Hi Readers (I know you’re out there)! Change of pace here – I’m not going to write under the OurEchoChamber name anymore, and the old url will now direct you to kmcglynn.blog. Don’t worry – if you were subscribed before, you’re still subscribed. This post is just a quick one to let you know what’s up with that, and then I’ll start writing here again.

OurEchoChamber was a lofty goal and it wasn’t a great title. The idea was that I was going to re-think the whole idea of an echo chamber, and create a space where differing ideas could “reverberate” and create new and better understanding, rather than a deeper chasm. It was going to be a place where polarization was lessened rather than worsened, and where people came together to create a better understanding of each other. If you can’t hear it through my writing, I’m rolling my eyes (yes, my eye rolls are audible) and struggling to admit in writing that these were things I thought I’d do as an inconsistent part-time blogger. I was young and idealistic and I set myself up for failure on this particular project. So it goes.

The title was also stopping me from writing. I didn’t like that the title of my blog suggested the actual opposite of what I wanted to be doing. Titles aren’t the place for unexplained nuance, and so for a long time I’ve been embarrassed by the title of this blog and consequently avoiding it.

I’m still going to try to write (hopefully) thoughtful responses to what’s going on, and share my perspective when I think it’s valuable. Writing these posts has started conversations that I’m grateful to have had – it turns out people do read and have thoughts, but most of them would rather talk about it in person or over text than in a public comments section. Makes sense to me.

In addition to the title change, and in some ways because of the title change, you might notice a shift in tone. I won’t say much about that here other than that I think (hope) the writing in future will be more fun to read and have a bit more personality. As for the Facebook page, I’m still going to have a separate Facebook page that you can like or not like, independently of whether you like or don’t like me, or are friends or not friends with me on Facebook. I prefer my writing to be opted into rather than to force it into peoples’ newsfeeds (though if you feel it’s worth sharing, I certainly encourage that). I’ve requested that the Facebook page title be changed, but apparently that needs approval from Mark Zuckerberg himself (or, I don’t know, maybe someone he’s hired along the way), so it might take a few days, but eventually it’ll also be called KMcGlynn.blog. Then there will be some semblance of sense.

Thanks for reading, for following, and for engaging either on-screen or off. I’ll be back soon.

KM

On November 9th, 2016, people woke up across America and wondered how they could go to work when it felt like the world had ended sometime between when they fell asleep watching Pennsylvania change from red to blue to red again, and when they woke up to see the headlines they used to believe would never leave the genre of satire. Many of us cried. For the next two years, we would have a president who ran a campaign based on anger, fear, and bigotry, with his party a majority in each branch of government.* I won’t list the many ways this threatens things we care about. I don’t need to.

It’s the grief that I want to talk about. So many are experiencing this sense of despair, this feeling that the world is crumbling, and this fear that the worst will happen. Or maybe it already has happened. Maybe hate trumped love. We’re shocked, scared, and overwhelmed. We knew racism, sexism, and xenophobia were present amongst us, but many of us didn’t believe they would win. Many of us now believe they did win.

I don’t. I believe that victory depends on how you frame the story. If the story begins and ends with this election, then we lost. But our story is more than that. Our story is the mark we leave on the world, and that mark won’t be defined by a Supreme Court Justice or a two-year Senate and House majority, nor will it be defined by a four-year president.

Today, we see America for what it is. We see that many people, almost half of American voters, are angry, scared for the continuation of their way of life, and forgiving (or encouraging) of bigotry, misogyny, and sexual assault. We also see that many people, almost half of American voters, vehemently reject these things. Almost half of American voters hoped to be celebrating our first female president, excited about the most progressive platform ever adopted by the Democratic party. But today, that half is grieving**.

I am not going to tell you how to handle that grief. The emotional toll of this election will be great, and it will be personal. Especially for those who were openly attacked by the man that sixty million Americans voted for. On grief, I will only tell you to care for yourself, and to to respect your feelings. Allow yourself to feel hurt when you need to. But remember that this too shall pass. Know that there will be a day when you no longer feel that this weighs so heavily that you can’t think about it without coming to despair.

