THE STATE IN DELUSION

It is tempting to start this post with, "In these darkening times..."  because in many ways they seem to be just that, darkening in a phantasmal way.  In my last post, a homily I delivered at the Episcopal Church I belong to, I mentioned the alternative reality of our making; the world in which we live.  In this post I will explore this alternate world in which the demise of principled constitutional government at the hands of deliberating opportunists seems to be upon us. 

Opportunism has been around since the dawn of human history, but I believe  that its raising its distorting visage once again is a result of two related phenomena: blind intellectualism and willful ignorance. Deliberated opportunism is the term I am conferring on the process that led  to President Trump's phenomenal rise to the presidency and will discuss it at length later in this post. 

No single individual or group of individuals would willing admit to being a blind intellectual or blind intellectuals, a willful ignoramus or willful ignoramuses, or having engaged in deliberated opportunism, unless the later is gleefully admitted by a devout Machiavellian.   So in using these terms and applying them to segments of the population must be done in the most generalized of terms.  If I am honest and gave it much thought, I would be able to recall times when I personally engaged in blind intellectualism, willful ignorance, and deliberated opportunism without thinking that was what I was doing at the time or that my actions could be labeled as such.  I am fairly confident that holds true for the groups being identified as such in this post.  My purpose in writing about these categories is not to accuse individuals but rather to bring about an awareness regarding the question:

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

I think it fair to say that most citizens of the USA still cannot comprehend how we ended up in this situation, and by situation I am referring to the collective angst so many of us feel and can't shake.  There is no simple answer to that question, since getting into this reality was, in my opinion, a work in progress for some time.  The details are many, convoluted, and intertwined.  There are paradoxical elements that, quite honestly, I feel most would rather not spend any time considering, since paradox forces one to consider oppositional positions as bearing similar weight and having similar influence on what occurs.   This past presidential election strikes me as being a paradox itself.  In my opinion, blind intellectualism contributed to Mrs. Clinton's failed presidential bid while willful ignorance and deliberated opportunism won Mr. Trump the presidency. 

In other words, one could say that the Democrats legitimately lost the presidency while there is a feeling of illegitimacy about Mr. Trump winning the presidency.

In this post, I will not address the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged connections with Russia in undermining the electoral process or making pre-inauguration deals with Russia's leadership.  Rather, this post will deal with what took place in this country regarding President's Trump move to the White House.

   

BLIND INTELLECTUALISM
Ignoring Reality

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

We have not heard much of blind intellectualism primarily because it has been defined as arrogant elitism by the punditry of the news media.  Elitism, in my opinion,  is a result of blind intellectualism in the sense that intellectuals can become too focused on their particular field of interest to the point of excluding related interests; depicting their field of focus as one-sided issues that tend to leave behind the vast majority of people who have no idea what they are talking about because there is no direct tie-in to their personal lives. 

In this recent presidential election, the Democrats suffered from blind intellectualism.  Focus on the woman voters, black voters, Hispanic voters, LGBTQ voters, educated voters, environmental issues and economic issues were often received, if not portrayed, as one-sided issues that failed to connect them to each other and importantly to the white, blue collar male.  While the Democratic platform was brilliantly written and designed to be inclusive, the Clinton campaign demonstrated exclusiveness through its focus on breaking glass ceilings for women and minorities.  What they did not take into consideration was how this looked to the vast majority of voters who, in the end, did not turn out to vote. 

I believe the critique that the Democrats were the victim of their own elitism has merit.  This became apparent as Bernie Sander's star was rising in the populace while he barely received any attention by the Democratic Party itself or the televised news media until late in the primary season.  There was an unrealistic optimism about Mrs. Clinton's abilities to win the day that turned a blind eye to the growing populism that was emerging.  There was a sense that the Democrats did not need the white working class male or the non-college educated voter in order to win the White House.  Their lack of attention to this sector came across as writing them off as unimportant and unnecessary, which was grasped as being labeled "deplorables" which many took to mean them.  In the long run, I believe this proved fatal in securing the electoral college votes. 

