A Reset Of Liberal Thought In America?

All systems of government—even totalitarianism—cannot operate without the support of the governed.  Although this support may be bought in all sorts of unsavory manners through lies, threats, or the handing out of unwonted benefits that translate into outright bribery, some provision must be made to obtain the cooperation that is necessary to ensure the operation of the basic economy and the maintenance of public order.  Failing this, no government can long survive.  Even if the actual benefits for citizens are set so far in the future that blandishments and symbolic gestures must suffice for today, leaders invariably maintain power by offering some pleasing mixture of perceived economic security, national pride, and protection from criminals within and enemies without.

Modern liberalism, which traces its roots back several hundreds of years, has sustained its support across the centuries by essentially promising that a benign and expansive government can supply economic security by way of a mix of government benefits, enable national pride by supporting freedoms not found in illiberal nation’s elsewhere, and provide protection from criminals by removing the basis for most criminality—want and anger—through state-sponsored laws and programs that will both fill stomachs and gladden hearts.  Enemies beyond one’s borders will—although bullets will unfortunately sometimes still be necessary—be largely vanquished by the shining example of your nation’s incredible goodness, which others will surely wish to emulate.

Therefore, liberals are, by their very nature, supporters of—and proselytizers for—government in all of its manifestations.  Given enough taxes and legal authority, poverty, ignorance, and injustice can—and must—be eliminated, and these governmental ideas must be exported across the globe in order to create interlocking and mutually supportive liberal international authorities to manage the world for the benefit of all.  Misbehavior and overreach by government entities will be controlled through an alert and interventionist judiciary, and mismanagement of money and resources will be driven to the point of extinction by a secular priesthood of credentialed experts who will guide their nations and people to something approximating heaven on earth.  No problem will be unsolvable as long as government is free, after some period of study and reflection, to provide the most perfect of all possible solutions.

Of course, the obvious trade-offs here are two-fold.  First, tax money—and lots of it—will be necessary to support the Byzantine governmental structures necessary to monitor and manipulate human behavior to ensure the best outcome for all.  Second, any pesky adherence to traditional cultural, moral, or religious beliefs must be openly denigrated and actively suppressed—if not outright outlawed—should they not serve the greater good as defined by liberal government.  Unfortunately for the social engineers, two harsh realities tend to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of governmentally-imposed nirvana if liberal aspirations are allowed to proceed unchecked: Money tends to run out rather quickly, and your citizens get a tad annoyed about being constantly ordered around.

When given its proper place within a broader governmental system that also respects traditional institutional norms and personal beliefs, liberal political values provide an idealistic appeal that is a necessary counterbalance to the daily grind of governance—and which also brings new energy and fresh ideas into the process.  However, if allowed to proceed unrestrained, the idealism that animates liberal thought can curdle into sanctimonious scolding, and programs and laws intended to improve the lives of the citizenry can turn government into a horde of micromanaging busybodies armed with all the legal authority that the state can provide.  If the judiciary, which is meant to check the abuses of government powers, has also been captured by liberal ideologues, the daily lives of citizens, schools, businesses, medical providers, the police, the military, and houses of worship are subjected to a daily beat down by bureaucrats and attorneys who are determined to reshape humanity to fit their goals and purposes.  If no reason or relief is available, the inevitable outcome will be an insurrection at the ballot box, and I believe this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today.

If you scratch the surface of the average American voter, you will find a fundamentally fair and kind-hearted individual who would rather live life with fewer constraints upon their choices and behavior.  These citizens, who do the work and pay the taxes that keep America moving, are generally good to their families, friends, and neighbors—and quite sympathetic to those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.  However, having cared for themselves and others throughout their lives, they are set in their values and loathe to adopt new ideas unless their benefits can be clearly demonstrated.  Often blessed with an abundance of common sense, they are innately suspicious of pie-in-the-sky promises and unwilling to allow elites to scorn their lives and aspirations.  Like a terrier, they are loyal to a fault, but they will administer quite a ferocious and memorable bite if sufficiently annoyed—which America’s liberal establishment now knows to be the case.

