Does President Donald Trump give “patriotism” a bad name these days?

I got my jolt for the day from the results of a new poll by the Morning Consult group with regards to what we think of President Donald Trump.
 

The blunt-spoken confusion of Archie Bunker, or ...

No real surprise here; most of us don’t think much of the Trumpster – only a 41 percent approval rating in this poll. By comparison, the Gallup Organization’s daily tracking poll Friday had Trump at 38 percent approval.

THE BAD NEWS for Trump goes further, as people were asked whether various terms applied to Trump’s presidential performance. Those included “arrogant” (77 percent), “reckless” and “not willing to admit mistakes” (both 60 percent), “strong leader” (43 percent), “knowledgeable” (41 percent), “has the judgement needed to be president” (34 percent), “trustworthy” and “steady” (both 32 percent).

But then, there was the term “patriotic.”

To which 53 percent of those people surveyed by this particular poll said “yes” (34 percent said “no” and the other 13 percent presumably are clueless and can’t make up their minds).

That just strikes me as a bit of a contradiction. Someone whose performance is so negatively thought of can also be thought of as “patriotic?”

NOW BEFORE ANYBODY starts sending me their rants, I realize that the ideological right has done a number with the concept of patriotism – spinning the idea of love of one’s country as being the same as supporting their social issue ideals.

Even though one could argue that many of the people with different ideals are trying to make this a better, more fair country – and in some ways one more closely tied to the ideals written into both the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

That is a statement I don’t doubt will offend many of those conservative ideologues; that their rants on social issues aren’t what this country is supposed to be all about.

 

... the 'Vulcan logic' of Mr. Spock?

That may well be what is being reflected by the idea of people thinking that Trump’s political trash talk makes him a “patriot.”

IF ANYTHING, PEOPLE have a questionable comprehension at times of the Constitution. Such as that esteemed political philosopher of 1970s television, Archie Bunker (played by actor Carroll O’Connor) who once in a discussion about gun control responded to wife Edith (actress Jean Stapleton) who thought the Second Amendment referred to not making graven images by saying, “That ain’t the Constitution, Edith. What you says is the Gettysburg Address.”

Before you denounce the point as being that of a fictional character from four decades ago, famed television producer Norman Lear who created “All in the Family” has said that Trump shows “utter contempt” for the Constitution.

All of which makes me question how we’re defining the concept of “patriotism” these days. Is it really nothing more than blind faith to someone no matter how absurd the utterances from their mouth in public become?

Consider that the same Morning Consult poll showed 58 percent of people think Trump’s decision to share classified intelligence information with Russian government officials was “inappropriate” and that 50 percent think Trump was wrong to try to sway former FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

ARE THESE REALLY the actions of a patriot? Or do we really not fully comprehend the concept of supporting one’s’ nation?

TRUMP: 6 percent say he's patriotic & don't like him

Which to my mind has always meant holding the nation’s needs above that of any one individual – while Trump always comes off as thinking that HIS needs outweigh the masses.

Writing that last line reminded me of yet another cinematic moment; “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” As in dialogue from the 1982 Star Trek film “The Wrath of Khan.”

Perhaps Trump, and many in our society would be better off if we’d pay heed to the words of Mr. Spock, rather than Archie Bunker!

  -30-

Was it a ‘George Jefferson’ impersonation? Or just inarticulate talk?

What should we think of the fact that mayoral hopeful Willie Wilson tried to say he’s not a prejudiced person by allegedly using a phrase that some people consider to be a racial slur?

As in “whitey.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported last week on the City Club of Chicago forum at which Wilson spoke, and is to have said, “to the whiteys here, I’m letting you know I ain’t prejudiced.”

WILSON TRIED TO pressure the Sun-Times into taking back that quote, but the newspaper (to its credit) refused to do so. For what it’s worth, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote in his Sunday newspaper column that Wilson privately admitted to him that he said “whitey” and was sorry if anyone was offended.

But I’m wondering just what kind of person would really be offended at use of the word “whitey.” It comes across as so buffoonish to think that is really a slur. In fact, I suspect the only people who are offended by the phrase are certain white people whose own speech is laced with racial and ethnic slurs but who take offense at anything aimed at themselves.

Some people have recalled the Richard M. Daley moment of his first successful mayoral campaign where he is alleged to have used the phrase “white mayor” to describe what he thought the city of Chicago needed in order for government to be successful.

He tried using the same defense that Wilson is now using – perhaps his dialect just isn’t clear to certain ears. Then again, some people freak out whenever they hear a black public official of any type say “axed” when trying to say “asked.”

WILSON’S SPEECH IS laced with a tinge of southern drawl, and it is clear he’s not exaggerating when he says he has only a seventh grade education. Just like Daley (who was a DePaul law school graduate) never overcame the speech patterns picked up by growing up amongst Bridgeport neighborhood immigrants for whom English might not have been the first language.

