President Trump Does Not Represent the Common Man

Inauguration day is over and we have a new President.  However, something very strange emerged from the post event interviews of Trump supporters and political pundits.  Most praised it as some kind of apocalyptic event, claiming it was so because, “We finally have a President who represents the common man.”   This term is defined by Wiktionary as, “The average citizen, as contrasted with the social, political or cultural elite.” 

Where could those claiming Trump as representing the “common man” find any evidence in Donald Trump’s life history to support that he is even remotely connected to the “common man?”

Trump amassed his initial wealth from his father.  He didn’t earn it by the hard work ethics of the “common man.”

 

During his entire business career he has been surrounded by and interacted with millionaires and billionaires in this country and world–wide.

However, there were instances when he was forced to interact with the “common man” by the very nature of being involved with the real estate industry.  He bought up their properties and forced foreclosures to get property to expand his business ventures.  This is not a condemnation of him but simply a description of the realities involved with such a business.  Additionally, he often stiffed the contractors and subcontractors involved with these ventures.

He ran a bogus university which cost him $25 million in litigation.  He ran a phony charity, The Trump Foundation, to help the “common man” which he subsequently admitted on IRS documents provided monies for his personal expenses.  The Trump Foundation was also cited for falsely claiming to donate monies to different veteran organizations.  The veteran charities listed by the Foundation claimed they never received any of the funds.  The Trump Foundation has subsequently been dissolved.

 

None of these facts necessarily make Donald Trump a bad person, but some of his opportunities for interactions with the “common man” haven’t been totally honorable.   Additionally, if one objectively evaluates his lifestyle, it accurately represents that of an elitist rather than someone who has participated in the “common man’s” world.  Even in his selection of cabinet members and advisors Trump will still be dealing almost entirely with millionaires.

Trump simply cannot envision what it’s like to be a member of the common man group with regard to income. Why should we expect this of him given his lifestyle?  Supporters need to stop thinking he can.

This country does need to move in a different direction, but let’s stop attributing characteristics of what we want our new President to be rather than the reality of what he is. Those who think Donald Trump represents the “common man” need to get a grip on reality.   President Trump may have played into some of the same thoughts, desires and fears of the “common man,” but he certainly has no internalization or clue as to what it is like to be one.

Please stop deceiving yourselves.  President Trump doesn’t represent the “common man.”

Is it as simple as friend or foe?

It is obvious that social media has become the dominant sounding board for gauging the overall political climate in our nation.  Most likely it will be elevated to even greater heights with the recent election of Donald Trump as our next president.

It’s too early to tell whether this is a good or bad thing.  However, the simplistic categorizations and stereotypical classifications which occur within its confines by its participants are of great concern.

You can dislike or like President Obama; you can dislike or like Donald Trump; you can dislike or like Hillary Clinton; you can abhor the Iran nuclear agreement; you can sympathize with Israel or Palestine; etc. You have the right to do all these things and express them on social media.  However, when the expression of one’s opinion on a single issue automatically leads to some preconceived stereotypical political classification of you, it is not only an irrational act, but totally disrespectful to you as an individual.

As it now stands, if you make even a single comment about a political issue on social media, you are labeled as totally embracing the entire spectrum of the stereotypical ideologies of liberalism, conservatism, or even socialism as defined by each entity.  You are also categorized as “with us or against us.”  This has escalated to the point of lost friendships, family members’ disassociations and even disharmony among spouses.

 

As a result of the 2016 presidential campaigning, “drawing political lines in the sand” has become the new way we interact with people on social media.  We immediately judge and politically classify our social media contacts.

Unfortunately, this rush-to-judgment behavior is now permeating the way we interact with people in our daily face to face encounters.  Glib remarks like “Well, what did you expect, he’s a conservative tea partier,” or “You know he’s a damn liberal,” fill our conversations.  It’s deplorable and out of control because in reality the entire political ideological gamut of the individual is unknown.

Tragically, this is what is tearing this country apart.

A comment from one of my wife’s social media contacts during President Obama’s’ farewell address exemplifies the division that now permeates our country.  His comment was, “I can’t believe I’m listening to this crap.”  The individual was so dismissive of this “liberal” president that he most likely didn’t internalize the most perceptive part of the speech when President Barack Obama warned, “America, we weaken those ties when we allow our political dialogue to become so corrosive that people of good character aren’t even willing to enter public service; so coarse with rancor that Americans with whom we disagree are not just misguided, but malevolent.  We weaken those ties when we define some of us as more American than others; when we write off the whole system as inevitably corrupt, and blame the leaders we elect without examining our own role in electing them.”

The disservice we now do to each other based upon perceived stereotypical political ideologies must stop or we will not be able to” Make America Great Again” no matter who is our commander-in-chief.

If it tweets like a bully..........

During the Golden Globe awards ceremony Sunday night, Meryl Streep expressed how upset she was over a particular inappropriate action by Donald Trump during his run for president.   She described it as, “That moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter.  It kind of broke my heart when I saw it, and I still can’t get it out of my head, because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.”

Although Ms. Streep never mentioned Mr. Trump by name, she was referring to a speech by him in 2015 when he shuddered and flailed his arms, seeming to mock a disabled reporter for The New York Times.

Ms. Streep’s speech did not seem political in nature or intended to win people over — she even spoke dismissively of football and mixed martial arts at one point — but simply to voice her frustration over what she felt were the inappropriate actions of Mr. Trump. She further stated, “This instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.  Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence, and when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose.”

Instead of President-elect Trump respectively replying in his usual Tweeter mode that Ms. Streep was incorrect because his actions did not intend to be disrespectful but instead simply to show how the reporter was acting in a groveling manner, Trump legitimized Ms. Streep’s comments by vilifying her character and job performance. 

