Who is Really to Blame?

In 2016, the United States of America might elect, as its president, a former reality TV star who has been called a narcissist, a fascist, a misogynist, a racist and probably a lot of other things. Political pundits, psychologists, politicians and many others have wondered how it is that this travesty could have actually occurred in this country. Immigration, Obama fatigue, the economy, terrorism and other issues have been sighted as excuses for why the American people are disillusioned enough to take the drastic step of making such an individual their leader. What the people should understand—in their attempts at blaming all of the country’s problems on the individual who occupies the Oval Office—is the simple fact that elected officials cannot be blamed for the nation’s problems. At best, the three branches of government are saddled with fixing, not causing, the nation’s problems. When they do not accomplish this in a satisfactory manner, the disappointment felt by the electorate causes it to look for someone who will. This happens every four years, and the problems continue to get worse. And now the situation has reached the point at which the electorate is prepared to elect a 21st century Adolf Hitler rather than face one inescapable fact. Those responsible for the current state of the union are not the ones listed on the ballots; they are the ones standing in the voting booth.
One excellent example of a governmental attempt at fixing a problem (and perhaps the best example of disappointment by the electorate) is the Affordable Care Act. When medical insurance companies came under scrutiny, some of the things that they had been getting away with for years were deemed unacceptable. When those who ran those companies, however, made no attempts at cleaning up their act, cries went out for change. Since the government was never meant to be in the medical insurance business, it took decades to come up with what many in this country believe to be an unsatisfactory solution. Whether the ACA ends up being a success or failure is something for history to determine. If it ends up being a success, you can bet that the political party that expended so much energy trying to repeal it will cease referring to it as Obama Care. If, on the other hand, it ends up being a historical joke, it won’t be because of politicians in Washington. It will be because of Americans who work in the insurance industry, the healthcare industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. While leaders in those industries may have far more influence in the voting booth than the ordinary people that they spend so much time fleecing, they are still members of the electorate. And they can fix the problem. Why, though, should they try when all they have to do is sit back and collect the money while the rest of the country blames elected officials for the carnage created by their industries.
Perhaps the biggest contributing factor to the collective decision to elect a megalomaniac as the Republican candidate for president was the misguided belief that the nation was being taken over by immigrants. This is yet another example of the government being expected to fix a problem caused by the people. During my brief period as a car wash employee, I was intrigued by the fact that some of the patrons at the facility had bumper stickers on their cars with Joe Arpaio’s name on them. Mr. Arpaio is perhaps the most famous sheriff in the country, and his stand on illegal immigration seems to match that of Mr. Trump. The mere idea that an individual patronizing a car wash has a problem with immigrants—for there is little other reason to support the sheriff—seems to be the very definition of hypocrisy. Upon arrival at any of the numerous car washes that dot the city scape of Phoenix, Arizona, it does not take very long to notice that the lion’s share of the employees are Hispanic. Whether they are legal or illegal is anyone’s guess. One cannot help but believe, however, that Sheriff Joe’s supporters consider them to fall into the latter category. The fact that they still patronize an establishment that hires them, therefore, is not only hypocrisy defined; it is the reason for the problem.
There are certain jobs in this country that Americans do not want to do. Since such jobs are absolutely necessary, citizens of this country tend to turn the other cheek when they see someone doing them whose immigration status might be questionable. Those same individuals see nothing wrong with supporting people like Trump and Arpaio despite how ridiculous that support is viewed by outsiders. In the minds of the Trump/Arpaio, minions, one of two situations must exist for them to be able to sleep at night. Either all of the Hispanics who work in the car wash, landscaping, housecleaning, tree pruning, and produce industries are in this country legally, or the only people who work in those industries were born in the U.S.A. Since anyone with an I.Q. of over fifty knows that neither of these situations exists, it’s difficult not to laugh at those who do. It becomes anything but funny, however, when the electorate blames all of the nation’s ills on the very people it cannot do without. And when that blame prompts voters to elect fascists to fix the problem that they refuse to fix themselves, America loses. Especially since there is no governmental response to this particular problem that will be seen as satisfactory.
An especially disturbing example of the government being required to fix the unfixable is the issue of guns. It has become all too common a practice, in the wake of mass shootings, for the president to hold press conferences and speak out against those who attempt to block any sort of common sense gun safety laws. Whether or not new laws will work to stop such senseless violence is not for me to say. What I don’t understand is why, given the number of mass shootings that occur in this country, are so many people trying to impede such legislation.
I fully understand that this country has a constitutional amendment that protects its citizens’ right to bear arms. The various interpretations of that amendment notwithstanding, Americans believe that their right to own a gun is one of the things that separate us from other advanced nations. Should, however, that right keep so many from acting logically regarding the issue of gun violence?