As in it’s our fault for not understanding what the candidate was trying to say.

Although when I first heard about Wilson’s alleged “whitey” moment, my mind flipped back to George Jefferson, as in the character created by actor Sherman Helmsley to be the primary foil of bigoted Archie Bunker on the “All in the Family” program.

Those of us of a certain age remember Helmsley’s constant barking of “honky” at any white person who managed to annoy him – and George was easily offended by just about everybody who came into his sight.

THAT WAS DONE for laughs, and I have to admit to having the same reaction to Wilson’s so-called moment of rhetorical nonsense. It’s too ridiculous to take seriously!

Just as I don’t think this will hurt Wilson’s campaign in any significant way. The kind of people who will take offense are the kind who weren’t going to vote for him under any circumstances.

The rest of the electorate got its chuckle.

It also reminds me of the “All in the Family” episode where George Jefferson tried running for political office himself, spouting out high-minded ideals of public service while his real intention was to get to approve a city permit for his “cleaning store” to knock out the flower shop located next door.

I’D HATE TO think the Wilson campaign that talks high and mighty about representing the interests of all Chicago has equally selfish purposes in mind!

Besides, the part of Wilson’s quote that bothers me isn’t the “whitey” reference. It’s the part where he says, “I ain’t prejudiced” that riles me up.

Many people may speak more informally than they would read or write something – some like Gov. Bruce Rauner apparently do it on purpose, thinking it makes them appear to be more like the masses. That upsets me more than anything Wilson might have done.

But even someone who only went to school through the seventh grade should have learned that “ain’t” ain’t a word.

  -30-

Everybody wants to believe everyone ought to be just like themselves

Megyn Kelly, the blonde babe news anchor for Fox News Channel, is getting more than her share of ridicule on the Internet these days for her statement on air this week that both Santa Claus and Jesus Christ were white.

Believe it or not, I’m not about to join in the abuse. Yes, it’s a nonsense-thought to have when you think about it.

YET I DON’T doubt that many a person just perceives things this way. It’s that instinct amongst us that everybody has to be just like us. Otherwise, maybe it means there’s something wrong with themselves.

That is what makes the modern-day reality of the 21^st Century in our society so scary for some – we’re not all alike. Nor should we have to be.

We’re at a point where we ought to quit thinking of the concept of a “Black Santa” as some sort of joke, and maybe a recognition of what we all are. Besides, we all ought to realize that Santa Claus is a Latino, flying around the skies in a sleigh pulled by reindeer fueled with “Magic Dust” (or so said Cheech Marin of the Cheech & Chong comedy team).

For Kelly to want to perceive Santa as a fat old white man is just a realization of who she is. Anybody who’s surprised that she’d think that way is the one I would want to question.

WHAT ELSE WOULD you expect from her?

Actually, my initial reaction when I learned of Kelly’s comments (which were in response to a commentary published at the Slate.com website and written by a black woman who wrote about being confused as a child because Santa in her house was black, while he was white everywhere else) was to recall a moment from my own college days.

One day in a class where we were engaged in a conversation either about Aristotle or Plato (I’m not sure exactly which one), somebody made a comment in support of the philosopher and referred to his “Christian” values.

 

To which the professor tried to hold back a laugh when he explained that the philosopher in question was not of any religious faith that could be called “Christian.”

THAT STATEMENT PROVOKED a debate amongst the students that took up the entire rest of the class session.

“Of course he’s Christian,” some students said. “We wouldn’t study him if he weren’t Christian,” others wanted to believe. “He’s a good person, so he has to be Christian,” was also heard.

There were some students who were not in agreement, and even tried arguing back that the words “Christian” and “good” and “moral” were not necessarily synonymous with each other.

Not that any of the initial group wanted to hear of it.

PERSONALLY, I RECALL that day in class as one of the most humorous moments of my academic life. Although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that others probably viewed it as some sort of moment when they were exposed to subversive thought.

Just like I’m sure that some people probably want to view the idea of a non-White Santa Claus as violating everything they want to believe about our society.

I ultimately came to realize that “Santa Claus” is about a concept – one of sharing and giving, which is what the upcoming Christmas holiday can be at its finest. (At its worst, it’s nothing more than a greedy gift grab – but that’s a commentary for another day).

If some people feel the need to believe that “sharing” and “giving” are concepts only relevant to themselves, then perhaps they’re saying more about their own hang-ups, and we should pity them for being so close-minded.

BESIDES, DIDN’T THE whole concept of Santa Claus and Jesus being either “white” or “black” get resolved all those decades ago by the “Archie Bunker” and “Henry Jefferson” characters on “All in the Family.”

 

At least when actor Carroll O’Connor’s Bunker character persisted in claiming that both Jesus and Santa were white, he was just going for a cheap laugh!

  -30-