Monday morning, Mr. Trump, in a series of tweets, called Ms. Streep “one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood,” and “a Hillary flunky who lost big.”

Dealing with criticism is a skill every well-adjusted man or woman should possess. We give and take criticism among our co-workers, our friends, and our family. Criticism is an important part of our personal self-improvement, for it is other people who can point out mistakes and shortcomings that we can’t see ourselves because we lack objectivity.

Unfortunately, many today don’t know how to accept criticism like an adult. Instead they handle criticism like small children by responding with character assassination and bullying, always having to have the last word.

Sadly, this is how President–elect Trump most often reacts.   He seems to have a very thin skin in regard to any type of criticism and has a great deal of difficulty admitting his shortcomings or mistakes, both of which could be dangerous for a world leader advocating democracy as the ideal form of government.

A man who refuses to admit his mistakes can never be successful. Proverbs 28:13

Our legislators’ latest fantasy

Once again our esteemed legislators have returned to the gambling table and used health care and education to bankroll their habit.

They are presently touting the fact that the reason they refused to deal with a total tax restructuring in this state and instead passed a series of temporary tax band-aids is due to the windfall of sales tax revenue they expect to receive from on-line internet sales.

In reality, as of January 1, 2017, the proposed flood of new revenue is only from one on-line company that previously did not collect sales tax at the time of purchase, namely Amazon.  No one else joined the group.

It’s reassuring to know that health care and education now hang in the balance based upon yet another revenue calculation by a legislative body that hasn’t been able to produce an accurate revenue prediction in over eight years.  This state has continually run out of money mid-year based upon the Capital’s financial blueprints dating back to the 2009 legislative session.

Looking at the deficit still looming from the last fiscal year and the one for this year, Louisiana could be short over $600 million.  At the 8% sales tax now being collected from Amazon purchases, sales would have to total $7.5 billion to validate our legislators’ claim that they have plugged the state’s current deficit without the need for tax reform.

I seriously doubt Louisianans spend $7.5 billion at Amazon each year.  Consequently more cuts will come for education and health care.

How long will it will take for our Baton Rouge crew to stand up to the LABI, chemical, petroleum, and gas lobbyists who presently dictate the tax policies of this state?  It’s been eight years, and they haven’t done it yet.

Soon the band-aids that were passed last session will fall off and it will be interesting to ponder the next fantasy our legislators will sow to claim they finally permanently solved the financial problems of this state.

LSU Alumni care more about athletics than academics

LSU president F. King Alexander lamented to legislators Wednesday that the recent cuts to the upper and middle class entitlement program TOPS was substantially affecting LSU from keeping “its brightest and best” students from leaving our state.

Perhaps it’s time for him to get a grip on reality and deal with the heart of the problem, the mindset of LSU alumni.  They simply don’t want to open their wallets and academically support the school that contributed to their success in life.

However, they have no problem supporting LSU athletics, particularly Tiger football.  LSU has the distinct honor of being the only SEC school that raises more money for athletics than for academics.

Even though LSU continually makes upgrades to Tiger Stadium, it is barely able to provide enough dorm rooms for freshmen.  The Tiger Athletic Foundation just recently spent $2.5 million to renovate the weight room.  It also helps fund sports scholarships and supplements coaches' salaries, which, in football, can run into seven figures.  With the help of LSU alumni, Les Miles’ contract was bought out and an entire new slew of football coaches hired.

The other source of fundraising efforts, the LSU Foundation, supports the university's academic and research missions by providing endowed professorships that attract high-profile faculty, building new classrooms and laboratories, and providing scholarships and other student support programs. However, alumni contributions to that foundation pale in comparison to the athletic foundation.

In a typical year, TAF receives about $45 million in donations that serve the university's intercollegiate athletic programs, compared to about $41 million for the LSU Foundation.

“If you look at the buildings of LSU, all of the newest and most spectacular buildings belong to athletics," said Kevin Cope, president of the Faculty Senate. "Meanwhile, there are faculty, students and community members who work in buildings where the plumbing doesn't work, walls are falling down and the facilities are generally in a state of Third World disrepair."

The University of Florida's Gator Boosters athletic foundation resembles TAF, bringing in about $45 million a year. But the University of Florida Foundation, by comparison, brings in roughly $110 million a year for academics – nearly three times what the LSU Foundation raises.

A realistic example of what has actually taken place at LSU involves my next door neighbor, a straight A, Merit Scholarship finalist.  She was offered a $2500 yearly scholarship by LSU; this amount to “keep its brightest and best.”  I bet Leonard Fournette wasn’t offered that measly amount.

However, many argue that an athlete is a show piece that serves as an immediate source of financial benefit for the university.  In fact, LSU athletics makes so much money that in 2012 the Louisiana Board of Supervisors passed a mandate requiring the LSU athletic department to donate a minimum of $7.2 million each year to the academic programs at LSU.  Every year the donation has exceeded that amount with money to spare.

My beef is not with LSU athletics per se, but instead with its president and alumni mindset.

Athletics charges admissions for sporting events and fans eagerly pay the price.  It also benefits from all sorts of branded products and from the Tiger Athletic Foundation which raises money through alumni donations. 

Academic programs don’t have the luxury of diverse sources of funding and rely heavily upon alumni donations to the LSU Foundation.

LSU needs to get over the free ride TOPS mentality for statewide tuition assistance and concentrate instead on getting companies and corporations headed by and filled with LSU alumni to step up and support academics at our state’s premier university.

One would hope that LSU fans would be as concerned about the national academic ranking of LSU as they are about the football team’s ranking.  So far that’s doesn’t appear to be the case.