The democrats were also blind-sided by their own approach to democracy and the notion of the super-delegate.  This approach, in itself, was elitist and undemocratic.  There are few purely democratic procedures on the federal level in the United States.  The election of the U.S President is one of three.  The use of super delegates not only locked in early votes but proved to be a roadblock to the momentum that was evident in Mr. Sander's campaign.  While much of Mr. Sander's agenda found its way into the Democratic Platform, the damage was done when long before the democratic convention he could not find the support of the party's governing base.  There were also the obvious liabilities that Mrs. Clinton carried into the campaign.  Even though she was unjustly being attacked about her emails and Benghazi, being a constant target related to those events took its toll on the voting base she needed, particularly, when Sen. Sanders offered a way out of that dilemma via the momentum he possessed in an energized millennial base.  I believe Sen. Sanders was also the victim of ageism, as many thought he would be a one term president at best. He might have looked his age, but he wasn't that much older than those running against him. 

Early polling suggested that Sen. Sanders would have had a far better chance of beating Mr. Trump than Mrs. Clinton, but the Democratic party leadership chose to ignore those polls, thinking that Mrs. Clinton would be a better president than Sen. Sanders.  While one could argue the validity of that, it ignored the simple political fact that Sen. Sanders had the political energy that was free of scandal that would have thrown the Republicans off their game and allowed the voters a clear choice between who could better address the perceived problems existing in Washington D.C.  Mrs. Clinton became a symbol of the status quo, which it was clear the U.S. public was weary of.  People wanted the bickering and stagnation to end and she exemplified what people could expect if she were elected, more bickering and more stagnation.  Yes, she was and is far more qualified for the presidency than the other contenders, but she also carried a great deal of baggage that targeted her. 

The irony is that being highly qualified for a political position can be depicted as a liability when the opposition has effectively been able to paint politics as the problem rather than the solution. Once it was clear who the two parties' nominees were, things did not improve for the Democrats.  While Mr. Trump had secured his voting base, the Democratic party did not and, in fact, began to hemorrhage its voting base to ennui. 

Blind intellectualism led the Democratic party to think they could "smart-their-way" to winning the White House; that by winning every debate they would convince the American public that Mr. Trump lacked the qualifications needed to be the president.  While Mrs. Clinton was needlessly wasting her time preparing to debate Mr. Trump.  Mr. Trump was shoring up his political base by campaigning and saying outrageous things to the glee and appeal of that base.  In hindsight, I think it is clear that Mrs. Clinton would have been better off hitting the campaign trail every hour of every day than taking time out to prepare to debate and argue with the willful ignorance being fomented by her opponents campaign.  She could have winged her way through any debate with Mr. Trump without any problem and an impromptu approach might have been more effective, appeared more genuine than rehearsed.

Having said this, I don't think Hillary Clinton lost the presidency as much as the Democratic party did.  I maintain that Hillary Clinton is probably one of the most honest and sincere people to run for the office of president.  It is not her fault that she was wrongfully targeted about her emails and Benghazi, but political pragmatism should have ruled the day rather than intellectual blindness.  What could have positively impacted her chances is if she would have chosen Bernie Sanders as her running mate.  I don't know if she offered Senator Sanders that position or if he would have accepted it, but there is a political reality that says if you're opponent in the primary for the nomination has a strong voter based you need that you make every attempt to secure that base by offering a substantive position if one wins, as was the case in JKF choosing LBJ.   Tim Kaine was undoubtedly an excellent personal choice for Mrs. Clinton and would have been a excellent Vice President, but that his choice was a personal preference demonstrated an intellectual blindness with regard to the political reality facing Mrs. Clinton.  Of course, this is all water under the bridge at present, but there are lessons to fished out of such water.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Elitism is not the sole domain of the Democratic Party.  Elitism is alive and well in the Republican Party; particularly, amongst those identified as traditional Republicans who have been the mainstay and provide for its vast financial support.  As such, blind intellectualism has also found its way into the mainline branch of the Republican Party; in that, it has largely tried to avoid dealing with long range environmental and social issues in its efforts to expand its voting base in order to gain control of the congress and eventually the White House  in the short term. 

They too have turned a blind eye to political reality; to the anger that belies a social mania affecting  a large number of their voting base.  I don't believe all in the Republic party were unaware of this, but rather that their leadership appear convinced that they would in some way be able to control this once they secured power.  Blind intellectualism has led the Republican Party leadership to gamble with the sanity of this nation.  It's win-at-all-costs approach to elections has blinded them to the fact that in doing so they are willing to put at risk the fundamental structure of our nation, The Constitution.

