Speaking out in support of recovery

Addiction and Recovery column

By Bob Gaydos

One of the rituals of the state Legislature is Advocacy Day, when groups from around the state descend on Albany to try to convince legislators to pass laws or allocate funds to aid the group’s particular cause. On such days, when time with legislators or their aides is at a premium, it pays to have a clear voice and a distinct mission.

But that’s not enough. On a recent trip to Albany, a new local group was told by one of the region’s legislators, “You don’t have a constituency.”

Cold, hard fact: A good cause isn’t enough to pry money or legislation out of the Legislature. You need a large enough group of citizens -- voters -- who support your cause.

For addicts, families and friends of addicts, people in the addiction treatment field, this constituency has been hard to come by. By and large, addiction (which includes alcoholism) has been looked upon as a behavioral issue or a crime issue, rather than a mental health issue. It is easy enough to get laws passed regulating the use of drugs, but extremely difficult to get laws passed and money dedicated to promoting treatment and recovery programs for those who become addicted to them.

It’s the stigma attached to the disease. Because of much of the harmful behavior associated with it -- symptoms of the disease -- addiction has until recently been treated in the shadows, something to be hidden, not talked about, cloaked in shame. Recovery, especially long-term recovery, has not even been part of the conversation. Many people not familiar with addiction don’t even know it is possible.   

The group that visited Albany recently is part of a movement that is trying to change all that. It’s called Friends of Recovery Orange. There are similar groups in nearby counties and a statewide Friends of Recovery New York. They are made up of people affected by addiction in one way or another who want to give voice to the idea that recovery is real and possible and, indeed, something to be celebrated in society.

At a recent meeting, some members discussed why they decided to join the movement. Elizabeth, from Port Jervis, said, “I have a child who is an addict. It started with pain killers. There’s been jail, drugs, a vicious cycle. I believe he was denied proper treatment in the beginning because insurance wouldn’t pay for it.”

Rob, a treatment professional, said people seeking treatment are often turned down because their insurance company won’t cover the cost.

Eliminating barriers to getting help -- including not letting insurance companies decide what level of treatment is appropriate -- is one of the goals of the group.

Lisa and Joe were there for a different reason. “We lost our son to an overdose a little over a year ago,” Lisa said. “We didn’t know what to do. He died within three months of us finding out about his addiction.”

The stated mission of Friends of Recovery Orange is: “To promote a positive view of recovery from addictions and to educate communities about the effective outcomes associated with receiving appropriate information, treatment and recovery support.”

It’s basic: The more people know about addiction and recovery, the fewer young people are likely to die of it.

Another cold, hard fact: The growing constituency for supporting recovery from addiction coincides with the sharp increase in deaths due to opiods and heroin. James Conklin, director of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council of Orange County, is helping the group coordinate its efforts. He says an attempt to start such a movement was made six years ago, but went nowhere.

“I think the big difference today is what’s going on with opiates and heroin,” he said. “People are outraged; more people are dying.” And, the heroin epidemic “hit new neighborhoods, new families,” he said. Suddenly, everyone’s son or daughter was possibly at risk. And suddenly, politicians are more likely to listen to calls for treating addiction as a public health issue, eliminating barriers to getting help, creating a recovery system that engages and supports people to reclaim a meaningful life -- all part of FOR-NY’s mission

Going to Albany to advocate for money or legislation to help addicts recover is not an easy task. FOR-Orange members all have different stories to explain why they are doing it: Those who have a family member in long-term recovery; friends, employers or neighbors of people in recovery; family members whose loved one has not found recovery; persons in long-term recovery; and family members whose loved ones have died as a result of their addiction. They learn how to share their stories so that people in a position to help the cause of recovery do more than just empathize or sympathize with them.

FOR-NY believes that “everyone achieves recovery in his or her own way” and that “adequate resources and support are necessary for sustained recovery.” To this aim, among the things members encouraged legislators to support are:

• Recovery community centers in each county, to help persons new to recovery to take the next steps. Often, people leave rehab with no plan on what to do next.
• Recovery coaches in each county, to help those new to recovery make sober decisions.
• Family recovery navigators in each county to help families on their new journey.
• Expanded access to treatment paid by health insurance for anyone who wants treatment, when they want it.
• Physician education on addiction and recovery.
• Addiction counseling for patients on suboxone.