The 2016 election of Donald Trump did not herald an army of Klansmen hooting out of the hollows and hillsides, although one would imagine from the prevailing media narrative that goose stepping goons were ready to round up the resistors at any moment.  This fraught—and dangerously wacky—reaction to election results that were a surprise to no one other than the commentators at MSNBC perhaps served the political purposes of progressive partisans who were determined to delegitimize President Trump from the outset and paint his victory as a win for bigotry and intolerance, but it has also caused damaging fear and suspicion to pervade our nation.  

The reality was perhaps a bit less dramatic—or worrisome.  Fed up with a federal government that seemed more interested in bathroom politics than creating the conditions for economic growth, Americans were willing to roll the dice on a rude and confrontational outsider who promised massive changes.  Moreover, many wanted see immigration laws enforced, regulations reduced, taxes lowered, government shrunk, and accountability returned to federal agencies that operated with the impunity of medieval royalty.  In addition, it cannot be overemphasized that Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst political campaigns in American history, and her evasive and defensive responses to legitimate questions regarding her use of an unsecured email server while serving as Secretary of State only served to cement the voting public’s unflattering perceptions of her slippery character and deficient honesty.

The upcoming midterm elections will provide an opportunity for voters to decide whether they like having a reflexively combative President who delights in punching his opponents in the face and chortling at their pain.  Moreover, and certainly more importantly, the midterm elections will serve as a referendum on the rollback of liberal thought and action that Donald Trump’s election certainly signaled.  My guess is the expected “blue wave” will not materialize, and the post-election analyses will blame Americans for surrendering to fear and stupidity by helpingPresident Trump to continue to torch liberal institutions and philosophies that many wrongly assumed were inviolate.

However, as painful as this might be for some, the political dominance that President Trump now enjoys might serve as a necessary corrective that will later facilitate a more measured liberal phase—one now counterbalanced by a conservative stamp on many institutions of government—which will permit the good of liberalism to persist without the excesses that obviously annoyed so many voters in the past.

Advertisements

Spy Games

It feels a bit like 1950….

Back in those panicky early Cold War days, the biggest show in town was the investigation of Alger Hiss, an American government official accused of being a highly placed spy working on behalf of the Soviet Union.  Over the past several weeks of today’s spy scare, it was revealed that a foreign policy advisor during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was placed under government surveillance due to suspicions (as yet unproven) that he was a Russian spy, a Russian woman who is here on a student visa was arrested and charged with being a spy, and a recent magazine article even explored the idea that President Trump himself is an agent of Russia.  All we need to round out the picture is an updated version of the House Un-American Activities Committee, some sweaty new version of Senator Joseph McCarthy at its helm, grilling terrified witnesses and loudly accusing them of espionage and treason.

However, before going any further with this discussion of spies and spying, two salient facts must be acknowledged.

The first is that every nation has spied on every other nation from the dawn of civilization.  It is both prudent and smart to make every effort to peek at the inner machinations and motivations of your neighbors, who might, sad to say, not always have your best interests at heart.  Given the terrifying weaponry washing around the world today, to not spy on other nations in order to divine their decision making would be both foolhardy and irresponsible.

In addition, it is both obvious—and understandable—that American politicians are always accusing their rivals of being un-American.  Wrapping yourself in the flag to win political and—even more importantly—moral advantage is as tried and true a method of winning votes as kissing babies.  Our opposition to Russia after the end of World War II in 1945 (Who now remembers that the Soviet Union was one of our most important allies in the fight against Nazi Germany?) only added a new twist to this old ploy, and Presidents from Truman to Trump have been accused of being Russian dupes by political opponents who saw advantage in making this charge.

I am not certain the ferocity of the attacks are any worse than they used to be.  President Truman was, for example, regularly excoriated by Republicans for having “lost China” to the Communists, and Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater continually barked that President Lyndon Johnson was “soft on Communism” during his own failed campaign for the Oval Office.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the red-baiting disappeared for awhile because the Communists suddenly seemed like they wanted to become compliant capitalists, but the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, his KGB credentials flying, signaled there were limitations to the goodwill that could be bought via a McDonalds dishing out Big Macs in Moscow

 What makes today’s iteration of the Cold War political attacks so difficult to understand is that it is now the Democrats accusing the Republicans of being blind to the Russian threat.  Even as they are busily embracing “Democratic Socialism”, which sounds like some focus group phrase concocted to make Communism palatable in Cleveland, Democrats are furiously lobbing accusations of treason at President Trump for having the temerity to attempt to de-escalate superpower tensions at the Helsinki summit.  Given that only a few years ago Democratic leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer and former President Clinton were best buddies with Vladimir Putin, the resurrection of this harsh and uncompromising Reagan-era “Evil Empire” rhetoric is apt to give one a bad case of whiplash.  What is not new are the old charges of treasonous intent that are on Page One of the “I’m more of a loyal American than you” handbook for demonizing your political opponents.  