Some of the actions of the Republican leadership belie their disdain and loathing for much of their base.  They have resorted to some of the most childish antics that one generally finds on a school playground.  The most recent being the campaign pledge during this past primary in which each candidate was to promise support to whoever the Republican Party's nominee was is a prime example of such antics.  This was a childish and obvious attempt to prevent Mr. Trump from running an independent campaign, which led to a disastrous defeat to all who pledged.  Mr. Trump who waffled on this at the beginning and who remained vaguely committed to it until assured of his primary victory benefitted from it by making those who committed to it from start to keep their word, which most foolishly struggled to do, as if to ensure their heavenly reward while placing the nation in a purgatorial state. 

THE TELEVISED NEWS MEDIA

I think it reasonable to say that President Trump would not be the president if it were not for the televised news media.  While he bashes the press and television networks today, he benefitted greatly from the attention they gave him early in the primary season and during the general election.  I discussed this fact in other posts and won't go into detail here.  What I would underscore here is the fact that the televised news media largely treated Mr. Trump as a TV personality and a form of entertainment, as someone who could boost their ratings.  In my opinion, they very much wanted a match-up between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton and therefore focused their attention on these two campaigns early in the primary cycle. 

Where blind intellectualism seemingly comes into play with the televised news media is that, in showing how erratic and narcissistic Mr. Trump could be, the citizens of this country would do the "right thing" and keep him away from the White House.  The difficulty they faced was to appear balanced in their approach.  To that end they had to portray Mr. Trump as a serious contender and had to show Mrs. Clinton as being vulnerable to attack, all the while making her and Mr. Trump appears as the only viable contenders for the White House.

To that end, they became obsessed with polls. The networks inundated us with multiple polls of varying kinds.  Polling and excessive poll analysis created an atmosphere of constant flux that made substantive reporting take a back seat.  In the end, the polls told us very little.  The polls offered fodder for the pundits who argued with each other as to what they meant, leaving one feel intellectually numb and anxiety ridden rather than enlightened.   

It is estimated that 25.5% of eligible voters voted for President Trump, enough to secure the requisite electoral votes, while Mrs. Clinton had 25.6% of the eligible voters.  Almost half of the eligible voters did not vote. The news media's portrayal of both nominees as equally unpopular worked in favor of President Trump by securing his base, whereas it had an opposite effect on Mrs. Clinton's campaign.  President Trump's popularity with his base is largely contingent on his unpopularity with the rest of the country, a fact that President Trump has a tough time coming to grips with. That his base represents only a quarter of the voters in this country appears to validate this assessment.

The televised news media and the established press seem to have come to their senses.  Now that Mr. Trump is President Trump, he is far less entertaining except on the late night television circuit.  The televised news networks seemingly have had enough of alternate facts and unreliable news sources to prevent them from interviewing some of President Trump's nominal spokespersons.

WILLFUL IGNORANCE 

Denying Reality

Willful ignorance is largely a reactive response to social change, mostly associated with the Republican Party's social conservative wing as opposed to its fiscal conservative wing.   Willful ignorance is the antithesis to logical reasoning and is adverse to adaptation and factual learning.  The willfully ignorant are not blind to social changes nor are they ignorant of factual information. Rather, to be willfully ignorant is primarily a choice that refuses to be factually informed.

The willfully ignorant deny fact based information as valid in order to live life as they always have in spite of overwhelming evidence that changes, whether liked or not, are upon us; such as environmental changes, demographic changes, etc..  For the most part, the willfully ignorant are content with the way things are or have been.  The willfully ignorant are largely composed of financially secure, white middle class individuals who are generally associated with the Christian Right and who feel their lifestyle is under attack. 

There is an edge to willful ignorance.  Willful ignorance is not to be confused with an inability to comprehend and learn or laziness and a lack of motivation.  Quite the opposite, the willfully ignorant seem to go out of their way to present arguments based on speculative information or ideological beliefs as reasoned propositions.  In other words, they are prone to treat their opinions as fact and empirical fact as opinion. In fact this opinion-as-fact and fact-as-opinion appears to border on becoming an obsessive delusion.  They have garnered a wealth of disinformation presented as fact which has reached its highest level in the recent election of  President Trump. 