Conklin and all those associated with this movement recognize that achieving these goals will require reducing the stigma attached to addiction by educating and informing those not directly impacted by it. The belief is this will increase the visibility of recovery, thereby increasing the constituency for change.

Lori, another FOR-Orange member, said, “My family was impacted by the alcoholism of my great-grandfather. Everyone grew up with the results of his alcoholism. I have many family members in recovery today. A lot of people don’t know their families were involved in addiction. I want people who don’t have families in addiction to know that recovery can have positive outcomes.”

Those outcomes can add up to a sizable benefit for society.

To get  involved …

• Friends of Recovery Orange meets at the offices of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council of Orange County on the first Wednesday of every month at 6 p.m. 224A Main Street, Goshen, NY
• (845) 294-9000 ext. 225
• friendsofrecoveryorange@gmail.com
• website: friendsofrecovery-orange.org
• www.for-ny.org
• (518) 487-4395

Bob Gaydos is a freelance writer. He may be reached at rjgaydos@gmail.com.

My love/hate relationship with squats

By Bob Gaydos

       A while back I started writing about lifestyle changes I’ve made since I retired from daily newspapering.  A new diet, low on sugar and salt, no red meat, high in vegetables, fruits, fish, nuts and Greek yogurt (frozen and not). A regular (more or less) exercise/workout regimen. Vitamin supplements. I feel, look and am a lot healthier than when I embarked on the changes.

I’ve also discovered something about life: There is no statute of limitations on it offering stuff for which I have no love. For example, I used to hate trigonometry. I could do it, but who decided we needed it? Also, I was not a fan of creamed spinach. Whose idea was that?

I don’t hate either anymore because I don’t have anything to do with them anymore. In college, I decided (with the strong suggestion of a faculty adviser) to pursue writing as a career instead of engineering. So I retired my slide rule (remember them?), abandoned sines, cosines and tangents, and plugged in my electric typewriter (remember them?) to focus on spelling, punctuation and good grammar (please remember them).

   Creamed spinach was a non-starter at our first encounter. I hated it. Today, however, raw or sauteed spinach is welcome in my diet.

Today, I have something else to hate: Squats.

For the uninformed (or possibly out-of-shape), that’s a physical exercise, not a vegetable. If you can only do one exercise, it’s the one to do because it works so many different muscles. At least that’s what my fitness coach keeps telling me.

Yes, I have a fitness coach, another step in my evolution from layabout slug to septaugenarian with his eye on 100. She’s also my partner. Once a week, my partner/coach and I do an hour-and-half weight-training regimen -- dumbbells, weight machines, rollouts and squats. (I’m not overly fond of rollouts either, but let’s stick to squats for now.) The dumbbells have slowly increased in weight with time and with my development of some actual muscle.

Honestly, the workout is not yet what I would call fun. Maybe that’s why they call it a workout. Still, with increased strength overall has come increased self-confidence and I do like the results.

But squats are a killer. And, not to make excuses, I came to the exercise with a couple of physical issues. My right ankle is fused as a result of being shattered in a game of touch football many years ago and my left foot and lower leg experience varying degrees of numbness due to diabetic neuropathy. Bottom line: My squats won’t look like your squats because of necessary adjustments.

Whether my leg issues make my squats any harder to do than they are for someone without such physical issues, I don’t know. It’s not important. I do know I couldn’t manage even one squat the first time I was asked to do so. I kept losing my balance and falling over. This was embarrassing and frustrating and the root of several arguments between me and my partner/coach.

Gradually (and with considerable difficulty and complaining), I managed to do a couple of squats without falling over. It has been a slow go since then, with considerable adjustment. When we started working with a bodybuilding trainer in a well-equipped gym a year ago, I used the solid, metal legs of a chinning bar to help keep my balance as I went up and down with grunts and groans. There was also a full-length mirror that I could look at and remind myself to keep my head up and not bend over. Most of the time, I used it to check and make sure I was still breathing.  