None of this is, of course, connected with any tangible reality.  Many of the actions Donald Trump has taken as President have been the opposite of what any actual Russian agent would have done.  Whether he was pushing through a stupendous increase in U.S. defense spending, sending arms to Ukrainian separatists fighting for their freedom from the Russian Federation, or pushing rules of battlefield engagement in Syria that have already resulted in hundreds of Russian casualties, President Trump has been a much harsher adversary of Russia than his predecessor ever was.  

Indeed, if one flashes back to 2012 and President Obama—who was unaware that the microphone was on—timidly asking Russian President Medvedev to inform Vladimir Putin that he would have more flexibility to deal with difficult issues “after my election”, you have to wonder where all the Democrats and overwrought media were at that time.  Was Barack Obama colluding with Russia to swing the Presidential election in his favor?  Not surprisingly, there was no breathless inquiry regarding this question.

Of course, reality and rage do not have to necessarily coincide—what would be the fun in that?—and painting a hammer and sickle on President Trump’s back is a handy tool for escalating the anger necessary to drive Democratic voter turnout in 2018 and 2020.  Whether voters believe any of this or not is hardly the point.  The accusations that Donald Trump is a Russian spy or agentprovide a uniting issue for fractious Democrats, lend fresh legitimacy to Robert Mueller’s endless investigation, and hopefully distract voter attention from historically low unemployment and a roaring domestic economy.  Whether this will translate to Democratic electoral gains in the midterm elections and beyond is anyone’s guess, but it does not mean that we have heard the end of this discussion—and the many baseless theories it will spawn.

Been Down So Long….

“I’ve been down so long
Being down don’t bother me.
I’m gonna take all my troubles
Drown ’em in the deep blue sea.”
—from the album L.A. Woman by The Doors

A recent Gallup Poll found that a mere 38% of Americans believe that our nation is moving in the right direction—which is sad.  However, this represents a 12 year high for this number—which is astonishing.  Rarely have Americans been so discontented for so long.

A 12 year trip back in time brings us to the halcyon days of 2006.  George W. Bush was finishing his second term as President, and the “hope and change” presidency of Barack Obama was still two years in the future.  The failure of a comprehensive immigration reform bill led to massive protests, a deranged man killed 5 girls at an Amish schoolhouse, Iran and America were locked in a standoff regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, North Korea was developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Israel and Hezbollah were shooting at one another, and terrorist plots were launched and foiled.  Seems familiar, doesn’t it?

The Democrats won big in the midterm elections that year.  In 2006 voters were punishing President Bush over the bloody war in Iraq.  This year Democrats hope President Trump’s views on immigration, world trade, and polite conversation will lead to a repeat of their success at the ballot box.These past twelve years have featured the global economic meltdown of the Great Recession, two Presidential terms for Barack Obama, the rise of identity politics and Social Justice Warriors, the growth of a pervasive surveillance state, stark income inequality, gay marriage, a broad decline in civility coupled with an increase in rage, skyrocketing costs for life’s essentials, a growing political divide that has turned into a chasm, the failure of the inevitable and unstoppable Clinton campaign in 2016, a surprising summit with North Korea, endless investigations, escalating national debt, a slow motion national pension crisis, and the mutating growth of a form of entertainment known as the Kardashians.

If you ask ten different people, you will probably hear ten different explanations for the level of angst and anger that seems to now be the background music of American life.  Perhaps the only comfort we can take is that unhappiness seems to have become a global phenomenon.  People in many other nations seem frustrated for a wide variety of reasons—only some of which connect with our own concerns in America.

One could write a book—or many books—detailing the possible reasons for what ails the United States and its people at the present time, but I do have a theory that I believe provides a framework that explains a great deal: Many people now feel that their lives are beyond their own control, and this loss of control stems from two main sources: money and government.