As a result, the Republican Party has for, some time, seen opportunity in fostering willful ignorance to their political advantage.  Casting doubt on economic and scientific data, along with promoting the concept of Constitutional originalism (code for inerrancy amongst the Christian Right) to justify their political views has great appeal to the willfully ignorant.

DOUBLING DOWN

One of the key elements in fostering willful ignorance is to "double-down" on opinion as fact.  This approach has been successful for the most part; in that, if a person with political or religious credentials presents skeptical opinion as a concrete fact without the data to support it and that person refuses to budge regardless of how much information is given to refute that opinion, he or she appears brave in stating his or her beliefs as fact regardless of how baseless they are.  There is bestowed on such stalwart individuals a religious aura in their belief-over-fact approach to reality.  Such behavior is glorified by the willfully ignorant as "telling it like it is."  What confounds most people who are not willfully ignorant is their inability to argue against willful ignorance, which I will discuss in detail further along in this post.  

One of the things I have taught my daughters is "You can't argue with stupidity."  This is particularly true of the willfully ignorant. There is a delusional aspect in double-downed willful ignorance that will defy any proof. 

THE TALK SHOW

Willful ignorance has given rise to a vibrant news media industry, the conservative talk show, which has been assured a faithful base in the willfully ignorant, who eagerly gobble up every bit of half-truth and piece of questionable information their hosts are able to dish up.  Their provocateur style of reporting and overt criticism of "government" create a bogus tough guy image that appeals to the willfully ignorant who are attracted to the notion of the "bullshitting" strongman as recalling America's highly romanticized cowboy past that idealizes the self-made man and rugged individualism.

During this past presidential election, something strange and almost hopeful happened.  Some conservative talk show hosts, who profited from fostering willful ignorance began to see where their industry was leading and what type of leadership in the United States was beginning to emerge as a result of their negative views of government. 

Mr. Trump's meteoric rise in the Republican Primary should have resulted in a love-fest between Mr. Trump's campaign and the conservative talk show hosts, but it didn't.  Any perceived criticism of Mr. Trump by the likes of Meghan Kelly resulted in a personal attack by Mr. Trump, leaving this branch of the news media stunned and disoriented.  While some have come to conclude that critiquing President Trump is errant and have returned to supporting his every interpretation of fact, others continue to express concern over his views of the news media and are taking their jobs and role in keeping our citizens well informed seriously.

DELIBERATED OPPORTUNISM
Distorting Reality

Deliberated opportunism refers to creating a stage on which to present an agenda  by using whatever means available to do so.  Early on, Mr. Trump began the birther issue over President Obama.  This now admittedly "fake" issue by Mr. Trump was used to test the waters, to see if there was a base that would bite.  There was. 

His time on the TV show "Apprentice" afforded him familiarity as the tough guy persona that he could tap into during a presidential bid.  There were also elements in the Republican Party and on Wall Street that were willing to play along with this stage-setting endeavor.  While Republican congressional leaders were eager to foment willful ignorance as a means to undermine President Obama, Mr. Trump and his aides were seeing an opportunity in a growing base of discontented white working class people.  As I have said in other posts, Mr. Trump is a marketer who is adept at marketing himself.   

What Mr. Trump and the Republican Party had in common was a finger on the pulse of discontent; particularly among white, male, blue collar workers - voters who historically voted Democratic but who felt marginalized in a sluggish economic recovery; particularly in the area known as the Rust Belt.  Better than most of his Republican Primary rivals, Mr. Trump was able to connect with this discontent and give it voice in ways that others did not.  His tough, "tell-it-like-it-is" style was what these individuals were looking for.

From what I can tell, these are good people who have lost jobs that had sustained a comfortable moderate lifestyle and who have experienced a loss of social equity by living with persistent debt with little or no social support from the federal or state governments.  In their marginal positions they are vulnerable to believe anyone who will offer or promise them a return to the stability they once had.  These individuals are not willfully ignorant, but rather, in seeing no a way out of their current reality, they have largely abandoned their traditional alignment with the Democratic Party who seemingly had turned a blind eye to their situation and have placed their hope in way out with whoever would hold it out to them. 