And on that day, if not before, join those who have already started the work of refusing to accept the America that won on November 8th, 2016. Join the daily work of making the world a better place.

If you are despondent that Planned Parenthood may lose funding, or that women’s rights are threatened, support the thousands of organizations working against domestic violence and promoting sexual health. If “immigration reform” becomes a euphemism for mass deportation, engage in efforts to protect the human rights of those who are threatened. If Islamaphobia becomes a matter of national policy, be one of the many voices preaching unity and peace. In short, act.

Grieve while you need to. But know that the next four years will be filled with the love we create. Act by caring for those around you, by rejecting bigotry in the spaces you occupy, and by stepping up when the moment is right.

Collectively we can make the choice that love will trump hate. Collectively we will make that choice. In moments of action, whether large or small, we choose who our leaders are. And Trump’s presence in the Oval Office will not make him my leader. Yes, he will be my president. But today, he has only inspired me to act against the hate he represents. He is not our leader, he is our challenge. And by the time our story is told, we will have created a better world by meeting that challenge.

*Yes, we’ll have Trump for four years. But let’s not let him have the House and Senate majorities any longer than that. I encourage you emphasize the two year implications when you talk about this. I hope it will remind people to vote in the midterm elections when it will be most important.

**I say almost half because of third-party votes. Neither Trump nor Hillary won more than 50% of the votes for president, and Hillary did get more actual votes than Trump.

Does the pro-life movement have a leg to stand on when claiming that Trump’s idea to punish women who get illegal abortions goes against everything they stand for? By now we’ve all heard about Trump’s statement in favor of punishing women who have illegal abortions, and his subsequent change of heart in response to widespread consternation. It turns out that virtually no one supports this idea. Obviously pro-choice advocates who believe that abortion is a human right are opposed to punishing women who seek abortions. The more nuanced case is that of the pro-life advocates, who see women receiving abortions as victims of the crime. This group says we should punish doctors, and help women on the path towards recovery.

But does this actually hold with the case laid out by pro-life groups for why abortion should be illegal? The basic tenants of anti-abortionism rely on the idea that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder. Anti-abortion lawyers argue that the state has an interest in protecting the life of the fetus because it is a human life. By that logic, if a woman chooses to get an abortion, she is at least an accomplice to the murder performed by the doctor. She willingly takes critical steps in making it happen.

Even further, to take the stance that women are the victims of abortion is to see women as the objects of their own reproductive choices, rather than the subjects. It ignores the agency of women seeking and receiving abortions.

I want to be clear here: I am not making the case that abortion should be illegal, or that abortion is murder. I’m just trying to follow the logical progression that starts with those presumptions, because I don’t think it works to argue that women aren’t culpable in the murder if you argue that it is a murder. I believe that this reaction to Trump’s statement about punishing women reveals fundamental fallacies in the anti-abortion movement.

Of course, there is more to this conversation than whether or not life starts at conception. The ethical conundrum of abortion needs to take into account the life, health, and rights of the mother, and the conservative stance on the issue struggles to do so. In taking a moment to give lip service to the rights of women seeking abortion the pro-life movement revealed this gap in their case. Unfortunately, punishing women for getting illegal abortions seems to fall right in line with what the anti-abortion movement argues.

**By the way, this is an issue worth following these days, as the sharply divided 8-person Supreme Court is hearing a major abortion case.