First of all, despite living in the wealthiest nation in the world, we are more and more becoming debt slaves in order to finance the escalating costs of housing, education, and medical care.  Our financial futures can now be destroyed by a balloon payment on a mortgage, a student loan, or an illness—and the damage this causes today can stalk us throughout our lives in the form of ruined credit, aggressive debt collectors, and seized tax refunds.  In perhaps the most perverse twist of all, many Americans now end up in jail simply because they cannot afford to pay court-ordered fines, which basically means many Americans are being incarcerated for the singular crime of being too poor to live.  Except for the elite and connected few, we have truly lost control of our economic destinies as debt has washed over us—on both a personal and national level.

Moreover, multinational corporations now devastate the economies of entire communities by deciding to uproot a factory or office because they believe larger profits can be found with cheap labor overseas.  For those companies that continue to try to thrive in the U.S., wolves in hedge fund manager’s clothing often devour their thriving businesses and spit the bare bones into bankruptcy court when they are done.  The average worker is always the one who takes it on the chin; the top executives and hedge fund honchos take their bonuses and buyouts and hit the beach while those left behind form a line at the local food pantry.

In addition, government continues to circumscribe—many might say strangle—our lives.  More and more laws, rules, and regulations are enforced to shut down dissent and empower officials who want to dictate where we can live, what we can say, how we can raise our children, how our faith can be expressed, what we can buy, what ideas and information we can share, what natural resources we can consume, what we can eat, what we can drink, what we can smoke, what we can drive, what schools our children can attend, what we can throw in the trash—and even whether we can burn our own leaves in the fall.

Of course, not a single government mandate is actually intended to make us miserable; they are, after all, promulgated to promote the “greater good”.  However, their cumulative weight and intrusiveness—combined with government officials and experts who sometimes seem utterly oblivious to the needs and wants of the average person—is at turns annoying and maddening.

Given the many traumas we are repeatedly told the presidency of Donald Trump is inflicting on our nation, it seems odd that we have now hit a 12 year high—albeit a low one—regarding our attitudes toward the direction of our country.  I do not believe this is because Mr. Trump’s policies are universally popular—they most decidedly are not.  However, it seems to me that the pollsters and pundits are still failing to understand the populist fervor he has engendered among those who want—more than anything—to feel they can live their lives as they choose.

More than a bit of this voter enchantment with President Trump is, quite frankly, completely illogical.  A billionaire populist is an obvious contradiction, and some of his avowed policies may, in fact, end up harming those who are is his most fervent supporters.  However, he is perceived to be a man who fights back against the lousy and corrupt status quo, and this is a welcome relief for Americans who believe they have been kicked around for far too long. Despite the disdain of the media and entertainment elite toward Mr. Trump, voters are still standing in line for twelve hours for the chance to hear him speak, and they cheer him with the lusty enthusiasm of people whose faith has yet to be blunted by a sneering editorial in The Washington Post.

The perception of many of Mr. Trump’s supporters is that he is swinging hard—and landing body blows—against those who have long presumed to control their lives.  Every obscene or snotty celebrity or news media rant only strengthens their belief that he is their champion, and every pugnacious tweet he sends our berating his opponents thrills their downtrodden souls.  Those who cluck at his language and demeanor fail to understand that he is daily reinforcing the hardcore allegiance of those who neither drive a Prius nor ever plan to attend a performance of Hamilton on Broadway.

President Trump will never win over the most rarefied strata of our society, but his words and actions are giving hope to those who have long felt that control of their lives has been stolen from them by unknown and uncaring forces—and no one with a lick of good sense should ever dismiss the power and persistence of those who feel their hope finally has been restored.

Jimmy Obama?

Leo Durocher, the baseball player and manager, once famously observed that “nice guys finish last”. His contention was that winning required one to get down in the dirt—and play dirty—when the situation required it.

I’ve been mulling over this comment as I consider the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Both had their successes and failures. Each was considered by their contemporaries to be very smart and able individuals—as well as very good and compassionate men. Each was, however, replaced by a successor who ran as their antithesis, promised an American economic renewal and shrinking of government power—and set about methodically erasing their imprint upon our nation.