In my opinion, they are also the victims of deliberated opportunism.  In the Republican held Congress's endeavor to block every agenda put forth by President Obama, they deliberately withheld the hope of any tangible funding to rebuild this nations failing infrastructure and creating new industries to replace those that are no longer viable.  Their periodic threats to close government down rendered any talk about substantive aid to such projects mute, and this appeared deliberate to me as it knowingly would foment the discontent which the willfully dysfunctional congress could pin on the Obama administration, which they wagered would help them win the White House.

Hillary Clinton's pre-campaign comments about the coal industry needing to be shut down, while accurately based on environmental data, was insensitive and did not offer a solution for those directly effected by a shutdown.  As such, these individuals were ripe for the picking and Mr. Trump was there to pick them up.  They are a patient people for the most part, but if Mr. Trump does not come through on his promise of jobs and economic stability, their patience will wear thin and much of his base of support will likely unravel.

PLAYING THE PRESIDENCY



In these early days of the Trump administration, it is apparent that  President Trump is finding it hard to transition from campaign mode to being the president. What many hoped was just a passing transitional phase between a chaotic and vitriolic campaign to the reality of being in the White House is proving not to be a phase but a continuing phantasmal reality.  President Obama and others in Washington indicated that once Mr. Trump would assume the mantel of the presidency, the responsibility and weight of the office would change him. 

While he has only been in office a little over a month, the anticipated change is not apparent and, if anything, what is becoming increasingly apparent is that President Trump's behavior is becoming more erratic to the point that he is in conflict with members of his own cabinet, including Vice President Pence who are faced with the periodic task of having to walk back  his more outlandish comments.  Our foreign allies are confused. 

In a meeting with our European allies in Munich, Germany this month, it is clear that while they want to believe Secretary Mattis and Vice President Pence who have assured our European allies of our continued fidelity, they know that President Trump has made comments that undermine such assurances.  In short, they don't know who to believe or who to trust.  This does not bode well for our and their security.

DOUBLE ENTENDRE AND SLEIGHT OF HAND

President Trump's views on the news media are troubling and borders on an attack of the First Amendment and by extension, the U.S. Constitution by calling the "fake" news media  "the enemy of the American people."  The use of double entendre in the phrase of "fake news media" affords the Trump administration the ability to accuse any news outlet or source that disagrees with him or places him or any member of his administration in a bad light as fake new.  With the notable exception of Senator McCain, few in the Republican held congress are willing to call his comment for what it is - an attempt to dismantle our constitution. The question that arises in some minds if whether the president is serious or being deliberately bogus as a way of distracting his detractors from focusing on his agenda.  If we are to take President Trump's Chief of Staff,  Reince Priebus's word on the matter in a recent "Meet the Press" interview, we would have to take what President Trump is saying seriously.

What is amazing is that Republican congressional leaders, for the most part, are acting as if they are afraid to confront President Trump about his more outrageous claims. When asked about this, they offer nervous smiles and very little comment.   In part, I think this is because some hope he will change or, if given enough latitude, he'll do something that will bring his "house of cards" down around him without having to sully their hands in the process.  A greater likelihood is that the Republican controlled congress needs him right now to complete there political goals and are therefore reluctant to call him out too strongly.  In the meantime, under the guise of what  President Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon referred to as the President "maniacally" keeping his campaign promises,  President Trump is also clearing the table for unknown agendas, yet to be announced. Whether all that he promised during his campaign will come to fruition is to be seen, but it will not matter if he accomplishes everything or not.  The point is, that through the power of executive action largely dealt to the presidency by six years of congressional inactivity, President Trump will be able to claim he tried and was blocked by his enemies, Democrat and Republican alike. 

President Trump's use of sleight of hand in the form of blaming others for things he, himself, has been done by twisting and turning data to satisfy his ends.  His use of nonfactual information, unnamed sources, etc. while accusing the news media of the same is one current example of this sleight of hand approach.  It's distracting.  It's blatant use is confusing to many people and confusion is what this administration is good at doing, but confront it about their mixed messages and somehow the person confronting them about it is the one giving the mixed message. 

His current bout with the First Amendment is a good example.  When the press complains that he is violating the First Amendment's protection of a free press, he complains that his First Amendment right of being able to say whatever he wants to say is being violated. This attempt at circular argumentation works to secure his base for the moment, but time will tell if its sustainable.  It is reminiscent of two children accusing each other of lying: where one accuses the other, "You're a liar!" and the accused responds, "No, you're a liar!"  The "Saturday Night Live" skits on the Trump presidency capture this use of double entendre and sleight of hand approach regarding the handling of information to great comedic effect, which at the same time highlight the serious dilemma our nation and the world faces as a result.