Perhaps other laws that have been passed in this country will help put this whole gun thing into perspective. When this country was founded, people could own dogs with impunity. No one expected them to have their dogs licensed and inoculated with a plethora of vaccines. You had the right to own a dog with no strings attached. This despite the fact that your dog could contract diseases that could put your neighbors’ health and safety in jeopardy. At some point, though, the freedom-loving citizens of this nation allowed their lawmakers to draft laws that restricted pet ownership in a way that probably had the founding fathers turning over in their graves. Rabies shots, leash laws, and signs that call for fines for not cleaning up after your pet make the United States look a little like the old Soviet Union where pet ownership is concerned. The question, therefore, is obvious: where were the freedom-loving, constitutional-citing patriots when the government was picking away at every citizen’s right to own a German Shepard? (And I won’t even go into an American’s right to own a Pit Bull!) If the same people who fight any sort of gun safety legislation were out there fighting as vehemently for my right to own a dog without having to pay what amounts to a pet tax, I would likely be out there carrying a sign that reads “Guns Don’t Kill; People Kill.” But no one seems to care about a pet tax.
Let us move on, then, to my right to drive a car. When cars first came out, there were nowhere near the restrictions that exist today. Where, then, were the protectors of liberty when the government decided that I needed to pay for insurance (something that, if I operate the vehicle safely, I will never need) to drive my Toyota? While my right to own a gun can be taken away if I’ve been convicted of a felony, my right to drive a car can be taken for far less. Where was the NRA when the government came up with the DMV? Again, if there was an NRA-sponsored watch group out there fighting the government at every turn on vehicle registration laws, I would be leading the Second Amendment charge whenever and wherever it occurred.
Now here is the $64,000 question: Did all of those pet-ownership and car-ownership restrictions result in the end of pet ownership or car ownership? One need only look at the highways of Phoenix at rush hour or the local dog park in the early evening to answer that question with a resounding “No.” Why, then, do so many believe that restrictions on gun ownership is the beginning of the end of a citizen’s right to bear arms? Maybe—just maybe—the issue of gun violence needs more common sense than political correctness.
A problem in search of a governmental solution that should have over half of the country’s population—and thus over half of the electorate—up in arms is that of gender equality. April 12th, 2016 was designated Income Equality Day. President Obama designated this day as the day that women have to wait until they begin making as much as men. It’s sort of like the day (usually sometime in May) when all of the taxes owed to the government have ostensibly been paid. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this designation is the fact that, in 2016, women earn on average 79% of what men make. In some instances, they make less for doing the same job.
As the nation prepared itself to possibly elect its first female president, it seemed that more than ever before Americans needed to come to terms with gender inequality. This particular social ill should actually be an easy fix, involving no government intrusion whatsoever. How hard can it be, after all, to ensure that two people doing the same job get paid the same amount? How hard is it for a company or institution to hire the best people to fill its top positions regardless of gender? It seems that the implementation of gender equality should be painfully easy to facilitate. It’s a simple matter of changing hearts and minds. Most Americans probably have no problem with women getting equal pay for the work they do. And it’s highly unlikely that there will be a mass exodus across the Canadian border when we finally do elect a woman president. It is probably safe to say that Americans already believe that the two genders are equal where work is concerned. There is another area, however, that must be addressed prior to full gender equality becoming a reality in America.
As someone who has celebrated his 50th birthday, I am actually able to recall a time when men and boys wore shorts that were as short as those the girls wore. Those who do not believe that such a time ever existed in America need only watch clips of Bruce Jenner—in his pre-Kaitlyn days—competing in the Olympics. Basketball players also wore short shorts. And swimmer Mark Spitz and his contemporaries wore outfits that made the female swimmers seem almost prude by comparison. The issue of equality of the sexes seems to hinge, therefore on a fundamental question: When did it become the norm for male shorts to become longer even as female shorts became shorter? When did it become taboo for a male to expose his thighs? I’m certain that historians and sociologists can easily put a date or period when this important shift in fashion occurred. The question that pertains to the issue at hand, however, is not only when but why. Why did a male’s thigh become something sacred while a female’s—no matter what age!—became something that must be seen by all? One need not look back very far in history to discover that the female body was once covered by all advanced cultures. For a brief period in the seventies and eighties, skin became popular for both genders. Today, the only gender allowed to expose skin is the female one. Even in the cold-weather months, females display, if not skin, then certainly shape. Seeing a woman in skin-tight pants is as common as seeing rain in Seattle. If a man, though, is seen in anything that clearly displays his shape, he’d better be involved in some sort of fitness activity.
My point, therefore, is this: Until we, as Americans, can answer why it is okay for a fourteen-year-old girl to go out in public wearing shorts that reveal her butt cheeks but completely inappropriate for a boy of the same age to do so, we will never get a handle on the changing of hearts and minds that will be necessary to reach complete gender equality. It is highly unlikely that a female president or CEO will be able to alter this sad state of affairs in fashion. Fortunately, the solution is not something that needs to be solved by a chief executive.
The idea that one state needed to pass a law that males utilize the men’s room and females utilize the ladies room, while seemingly ridiculous, went a long way toward reminding Americans of a painfully obvious fact—males and females are not physiologically the same. Parents would do well to remember this when they allow their teenaged daughters to leave the house dressed in a manner that is geared toward attracting the attention of males—especially when no attempts are being made by the young men to attract the attention of females (unless baggy pants and T-shirts have somehow become attractive). It may well sound simplistic, but maybe equality of the sexes needs to begin with the amount of skin that is exposed rather than the amount of skin the political parties have in the game.