Jimmy Carter’s first and only term found him clashing frequently with the entrenched powers in Washington and beyond, and his manner was frequently mocked by his political opponents, who characterized him as weak—and at times condescending. His presidency was sidetracked by the seizure of hostages at the American embassy in Tehran, and his chances for re-election were dealt a mortal blow by the catastrophic failure of the military rescue mission of those American hostages in 1980, which ended in an ignominious helicopter crash in the Iranian desert. Despite voter doubts about the bellicose temperament and character of his opponent in 1980, Ronald Reagan won a smashing victory, and over the course of his two terms in office put a deeply conservative stamp on domestic politics while pursuing a massive military buildup, high risk foreign policy adventures, and deregulatory actions that ushered in an unprecedented economic boom.

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama was both embraced and celebrated by the entrenched establishment in Washington and beyond, and his smooth style and golden public speaking won him great favor with the nation’s media and entertainment elites. Seen as a new type of leader whose personal qualities transcended the muck of mere politics, he was able to inspire his allies—but he often foundered when the need for bare knuckle, backroom deal making was required to bully his opponents into submission. Gliding above the fray with a deeply cerebral (and at times condescending) manner, he often resorted to the use of executive orders rather than legislation to pursue his policies—certain that his legacy would be secured by the sheer infallibility of his ideas.

However, despite voter doubts about the bellicose temperament and character of his hand-picked successor’s opponent in 2016, Donald Trump won a smashing victory, and over the course of his (very possible) two terms in office will put a deeply conservative stamp on domestic politics while pursuing a massive military buildup, high risk foreign policy adventures, and deregulatory actions that have already ushered in an unprecedented economic boom.

Coincidence?

Direct comparisons between the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are difficult because they were operating in completely different political environments with completely different economic and strategic challenges. I still remember wrapping myself in a blanket in order to study in my freezing college dorm room because oil was so ruinously costly and scarce that heat was considered a luxury; it is a far different energy environment today—America is now one of the world’s largest exporters of oil. Old school corporate and industrial muscle still ruled during the Carter presidency; Barack Obama was the “information economy” President who claimed American manufacturing jobs were gone for good, so everyone now needed to learn how to code. Jimmy Carter still had to contend with a confrontational and expansionist Soviet Union; the revamped Russian Federation is a still powerful but far less threatening presence—now our eyes are turned to the dangers posed by China and North Korea.

Jimmy Carter has built an influential and successful ex-Presidency that focuses on peacemaking, the eradication of tropical diseases, and building—often with his own hands—houses for the poor and homeless. However, our airport in Washington is Reagan National, and we still refer to the “Reagan Revolution” as part of our political discourse; for all his good intentions, Jimmy Carter often now feels like a placeholder rather than a President.

It is too early to assess the legacy of President Obama, but his penchant for executive orders over the hurly-burly of legislation left many of his signature accomplishments subject to reversal at the stroke of a pen. Just sketching some of the highlights of Donald Trump’s first 500 days in office offers a jaw-dropping litany of stark policy changes:

• The Paris Climate Accord—Gone
• The Iran Nuclear Agreement—Gone
• The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal—Gone
• The Affordable Care Act Individual Mandate—Gone

In addition, conservative federal judges (including one Supreme Court Justice) have been confirmed in record numbers, and President Obama’s patient and cooperative approach to economic and military affairs has been replaced by an extraordinarily combative style that is challenging international norms regarding long-established trade agreements with our allies—and is driving nuclear North Korea to the negotiating table with open threats of “annihilation”. Commentators have now begun referring to “Trump Time” to describe the hyper-accelerated pace of so much of his Presidency so far.

It is far too soon to evaluate the ultimate political impact of Barack Obama’s two terms in office, but it is perhaps not too early to wonder if his legacy will consist almost wholly of being our first African-America President. The anger that so many liberals feel over President Trump’s reversals of President Obama’s accomplishments is perhaps more and more tinged with fear. His brutal—and at times brutish—Presidential style has already reshaped the political landscape of our nation in ways that will be felt for generations to come, and the prospect of a second term—or even the mere completion of his first—fills his political opponents with terror.

Nice—Donald Trump is not. He may, however, be the living incarnation of Leo Durocher’s aphorism, and he could condemn Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter’s fate: a very nice guy whose Presidential legacy was gleefully stomped on by his successor—and then discarded.