Among the many apocalyptic predictions about a hypothetical Trump Presidency is one that I find supremely interesting: an implosion of the Republican Party. If Trump were to take the Republican ticket to the Oval Office, his decisions and mistakes would matter, and they would have the attention of the whole world focused on them.  People would notice. If President Trump represents the Republican Party in office the way he is representing it on the campaign trail it is hard to imagine many Republicans winning elections in 2018, and almost impossible to imagine a Republican in the Oval Office in 2020 or even 2024. Trump’s potential damage to the image of the Republican Party as a conservative, responsible, and safe choice could force the party to completely reinvent itself.*

Of course it is possible that as president he could be less of a disaster than many (including myself) predict. He would definitely be embarrassing, and he would definitely be a big step back in the area of racial equality and social progress, among other things. But, while it is possible that Trump could become a non-catastrophic president, it is also very possible that he would be the worst president in modern history. In this piece, let’s talk about what happens then to the Republican Party.

Trump’s buffoonery on the campaign circuit may well be an act that he is putting on for the voters, and we might see a different side of him when he’s no longer campaigning. However, even if we do believe that he’s not as bigoted as he appears or as impulsive as he has lately come off, it is hard to imagine that a man who had not heard of the Syrian refugee crisis in September of 2015 is stronger on foreign policy than we know. It is hard to imagine that a man who has promised to shut down parts of the internet has any depth of understanding of the American Constitution or the structure and format of the American Presidency (or, perhaps even more concerning, what the internet is).

America deserves better than the choice between Donald Trump and whoever his opponent is. Our top candidates should challenge each other on the issues, highlight the most important differences between the choices facing our country, and let the American people decide who best can lead us moving forward. They should be encouraged to base their positions in facts and intellect. In short, they should have a substantive debate.

I would love for there to be a real choice for me to make in November. As it is, my choice is to vote for the Democrat, or vote for someone who, in addition to other problematic stances, doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, refuses to consider addressing the epidemic of gun violence, and is opposed to defending the rights of the LGBTQ community. I wish a guy like Bloomberg could run with the knowledge that if he lost the winner would still be capable of holding the highest executive office without catastrophe. Instead, Bloomberg’s choice was made for him the same way mine was and the same way many of our country’s was. He couldn’t run because if he did, Trump might win. We can’t vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee, because if we do, Trump might win.

There is and always has been an important place for conservatism, and the issues that Republican voters care about are vital. But in order for our country to progress, we need to be able to talk about how to protect religious liberties in conjunction with defending the rights of non-religious people. Religious freedom cannot continue to be used to defend prejudice and exclusion. We need to be able to use the best research available to learn how we can reduce gun violence while still honoring the intent of the second amendment. The Second Amendment cannot continue to be used to devalue the lives taken by gun violence. Our government does have to have a focus on promoting growth and prosperity, but it also has to ensure that the least well-off have opportunity to succeed and enough to survive. Capitalistic and free trade dogma cannot continue to be used as excuses to let millions of people live in deep poverty.

If Trump is inaugurated on January 20th, 2017, we have a lot to be concerned about. But if his presidency is the start of a reinvention of the Republican Party, there could be a bright silver lining to that day. Nothing is more productive than healthy debate, and a strong, reasonable Republican Party would be tremendously welcome. There is, in fact, a longer history of reasonableness than there is of the current insanity in the party. In 1980, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, two of the more revered leaders in the party’s recent history, talked about immigration with an obvious thoughtfulness and concern for humanity. By today’s standards we would have called their answers liberal. Back then, the two parties could compromise and everyone from the voters to the politicians was less polarized. Maybe if Donald Trump is president the fallout could bring back the level of dialogue that was commonplace in the 80’s and 90’s. Maybe the people who hold conservative views won’t have to put up with their party being opposed to scientific fact and social progress. Maybe we’ll all have a better landscape of choice by 2024.

This might be too optimistic. Maybe I have too much faith in the opportunity for positive change. But just like I choose to believe that Trump will not be our next president, I also choose to believe that if he were, some real good could come from it. For an extra note of optimism, maybe even if Trump loses this election the Republican Party would start to make these shifts. Could the Trump candidacy be enough to cause it? Maybe.

*A note of skepticism about the likeliness of this change: after Romney lost in 2012, the party did make promises to enact big changes in order to stay relevant. Key strategies included doing a better job of appealing to women and Latino voters. Obviously something went wrong there.