Recently, I groaned my way through 20 squats without using anything to keep my balance, took a break, and did 20 more. Wiped out. But not done. The trainer -- whose job is to always think you can do one or two more reps of whatever the exercise is -- has added a new torture. I do squats while holding a metal bar over my head while he and my partner hold the ends to make sure I don’t fall over and injure myself.

I did 20 of these the last time and could barely walk when I was done. As I write this, my legs have still not fully recovered and my glutes are periodically achey. My partner/coach says it’s all good and she likes the new muscle tone in my legs, as do I. I also confess to a feeling of accomplishment for having survived, if not conquered, the challenge of squats.

Don’t get me wrong. I still hate them. It’s hard to believe I will ever feel otherwise. But I’ve learned (late in life, as with all my lessons), that I can survive and even benefit from something I hate. Besides, for now at least, no one can say of me, “He can’t do squat.” 

bobgaydos.blogspot.com                          

Iowa eccentricities: Heads I win, Bernie, tails you lose

By Bob Gaydos

Bernie Sanders

Three questions in the wake of whatever it was that just happened in Iowa:

• Can anyone -- preferably a Democrat -- tell me what Hillary Clinton stands for? In other words, what is her message?
• Why do mainstream media assume there's no way Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, never mind the presidency?
• Since when does winning an election, or caucus or whatever else you may call it depend on the flip of a coin?

Let's start with Hillary. As far as I can tell, after 16 years (at least) of running for president, the only message I still hear is that Hillary should be president because she's been around, she wants it and it's her turn. She's been patient through Bill's years in the White House and she's been running ever since they had to vacate (penniless, I believe she initially claimed).

Yes, she took time to serve as senator from New York, but that really was necessary to fill out the resume for a presidential run. Being secretary of state was a bittersweet consolation prize for losing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, who apparently never got the memo that it was Hillary's turn to run. It certainly topped off her resume.

Yet all I hear is that she's really smart, has a lot of experience, knows a lot of stuff and will do a good job of running things. Now, that's clearly more than can be said of pretty much all of the Republican presidential candidates, but she's not running against any of them yet.What is she going to do as president? What is she going to change about a system with which Americans of all political persuasions are disenchanted, to say the least? Maybe it's me, but all I hear is that she'll do a good job, even a better job, of managing what Obama leaves behind.

A lot of the major media seem to have bought into this message. That was pretty much the essence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the Iowa primary. Hillary has the experience to carry on the way we have been carrying on.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the New York Times, and other establishment media that support her candidacy, a lot of Americans don't seem to want to carry on the way we've been carrying on. That's undoubtedly why a lot of young people, not thrilled with the future being crafted for them, have flocked to the Sanders candidacy.

In fact, it seems to be why a lot of people have flocked to a host of Republican candidates who are anything but establishment figures. The fact that virtually all of them aren't qualified to be president is another matter.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has done a pretty good job cleaning up the mess left by Bush/Cheney. He's done this in the face of non-stop resistance from Republicans from his first day in office. There's no reason to believe that Clinton, no favorite of congressional Republicans, will have any easier time of it in that regard. Furthermore, her ties to the banking industry and corporate America (through Bill and the Clinton Foundation), cast serious doubt on any claim she might make that she is different from Republicans. (Her claim the other night that she is not part of the Democratic Establishment is laughable.)

And, as I recall, she couldn't get her healthcare plan through a Democratic Congress in Bill's first term. How does that make her a manager who "gets things done"? It's a claim that much of major media have apparently accepted as fact because she and her supporters keep saying it: 

Why Hillary? Because she's a manager.

Sanders, by contrast, is an "eccentric" senator with "unruly" hair, as he was characterized in an Associated Press story the morning after the Iowa caucus. This was supposedly a straight news story reporting on the outcome of the caucus. There were no adjectives attached to Clinton's name implying some not-so-subtle judgment. Where were the editors?

Again, maybe it's just me, but when someone writing in Iowa describes Sanders, with a lifetime in public service, as "eccentric," I can't help but wonder if it's code for 74-year-old Jew who still speaks with the accent of his native Brooklyn. New Yorkers are pretty good at cracking codes.