What We Can Learn From The Bill Cosby Verdict

One would need to be living in a very deep cave to have not heard: Bill Cosby—once America’s favorite television comedian—is now a convicted sex offender. His conviction for aggravated sexual assault is both an affirmation that no one is immune from the force of the law and a depressing reminder of how those with power and influence typically believe they are far above the petty concerns of human decency and respect for others.

To say that everyone of a certain age is confused about finding out that Bill Cosby, Mr. Jell-O Pudding Pops, was in the habit of drugging and assaulting women—many, many women, apparently—is a stupendous understatement. Although he has been mostly out of the public eye in recent years—in part because of the mounting evidence of his criminal behavior—no one who came of age in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s could escape his mirthful and beneficent presence. He was America’s dad—no doubt about it.

Reading the comments on the media posts concerning Mr. Cosby’s conviction, one senses a collision of vindication and dismay. Bill Cosby was, as much as we might want to now conveniently forget it, a trailblazer who transformed the portrayal of African-Americans on television by presenting smart, compassionate professionals—super spy, teacher, and doctor—on a series of hit shows. It would be difficult to overestimate his influence in changing the perceptions—and correcting the misperceptions—of so many Americans across many decades. To now discover the twisted and cruel soul behind those sterling performances feels like the worst possible betrayal to his many, many former fans.

Nonetheless, knowledge is much healthier than fantasy, and this conviction will likely be a signal moment in the ongoing national debate—and painful reckoning—regarding the sexual harassment and assault of the past and present. To learn what we now know about Bill Cosby’s behavior is part of a necessary maturation of our society’s attitudes regarding the daily interactions of men and women.

Every moment of every day the sexes commune in ways that are typically mundane and sometimes profound or life-changing—and which must always be respectful of necessary and perfectly reasonable boundaries of privacy and personhood. We are still, of course, not where we need to be—yet. Sadly, both women and men still often shout across a divide where the differences between compliments and insults, flirting and harassment, or honesty and deception still sometimes feels like a common language is lacking. Add in our very human and messy sexual desires, and we have fertile ground for the misunderstandings and misgivings that cause many to cut off communication altogether because they fear being misinterpreted—or worse.

Many women still feel that Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump—a man who once gleefully described how she was “schlonged” by Barack Obama during her 2008 presidential run—is emblematic of the deep river of sexism that still runs through our society, and one would need to be very blind or foolish to fail to notice that women are still many times not accorded the respect that is their due. Indeed, however one might feel about Hillary Clinton’s policy positions or public record, it is sad to remember the many humiliations she has had to endure—ranging from America’s weird obsession with her hairstyles while First Lady to a philandering and thoroughly disingenuous husband—during her long and accomplished career. Many women understood and forgave her faults because they had experienced similar pain in their own lives, and they felt like the voters’ dismissal of her in favor of Donald Trump was a confirmation of all their worst fears regarding their own shaky status in American society.

Now that Hugh Hefner has gone to his eternal rest, perhaps we can now likewise bury his adolescent Playboy philosophy that is perhaps understandable in twelve year old boys but is still unseemly, nonetheless. Keeping firmly in mind that our nation’s past has never been as innocent as we might like to believe and idiocy can never be entirely eliminated, perhaps we can at least resolve to speak courteously, behave responsibly, and listen thoughtfully when around the opposite sex.

The divides between men and women are likely not so insurmountable as we might sometimes believe, and if we can all be a little open and honest regarding our own faults and shortcomings—no one is perfect—that might ease some of the anger that men and women sometimes feel toward one another. I know we can all agree that what Bill Cosby has been convicted of doing is wrong—wrong on every level and in every possible way. That might provide a basis for a dialogue regarding how our pervasive hookup culture and media misogyny has degraded and debased both men and women—and how healing and understanding requires a broad-based commitment to rejecting our worst instincts in favor of our highest aspirations. There is a lot of pain, bitterness, and confusion to be found all around us in both men and women; restoring the health of our relationships is a shared responsibility that we can either shun or embrace.

Breaking down those walls and dialing down the defensiveness will not be easy for many because of past experiences that have made it difficult to trust one another again, but the alternative is loneliness and an empty existence. Therefore, just how hard of a choice is this to make—really?