For a change of pace, here are a few thoughts I had while watching tonight’s debate between Clinton and Sanders. These are some of my off the cuff reactions to what was said.

“We will end institutional racism.” – Sanders. Woah. In a discussion about the blind spots Sanders and Clinton have when it comes to race, this statement struck me as a poor choice. Institutional racism can’t be ended just by a Sanders presidency, and insinuating that it can seems like a racial blind spot in its own right. I’d like to see Sanders focus on making himself seem like a viable agent of change, rather than continuing to make unrealistic claims like this.

I wish Hillary would answer questions about her legislative record by owning the consequences of what she has supported. Tell me why your position made sense at the time, and tell me why your experiences since have lead you to your current stance. I’d rather have a president who has learned from their experiences, successes, and mistakes, than one who hasn’t made those mistakes.

On education: Clinton had a list of steps she would take to improve on floundering public school systems like Detroit’s and Flint’s. Sanders had a passionate statement about why we need to do a better job on education, but he lacked the substantive content of what we should do to make that happen.

Sanders just joked that Republicans are mentally ill. I don’t know if he was referring to the candidates, the voters, or both, but regardless, woah.

Hillary says Trumps bigotry won’t wear well on the American people. I think she might want to take another look at the polls and the votes cast. Sadly, I think she’s wrong there.

“Do you believe that god is relevant. Why, or why not?” What a question. Followed by: “To whom and for whom do you pray?” Watching Clinton and Sanders try to sell their godliness was kind of like watching Kasich try to talk about gay rights on the Republican stage as if he was as passionately opposed to progress as the guys around him. I loved that Sanders went right to an explanation of why morality is important, and didn’t actually talk about his relationship, or lack thereof, with god, religion, or prayer. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

It’s interesting that Sanders loves to remind us that he’s never had much money, while Trump loves to remind us that he’s super wealthy. Can both of these opposite realities entice voters? Can they each only entice a certain kind of voter?

All in all, some interesting moments and I’m glad I tuned in, but nothing earth shattering was said. The general election debates will be dramatically different, and I hope the nominee is ready to handle the ugly fight ahead. Until then, it’s nice to hear some substantive, respectful, and thoughtful discussion.

Political correctness seems to be the boogeyman of this campaign, a sworn enemy of candidates and voters alike. This election season is a great time to look at what that means, since we have two opposing characterizations of what it looks like to abandon political correctness: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Let’s use these cases to study how getting away from political correctness can be done to the benefit of democratic dialogue. Both candidates consistently and unapologetically say bluntly what traditional politicians would delicately tiptoe around. The difference is, Sanders is speaking hard truths about our society that we often don’t like to admit or deal with, while Trump is voicing racism, over-simplification, and misconceptions.

Before getting into this, let’s define political correctness. For the purpose of this discussion, I’m defining it as when politicians avoid speaking openly and honestly about issues for fear of offending someone, or because their beliefs may not be the most politically advantageous stance. This means Republicans shying away from talking about immigration because maybe a voting block is anti-immigration but their funders benefit from cheap illegal labor. Or it means Democrats being hesitant to talk about how to reduce income inequality because the way to do it would be objectionable to their major donors. Political correctness here refers to the way politicians skirt the tough subjects, the hard realities, in order to win votes and funding relying on easy crowd-pleasing slogans. It has become the way the game is played.

Now, with that definition, let’s say we agree that we don’t like political correctness. We want politicians to speak their truths, so we know who they are and what they’re about, instead of just knowing what they think we want to hear. However, if we agree that we don’t like political correctness, can we agree that we still want correctness? Can we appreciate that someone is being honest with us without ignoring the substance of their honesty?

