The Contrasts Got my Attention

By Rick Blumenberg @rickblumenberg

A few moments ago I sat in my office and watched a LoveShriners.org advertisement. I leaned back in my chair, propped my feet on the desk pull-out and gave that advertisement my full attention.

I really watched a commercial!

One after another, beautiful, articulate and photogenic youngsters showed off their progress in spite of their handicaps. They gave video examples of how they had overcome those handicaps to live joy-filled, active lives and they said “Thank you!” Over and over and over again they said “Thank You for helping people like me”. They were so effective that I was ready to whip out my checkbook and write a million dollar check. Fortunately reason prevailed and I remembered I couldn’t possibly do that. (I knew it would bounce up and hit me in the face).

The point is their joy-filled gratitude put me in a joy-filled giving mood. I really wanted to give!

And then reality hit.

The commercial ended and Senator Chuck Schumer came on to talk about the agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans over providing security on our southern border. Then he launched into a tirade of criticism of President Trump and threatened him with all sorts of bitterness and angry words if he didn’t sign their bill. He described how utterly awful the president had been in the past and threatened him with dire consequences if he didn't sign. By the time he was finished I was hoping President Trump would spit in his face and refuse to sign anything he wanted. Fortunately reason prevailed and I remembered he really should not do anything like that. (And I hoped he wouldn’t).

The point is Senator Schumer’s hate-filled tirade caused the exact opposite of what he seemed to want.

The old adage is “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” These two contrasting approaches were perfect examples that old saying. Their contrasting approaches were miles apart in attitude and example. My guess is they were also miles apart in accomplishing their goals.

I hope the President shows more restraint than I felt.

If Senator Schumer is interested, here is how I suggest he should have conducted his news conference.

What Schumer should have said....

As in any negotiation, no one gets everything they want. (The first sentence is pretty much his words but what follows is what I suggest he should have said.) I didn’t get everything I wanted (he should say) and I’m sure my Republican friends feel the same way. We all know this agreement is also not exactly what any of us wanted, nor what President Trump wants. However, believing, as I do, that the president wants what is best for the nation, (Okay this probably wouldn’t be totally honest but I still think it would be good if he had said it. Then Sen. Schumer should continue…) I hope he will choose to accept our efforts so we can keep the government working and so we can all serve the people of our great nation to the very best of our ability. A goal I think we all have.

Back to my thoughts 

From what I have seen of our president, I know he sometimes responds in ways that may not be what he would do if he thought it through more carefully. I can imagine he might have the same initial response that I first had. But in spite of what Senator Schumer said, I hope President Trump will refrain from my own worst impulses.

We could all use less sour and more kindness.

President Trump has done a lot of good things since he took office. The Democrats and contrary Republicans alike would do well to use the “LoveShriners” approach instead of the negativity and criticism that runs rampant in our nation’s capital. If they would, I’m guessing the President would be a lot nicer too.

What if each one did what was best for the nation?

If that was always the goal of every one, in the long run, all of them would do a better job for all of us— their constituents.

I’m Rick Blumenberg and that’s My View from Tanner Creek.

    

Stop the Demonizing!

By Rick Blumenberg @rickblumenberg

We have two major political parties in the United States. Most of us want it that way because we believe in the two party system. This means we have two different views on how things should be done and that’s often where the difficulties lie. We tend to think because someone doesn’t agree with our way thinking and our way of doing things they must be demonic evil people.

We need to change that disastrous way of thinking.

Before we know it, another U.S. presidential election will be underway; or, perhaps we could say it already is. As it heats up, if it continues as it has for as long as I can remember, Democrats will demonize Republicans and Republicans will demonize Democrats. But does what “is” have to always be? Is there any possibility of change for the better?

Demonizing is not a new concept.
If you go back to the early days of our nation you will find unbelievable things being said by one candidate against another. But just because this sort of candidating has gone on as long as we’ve been a nation, it doesn’t necessarily need to continue with the same hate-filled rhetoric. We can do better. I consider myself to be a confirmed independent voter. I do lean toward republican views, mostly because I am a confirmed pro-lifer and the Republicans are, in my opinion, the pro-life party.

Total Agreement is Unrealistic
But I have Democrat friends who would strongly disagree with the last phrase in my previous statement. They consider themselves to be just as “pro-life” as the Republicans, but they are “pro-choice” in their thinking as to how best to favor life. Many Democrats do not agree with abortion, but feel there are many other social evils that deserve attention and think Republicans are a one-issue party made up of people who don’t care about poverty, racism and other of society’s major ills.

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of people in both parties want what is best for our nation. They also believe their way of reaching the “best” for the nation is most effective. If we can’t agree with each other on the best method could we at least give one-another the benefit of the doubt as to motive? Just because we disagree with someone doesn’t mean that person is all bad. If we would cool the rhetoric, perhaps we could be friends even though we disagree strongly. I don’t suggest we agree on everything. Let’s just agree to not be so disagreeable.

Could I be wrong?
Another suggestion, would it be possible for each party to consider the possibility they could be wrong? And their opponent could be right? It is so much easier to see another’s point of view if we are open to the possibility we could be wrong and they could be right. It is a humbling experience, but it could also be much less embarrassing if we ever came to a realization they really were right.

I have one final suggestion for the up-coming presidential campaign. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every candidate only talked about his or her own views, without misrepresenting or demeaning his or her opponent? If one candidate feels his or her record has been misrepresented, what if it was assumed the opponent was honestly mistaken? Refute the charges with respect, but give no suggestion of lying and let no demonizing be attributed.

What’s that? You say, “Dream on Rick! It will never happen.”

You may be right. I may be wrong. But I can dream can’t I?

I’m Rick Blumenberg and that’s

My View from Tanner Creek”.