There are times when the inability of the American people to solve their own problems leads to governmental solutions that are so onerous as to be perceived as racist. Something as seemingly trivial as obtaining a photo identification card has actually led to laws in some states barring those without one from the right to vote. One might wonder why, rather than barring such people from their most fundamental right as an American, the government does not simply make it easier to obtain an identification card with the bearer’s picture on it. Anyone who wonders this, however, has not been paying attention. It is not the government’s responsibility to make life easier for the people. It’s the government’s job to fix the nation’s problems in an unsatisfactory way. And keeping people from voting is the most unsatisfactory solution imaginable. Rather than condemn this ridiculous response to such a solvable problem, Americans simply fall in line behind which ever political party they identify with. And that is ridiculous! So much so that, when historians one day are debating over what specific event led to the fall of the American empire (and make no mistake, it will fall), the short list may well include the ludicrous practice of denying voting rights due to an inability to produce a photo ID.
So, what can the American people do to solve their own problems? I have written a poem that spells out—in what is perhaps an overly simplistic way—what Americans can do about what far too many people in this country view as an insurmountable problem—education. Because, while it may well be insurmountable to a government that feels the best way to solve the problem of photographic identification is to bar the voting rights of poor people, it’s an easy fix to a population filled with educated citizens.

I’m always hearing how our schools are facing dire straits;
this disturbing anomaly of low graduation rates.
What I can’t help but wonder, though, as I think this thing through,
is what—if anything—there is that each of us can do.
Can any of us sit each day with some three-year-old child
and take about an hour or so to read to her a while?
Can any adult—man or woman—take paper and pen
and show a child who’s pre-school-aged the way to count to ten?
And what about the chances that a neighbor who’s disabled
could help a nine-year-old with the multiplication table?
Can someone who has been to prison offer up his time
to teach fifth graders how to take their own bite out of crime?
Can any grownup down the street or even right next door
sit with a seventh grader and discuss the Civil War?
Is there a possibility that some disabled vet
might teach a high school freshman the location of Tibet?
Could the man who earns his living working as a lawyer
sit with a high school junior and talk about Tom Sawyer?
Is it plausible that someone who is unemployed
might teach someone to find the area of trapezoids?
And what about the guy who fixes your broken windshield?
Could he explain what happened on the D-Day battlefield?
What of the feasibility that some retired guy
could help a kid to calculate by using x and y?
Can anyone who lives in an American suburb
explain the subtle difference between a noun and verb?
Is the woman who sees patients everyday unable
to quiz her neighbor’s children on the Periodic Table?
Could it happen that a building’s oldest resident
might discuss with a student how we choose our president?
The longer that I sit and ponder this anomaly,
the more I’m certain it can be rectified easily.
Instead of looking elsewhere for some billion dollar plan,
let’s simply do what we can do…just because we can!

This poem lists just a few of the things that the citizens of this country can do to affect the level of education in America. It should be pointed out that none of the items listed involve governmental assistance. How much, though, would teaching a child to find the area of trapezoids affect how well that child does on a geometry test? Governmental programs like No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and Common Core, while causing more than their share of controversy and divisiveness, seem only to satisfy the politicians who introduce them to the education system. They may get votes, but the jury is still out on whether or not they get results. A one-on-one tutoring program, however, could mean the difference between simply graduating from high school and graduating prepared to go to college. If more educated Americans took the time and gave the effort to help as many young people as possible, the politicians might be able to stop spending time on issues that should not concern them and redirect their efforts to those things that government officials should be engaging in. And what are those things? The only way the citizens of this country will ever find out what government should be doing is for We, the people to start handling the issues that are meant for us to handle. Since it should not be up to me to declare war on another nation, declarations of war should not be a major concern for me. Since, on the other hand, it is up to me to ensure that my daughter leaves the house dressed appropriately, that my son graduates high school with an appropriate reading level, and that everyone in my family has a means of identifying themselves, I should be taking care of that. And who knows, perhaps something as simple as concerned parents ensuring that their children dress in a non-provocative manner may be all the nudge that’s needed for the nation to reach total gender equality. As simple as such a solution may sound, it is certainly no more simple-minded than millions of Americans looking to a few hundred individuals in Washington to solve the complex issues that face the nation today.
In his book The Big Short, author Michael Lewis focused on the major issue that led to the housing bubble burst back in 2008. According to Lewis, two entities were at fault. On the one hand, the people who managed money failed the American people. On the other hand, though, the people who took on loans that they knew were well over their heads failed the American people. The one thing that both entities that failed the American people had in common is this; they all numbered themselves among the very American people that they failed. And yet, when the government was forced to come to the rescue and bail the banks out at taxpayer expense, members of both of these entities no doubt condemned Washington for coming up with an unsatisfactory solution.
As long as we continue to blame the government for failing to successfully solve the problems that We the People create, we will no doubt speed up that inevitable day when the American Empire falls. While the People are quite likely to blame the government on the nation’s failure, history will no doubt have a somewhat different perspective.