Donald Trump uses political correctness as a scapegoat, a firewall against criticisms of his absurd and often factually inaccurate comments. Instead of having to respond to the realities of why it is an abhorrent idea to impose a ban all Muslims from entering into the United States, Trump has been able to rally more supporters with the bravado of claiming he’s the only one brave enough to take on the “PC Police”. To many who would potentially vote for him, this is enough to distract from what are very real, very strong arguments against this proposal. We saw a similar story line play out when Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists, and accused Megyn Kelly of only asking him tough questions because she was on her period. People should be revolted by these comments not because he said them bluntly, in a non PC way, but because they’re ignorant, bigoted, and just plain stupid.

Now, in a way, it’s a good thing that Trump is willing to say these things. At least we know what’s on his mind, when other candidates may have similar ideas that they refrain from stating. For example, it’s entirely possible that Cruz actually agrees with Trump, but is just a sly politician who knows better than to say it. However, that benefit goes away when we celebrate a lack of political correctness rather than express dismay over horrendous ideas.

A step across the aisle to the rogue Democratic candidate shows us the right way to denounce political correctness. Although he hasn’t made it a cornerstone of his campaign the way Trump has, Sanders has run a campaign that relishes in the politically unpopular. Sanders wants to “break up the largest financial institutions in the country”, dramatically increase taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, and create a socialized health care system. In the traditional political game, these are all almost unspeakable things. Sure, establishment Democrats have long been saying we need to close corporate loopholes in the tax code and reign in on reckless financial activity, but they always do so in a way that tries to paint it as still good for the businesses themselves. And yes, it’s a popular election claim that we should have a progressive tax system, but it’s always clouded in phrases about prosperity and the American Dream. Even in the health care conversation, where Obama has made it abundantly clear that he wants every American to be insured, he has made progress only with a heavy emphasis on his plan being based on the private market.

Bernie’s ideas aren’t really what’s revolutionary about his campaign. What is revolutionary is his abandonment of the game of political correctness in favor of speaking openly about his goals. Bernie’s non-PC style is to engage with the politically difficult, and speak the hard truths. Economic inequality will not be ameliorated without higher taxes on the wealthy. Health care will not be universal while it’s still privatized. These realities have elevated the conversation, forcing Clinton to engage with the complexities of today’s issues rather than sticking to the broad, pleasant strokes of a typical campaign. In comparison, Trumps non-PC style has brought the GOP primary into a downward spiral that ignores reality, celebrates bigotry and bravado, and emphasizes drama over substance.

I don’t think we can blame political correctness for all of our woes, as some have tried to do. On the other hand, I think we stand to gain a lot by embracing the honesty and openness characterized by Sanders. I also think we are poised to make a tremendous mistake by letting Trump blame political correctness for backlash against him, when really it’s just reason and thoughtfulness that causes us to be revolted by him.

Dear Friend,

Welcome to our echo chamber. It’s an enclosed space where ideas bounce around, reverberate, and become stronger. It’s not as bad as it’s reputation. There is space in the chamber for a multitude of ideas. There is space for a diversity of thought. The strongest ideas will come from these interactions of diversity.

Let’s talk about how we talk. I’m writing to you in this first ever OurEchoChamber post not only to tell you that I’m here, I’m writing, and you’re going to be seeing more of me, but also to ask you to think with me about how we all engage with complicated issues. I’m writing in this space and in this way with the hope of engaging a diversity of people without turning them against each other. I think we can do better than the comment section political nastiness that I see daily on Facebook. I’m writing to express my thoughts in a way that might create a dialogue that grows and invites, rather than one that narrows and alienates.

I want contemplation and conversation. We’re friends, so let’s agree and disagree as such.

I present to you OurEchoChamber. I hope to share with you here what I’m thinking about, and I hope to hear from you here. I intend to be honest and thoughtful. I promise to be well intentioned, and to assume that you are as well. I hope to learn from your perspective, and I hope you’ll learn from mine.

Come here to read, and tell me what you think. This isn’t me trying to tell an objective story; I’m not trying to be a newspaper. This is me thinking hard about something, and writing to you about my opinions, reasoning, and questions. Let me know how I can think of things differently, or why you do. Let me know what you think is interesting and valuable. Let’s talk.