As for that Iowa vote, what a joke. Clinton claimed victory after edging Sanders by less than three-tenths of a point. Democrats don't even vote privately in Iowa. They stand in opposite corners and try to convince others to join them. The biggest group gets the delegates from that district. When there's a tie, they split the delegates -- two for you, two for you. But when there's an odd number of delegate at stake, the odd vote is awarded by flipping a coin. Clinton won six out of six flips -- go figure -- so she got a couple more delegates than Sanders. That is no smashing victory!

Even here, major media (NPR even) felt it necessary to weigh in after the fact to educate us that Clinton didn't win Iowa on coin flips. Rather, they spelled out the entire ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated system by which Iowa Democrats award convention delegates. Seems there's county delegates and state delegates and who-the-heck cares delegates and formulas for calculating percentage of delegates. It's a system set up by the establishment to try to control the votes, so that candidates like Bernie Sanders, from Brooklyn via Vermont, can't win.

But he did. The "virtual tie" was a statement for Sanders against the establishment -- Democratic Party and major media.

My humble recommendations:

• For Clinton: Figure out what you really stand for and tell us. If you think you have to be a shill for banks and corporations in order to be effective as president, tell us why. At least it would be honest.
• For the major media: Listen and report the facts. Ask questions about real issues. Stop with the horse-race reporting based on polls. Do your job.
• Iowa Democrats: Have a simple vote, privately, for convention delegates. No coin flips. In case of ties, split the baby, as Solomon said. In this case, it works.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

The 'worst thing' can actually happen -- talk to your kids about alcohol

Addiction and Recovery

By Bob Gaydos

Talk to your kids about alcohol before
they start drinking.

What's the worst thing that could possibly happen?

It's a question all parents should ask themselves when considering any event involving teenagers and alcohol. In fact, it's a question teenagers should ask themselves about any event involving them and drinking.

Unfortunately, even on the rare occasion when the question is asked, the “worst thing” seldom comes to mind. Until it happens. It happened New Year's Day in the Town of Crawford in upstate New York and a young man is dead and several people’s lives have been dramatically impacted.

A fight broke out at a party in a private home in which, police say, about 100 young people, most believed to be underage, were drinking. A 20-year-old male who tried to break up the fight was stabbed to death. Police are still looking for his killer. There were no adults present at the party, according to police.

According to New York state law, the parents whose teenaged children hosted the party could be liable for fines. Lawsuits are possible. It's called the social host law and its intent is to discourage underage drinking at parties in private homes by imposing penalties on persons responsible for overseeing the home when minors other than their children consume alcohol. Some New York counties have their own social host laws, which are tougher than the state’s. Orange County, where the killing occurred, is considering adopting one.

Such punitive laws -- essentially designed to protect us from ourselves -- are necessary in our society because the preventive approach is too often ignored. That approach consists of parents educating their young children -- preteens or young teens -- on the risks of drinking alcohol before they are physically, mentally and emotionally able to handle it and, yes, letting them know they do not approve of them drinking if they are not of legal age.

A common response to this suggestion is that kids don't listen to their parents and teens are going to rebel and drink anyway, because all

their friends do. If we don’t let them drink, the thinking goes, they’ll be ostracized. So let's teach them to drink responsibly when they’re young. That way they won’t have problems with alcohol when they are older.

Well, the National Institutes of Health, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, the Treatment Research Institute, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Department of Justice and pretty much any organization that has studied the impact of alcohol consumption on young people, disagree with that view. The research all says that, despite a widespread assumption to the contrary:

• Parents still have the most influence on their children, especially when they are young;

• Having conversations, not lectures, with children about your feelings on alcohol before they begin drinking (eighth grade is not too soon) will have more influence than if they have already started;
• Even in later teen years, parents can still exert major influence on their children’s behavior.

The reasons for focusing on teenagers and alcohol have been discussed in this column before, but, briefly, teens who drink are more likely:

• to be victims of violent crime,
• to be involved in alcohol-related traffic crashes
• to have serious school-related problems
• to develop alcohol dependence than persons who wait until adulthood to start drinking

The earlier the child starts drinking, the greater the odds of some of those problems developing. This comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which also says, “The bottom line is that most young teens don’t yet drink. And parents’ disapproval of youthful alcohol use is the key reason children choose not to drink.”

