RoseTea

Dear 2026 and 2028,
I’m looking for the “no trauma” candidates. Can you supply winners?

A fear of losing dominance will drive wild and wily behaviors to keep it. Confrontation unleashes that fear in those who value dominance above all else. We must be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove to quell such threat responses. Populists & demagogues quake from the fear within.

I sometimes wonder if something of a frenzy for respect drove the divisions and fear we see. As a child I learned how quickly reactionary violence could be triggered. Contemporary out-groups who used to be otherwise privileged, wanting change now are finding out about the ugly underbelly of fear.

Took in my morning dose of news—the NYT and my local public radio station. Stopped when sadness crept in. I wake each morning thankful for this life. That quickly turns to questions to the Source of All Being about protecting my children, grandchildren, and generations to come. Still discerning.

Thank you. This is news.

…”Republican”…

The key to winning back hearts, minds, and faith in our constitutional democracy is in messaging, “feeling the pain,” and making it just safe enough to reawaken trust in our institutions. I think that means rekindling belief in the power we voters have to say what we want rather than what we reject.

For my dad, aging meant hours watching The History Channel and reliving WWII. For me, it’s getting back to the basics of discourse, sociolinguistics, and communication, as well as attending to the languages in play as we wrestle with our politics.

I turned to these and other books as I absorbed the sweep of “Republic” (the new Republican) rhetoric during the campaign. I sought a class in rhetoric during undergrad. The only available class was in propositional logic; too limited.

…those who don’t realize they’re being fed reactionary ideas wrapped in lamb’s clothing.

The modern intellectual tradition: From Descartes to Derrida by Lawrence Cahoone. These have brought up pleasant memories of graduate study. The point, however, is packaging these ideas in everyday language. There’s already a gut-punch anti-intellectual reaction among

Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning, 2nd edition, by David Zarefsky. It might have been in the chapter on commonplace arguments and form—I’m using Audible. I’ve also been “re-reading” …

…could be tough to discourse on this topic in 300 characters. I’d love to host a virtual salon. Any takers?

I’m reading (again) Zarefsky’s Argumentation. Let’s take care to own our terms and coin language as effectively as those who are corrupting key social concepts with oversimplified, distorted redefinitions.