know they aren’t.
So, wiser, older, and more experienced friends, talk to me about how politics has affected your money choices. What decisions did you have to make under the past administration (if you’re American), and what decisions do you think you will need to under the new one? Brit friends, ditto your experiences under recent governments?
Small Dog Syndrome 