THE VORTEX OF DELUSION

AN ALTERNATE REALITY

Reality is a consensus of perception, as I have mentioned throughout my posts.  On one level there are perceptions that are so consistent and reliable that they are considered facts because there is no disagreement on what such perceptions mean because they are universally shared.  A chair is a chair,  no matter what language one is referring to a chair in.  Should an individual look at a chair and perceive it to be a dog and treat the chair as such, the person's sanity would be questioned. 

On another level, perceptions about events and the relation between cause and effect often vary and are fluid, such perceptions fall into the realms of speculation or theory.  Of these two categories, speculation is very unreliable in establishing what is factual, whereas, theory is tested and if found to be consistent enough will find application in a host of factual ways and over time figures into our understanding of reality to the point of being factual.  

An example of speculative reality is that Islam is the cause of radicalized Islamic terrorism and therefore all Muslims are not to be trusted in the United States.  While there are events that lead to such speculation, there is little evidence that Islam is the cause of radicalized Islamic Terrorism and that is why most of our military leaders refused to define terrorism as Islamic.  There is even less reason to suspect that all Muslims in the United States are not to be trusted any more than all people of German heritage are likely to hold white supremacist beliefs.  While there are events that link terrorism to some Muslims and white supremacists to people with a German heritage it all amounts to nothing more than speculation.

An example of  theory based reality would be the theory of evolution.  This theory is so reliable that almost every advance in modern medicine would not exist without it.  Medicines that cure and treat diseases and disorders that were considered untreatable just fifty years ago are either the direct or indirect result of evolutionary theory.  There is little doubt that those who deny the theory of evolution would refuse to give up the medicines that are prolonging their lives because they are a result of this theory, which brings me back to the topic of willful ignorance. 

There is another type of reality that is the result of a consensus of perceptions and that is the delusional state. We tend to think delusions as affecting only random individuals, but history shows us that there is a thing called mass delusion.  I would differentiate mass delusion from mass hysteria, although mass delusion can readily lead to mass hysteria.  The delusional state as it is emerging in the United States is an outcropping of willful ignorance and deliberated opportunism. 

The intrinsic danger of willful ignorance is that a persistent denial of reality makes it difficult to see reality as it truly is.  Blind intellectualism does not deny reality but tends to ignore realities that do not seem pertinent to the intellectual at the moment. There is a degree of hubris and arrogance in blind intellectualism that makes intellectualism or the intelligentsia a target of the delusional state.  

THE DELUSIONAL STATE

When I hear some politicians and some in the news media talk about getting use to this emerging state of delusion as the new normal, I'm repulsed and saddened.  Having worked in mental health all my life, I can't help but assess from a mental health perspective what is going on in the White House.  I believe the mental status of the current administration is questionable.  It's hard to determine what to make of President Trump's insistence of doubling down on erroneous information.   His apparent inability to laugh at himself on the public stage not only gives him the appearance of being thin skinned but also as dealing with self-esteem issues.  This and his doubling down on issues that appear to have little relevance to our national interests, such as, how much he won the election by, how large the crowds were at his inauguration, Sweden's problem with terrorists, etc. makes him appear somewhat delusional and narcissistic, if not paranoid. 

Steve Bannon's comment that President, Trump is "maniacally" working on fulfilling his campaign promises, did not go unnoticed.  While I doubt that Mr. Bannon was implying the president is having mental health issues, the term "maniacally" could have been phrased differently, but it was revealing.  The fact that President Trump is known to Tweet into the wee hours of the morning and obsessively watches the news channels sounds manic and can be cited as indicative of a Bipolar disorder.  The concern this brings to mind is that if President Trump's mental health is at risk or is questionable, he can be easily manipulated and influenced by those who will use his mental state to their advantage. 

Perhaps the biggest indicator that the mental atmosphere in the White House is not right is the reaction people close to the situation have regarding it.  There is an innate sense of caution that is indicative of dealing with the delusional state.  Watching how the President's cabinet members, Republican congressional leaders, and members of the press interact and react to the President's more outlandish moment is similar to those who I've seen working with mental instability.  They are cautious. 

