That begs the questions: What are your values? How do you define yourselves? What labels, signs, and symbols do you adhere to? Do you, like Dr. Glaude have a “vexing relationship with the flag?”
Ask yourself, is it both appropriate or patriotic to fly the American flag over your house, a cemetery, or school building and also use it as a weapon against law enforcement?
Let’s look at some more terms.
Patriotism
I took the picture above while driving on a major interstate highway in Michigan yesterday afternoon. As you can see, there is a strong stance about how we should treat the flag and the anthem. I immediately asked myself (and imagined asking the truck’s owners and drivers), where do you stand on storming Capitols? Historically, one’s sense of patriotism was linked to songs like the National Anthem and the Stars and Stripes that we display prominently. But, in 2023 (and for the better part of 7 years), our definition of patriotism has become split and subjective and no longer tied to ideals held by our forefathers. My colleagues and I wrote about this six years ago and many of our points still hold true.
Ask yourself, is patriotism an adherence and loyalty to our country or one man or a small group of people? If you join in the revelry of July 4th, what are you celebrating? It shouldn’t be difficult to see that seditious conspiracy, treason, and insurrection are the exact opposite of patriotism.
Presidential
With two indictments and potentially others to come, there has been a lot of discussion about what a former President can and should be subjected to or what protections he or she may have. If you look at “un-Presidential” behavior on a continuum, there is what the military would call “conduct unbecoming” all the way to the high crimes and misdemeanors that precede impeachment processes. In one example, Bill Clinton’s appearance on national television when he finger-wagged in our face and denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was un-Presidential. One the other end, many of Donald Trump’s acts and behaviors in office ranged from un-Presidential all the way to impeachment worthy and potentially criminal.
My point is this, at what point should deference to “the former President” and labels such as “Presidential” be stripped away when warranted. When it comes to seriously un-Presidential behavior such as the aforementioned high crimes and misdemeanors, the censure and impeachment process should “chew them up and spit them out” – through consequences up to and including removal from office. We should not bend Presidential expectations to fit a single person.
National security
Historically speaking, protecting our nation’s citizens, servicemembers, and soil has been paramount in the minds of most Americans. From the Cold War through our more recent Global War on Terror, there was a perception that homeland safety and security was a shared, imperative objective. Those who put our national security at risk have been dealt with through the legal process. The possession and potential dissemination of classified material is not a middle ground issue. It is criminal and unacceptable. In these cases, laws such as the Espionage Act should “chew them up and spit them out” – through formal legal processes up to and including indictment and imprisonment if indicated. We should not bend on national security to fit one or two dangerous individuals.
Elections and interference
The election seasons throughout American history have witnessed the rise and fall of candidates. Traditionally, potential candidates campaign and criss-cross this country in search of support and votes. They spar with one another publicly and on debate stages. Some campaigns have been derailed by things like over-exuberance in the case of Howard Dean while others have survived damaging video reveals. Donald Trump is embroiled in legal battles currently and there has been much debate about when court proceedings should occur given the upcoming election. Election interference does include inciting an insurrection and putting together slates of fake electors but does not include the indictment of former elected officials/candidates who provided enough evidence of criminality to satisfy a grand jury.
To be clear, when it comes to apparently corrupt and possibly criminal candidates, the American electoral process, including primaries, campaigns, debates, and vetting should “chew them up and spit them out” – through removal from candidacy. We should not bend our elections to suit an unfit person.
Being a Christian
This column is asking you to look in the mirror and examine your values. This can include your religious and spiritual practices and personal faith systems. Although our founding fathers and the documents they produced established religious freedom and the formation of a non-Christian nation, these two institutions are becoming increasingly merged – often times through misinterpretations and over-extensions. It should be noted that the Second Amendment is man-given and not God given – there are no mentions of firearms in the Bible. The United States of America is not mentioned in the Bible. Connections between these things are contrived, dangerous, and frankly, un-American. I have been asked many times how God-fearing Christians could support Donald Trump. My answer always includes dissonance – the disconnect between your value system and your current beliefs, activities, and behaviors. To achieve a sense of mental peace, we seek to reduce the dissonance that we feel. For many people, they simply have to accept Donald Trump in their Christian orbit – to not do so has the potential to upend their often life-long faith, a step that can be both disconcerting and frightening.
In the case of amoral and corrupt individuals, your faith system should “chew them up and spit them out” – through disassociation and exclusion/expulsion. We should not bend our religious beliefs, doctrines, and practices to suit one or a small group of people who clearly and objectively do not live in accordance with any formal faith rooted in altruism, decency, and humanity.
In conclusion, there has been a lot of rhetoric and name-calling introduced in the public sphere – both in the “real” and “virtual” worlds. Let’s stop for a minute, examine how we define these things, and ask the hard questions like, “could I be wrong?”, “is there another way of seeing this?” I know this may seem pollyannish and pie-in-the-sky but we can at least start with a look in the mirror.
About the Author:
Seth D. Norrholm, PhD (Threads: neuropsychophd) is a neuropsychologist and independent sociopolitical columnist. Dr. Norrholm has spent 20 years studying trauma-, stressor-, anxiety-, depressive-, and substance use-related disorders and has published over 135 peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters. The primary objective of his work is to develop “bench-to-bedside” clinical research methods to inform therapeutic interventions for fear and anxiety-related disorders and how they relate to human factors such as personality, genetics, and environmental influences. Dr. Norrholm has been featured on NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, Politico.com, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, USA Today, WebMD, The Atlantic, The History Channel, Scientific American, Salon.com, The Huffington Post, and Yahoo.com.
Netanyahu leaves hospital ahead of key Israel judicial vote