What I know of the delusional state of mind is that it cannot be altered by pointing out of its delusions.  The more facts and reality are thrown its way to bring it to reality, the more delusional the situation becomes.  It's like throwing light at a dark hole. It will just get sucked into its inescapable vortex of darkness.  If someone dare point out the folly of  someone's delusion, the person who does so is sucked into the delusional vortex  and is identifies as part of the problem, part of the delusion - a person "out to get" the individual who is suffering from a delusional sense of reality.    There is evidence of this in the current administration, but one can only form a speculative opinion based on such evidence at this point.  As such, I cannot nor do I have any desire to state that President Trump is personally suffering from sort of personality or psychiatric disorder but rather there is an aura in the White House indicative of such disorder.  Such a determination would have to be made by a licensed professionals or those who are nearest to him and who have a responsibility to do so if such speculation becomes realized and threatens the wellbeing of our nation.

When I taught a course on how to reduce restraint and seclusion use in the mental health facility I worked at, I reminded those who were starting out in the field of mental health, that the arguing with delusion is pointless and will only suck the person into the delusional mindset of the person.  This is difficult enough to deal with in a mental health facility.  One should neither feed nor argue with the delusional mindset, but rather gently question the perception of the person in non-threatening ways, by putting the burden of the delusion upon the person who questions it rather than posing it as a direct threat to the person suffering from the delusion; as in, "I'm not seeing what you're seeing.  What I see is ..."  It's not so much a direct question as it is a rhetorical or implied one.  

I truly hope this is not the position we're in as a nation. 

Delusion can serve as a tool for the deliberate opportunist.  If a delusional perspective given by a national leader is perceived as gaining a following, the delusion can become fixed and spread quickly, especially among the willfully ignorant who are already in a state of denial about reality.  It can be fed in a way that benefits those who seek power and control, the deliberating opportunist.   As long as this delusional atmosphere exists in the White House, who President Trump surrounds himself with, who has his ear is important and it is important to watch those close to the President as long as this aura is present.  In that regard I have more trust in President Trump's family members, Ivanka and her husband Jared to speak honestly and guide his decisions.   Shutting out elements of the press does not bode well for the mental health of White House or the nation as a whole.  I do not wish President Trump's administration failure, but rather a sense of wholeness and wellness that will make the nation whole and well; that it will plant its feet in honesty and reality instead of the phantasmal surreal, the alt. reality that is not normal.

MAINTAINING A SANE STATE

Most of us have issues with the news media from time to time.  At times they are guilty of blind intellectualism and hubris and at other times they are guilty of fostering willful ignorance. When they become competitive with the news to garner ratings as opposed to ensuring balanced reporting of the news they undermine their status as the fourth estate of the United States. 

Their tampering with the election by allowing Mr. Trump a free ride, particularly, in the televised news media has exacted a price not only on their industry, but on the nation.  Hopefully,  the established, major news outlets have come to their senses and wake up and takes their role ensuring our republic seriously. 

We need a free press more than ever to maintain the sanity of the state. 

At the same time, we need less punditry, polls and their analysis. We need more straight reporting and the occasional thoughtful commentary.  In other words, we need information that makes us think as opposed to telling us what we're thinking and why.  We can figure that out on our own.

Maintaining a sane state is the responsibility of all of us, but it falls primarily upon our elected officials to be the ones to take lawful action if needed.

At the current time this is the responsibility upon those Republicans in congress who, along with their Democrat counterparts, are sworn to protect and defend of our constitutional government.  Senators McCain and Graham, along with several others in the Republican led Congress are key to preserving the constitution as are every member of the Supreme Court.

Some within the President's cabinet possess the integrity to speak truth to power and maintain a sane perspective, especially those who have served in the military; such as, Secretary Mattis and President Trump's National Security Advisor, General McMaster.  This speaks well for our military leaders, but puts them in difficult position with their Commander-in-Chief.  Vice President Pence has also demonstrated a measured degree of integrity in having to deal with the President's more outlandish comments. It is hoped that President Trump takes their advice and wise council seriously.

While we must maintain hope in the strength of our constitutional government, we must also be vigilant in its preservation through civil and reasoned discourse.

Until Next time, stay faithful.