The NIAAA has an excellent pamphlet for parents who are unsure about whether to or how to talk to their children about alcohol. It’s not unusual to be uncomfortable with the subject and each situation is different, but dealing honestly with uncomfortable issues and modeling responsible behavior are proven ways to help children make responsible decisions when they’re on their own. The pamphlet is called “Make a Difference. Talk to Your Children About Alcohol.” http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/MakeADiff_HTML/makediff.htm

When the worst possible thing happens, it gets people’s attention. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is. At the very least, the New Year’s Day tragedy presents an opportunity to remind ourselves that there are positive ways to deal with difficult issues and help available in doing so. Now that we’ve got your attention, talk to your kids about alcohol.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

For more information

-- Partnership for Drug-Free Kids

(212) 922–1560

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/

-- National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD)

(212) 269–7797; Fax: (212) 269–7510

http://www.ncadd.org

-- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

(301) 443–3860

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov

-- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

National Drug Information Treatment and Referral Hotline

(800) 662–HELP (4357) (toll free)

http://www.findtreatment.samhsa.gov

-- MADD

24-hour Victim Help Line

(877) MADD--HELP

www.madd.org

-- Partnership for Drug-Free KIds

1-855-DRUGFREE

www.drugfree.org

A 12-Step test: Is AA for you?

Addiction and Recovery

By Bob Gaydos

Perhaps the most important tool of recovery from alcoholism is self- honesty. In a society that often seems to revolve around drinking, it’s a rare person who easily admits he or she can’t drink the way everyone else seems to be able to do. Socially. Responsibly.

Two things about that:

1. Not everyone else is drinking socially or responsibly. It’s difficult to know what’s really going on in people’s lives away from social settings.
2. Acknowledging that one can’t “drink like everyone else” is not an admission of weakness. It’s an acceptance of reality that can be a lifesaver. That’s where the self-honesty comes in.

Many people who are successful in recovery from alcoholism spend a good deal of time looking at themselves. Examining their motives. Judging their actions. It’s a way of warding off some of the things that alcoholics can use as excuses to drink.

Self-inventory is a critical part of the 12-Step recovery pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous 75 years ago. Three of the 12 steps specifically deal with inventory-taking. Obviously, honesty is crucial to the process.

But the first honest moment for an alcoholic comes in admitting there’s a problem. Accepting it may have to come later. To help people determine if their drinking is something other than social, AA World Services has created a 12-step questionnaire. It’s the first step at what is hoped to be honest self-appraisal.

At this time of year, with people typically looking back at what was and perhaps looking forward to changing some things, it seemed like a good time to offer the AA questionnaire. There are other, similar questionnaires, some of which are used as diagnostic tools. This test can be taken privately, right now. Above all, for your own sake, be honest.

Is A.A. For You?

Answer YES or NO to the following questions.

1. Have you ever decided to stop drinking for a week or so, but only lasted for a couple of days?

Yes  No

2. Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking-- stop telling you what to do?

Yes  No

3. Have you ever switched from one kind of drink to another in the hope that this would keep you from getting drunk?

Yes  No

4. Have you had to have an eye-opener upon awakening during the past year?

Yes  No

5. Do you envy people who can drink without getting into trouble?

Yes  No

6. Have you had problems connected with drinking during the past year?

Yes  No

7. Has your drinking caused trouble at home?

Yes  No

8. Do you ever try to get "extra" drinks at a party because you do not get enough?

Yes  No

9. Do you tell yourself you can stop drinking any time you want to, even though you keep getting drunk when you don't mean to?

Yes  No

10. Have you missed days of work or school because of drinking?

Yes  No

11. Do you have "blackouts"?

(A "blackout" is when you have been drinking hours or days which you cannot remember. This is a pretty sure sign of alcoholic drinking.)

Yes  No

12. Have you ever felt that your life would be better if you did not drink?

Yes  No

According to AA, if you answered YES four or more times, you are probably in trouble with alcohol. The organization says this is based on results of thousands of people in A.A. saying so for many years. It also says, “Remember, there is no disgrace in facing up to the fact that you have a problem.”

If the results suggest a problem, it doesn’t mean you must go to AA for help, but you might want to consult a professional for verification and possible treatment. Or, you can go to an AA meeting. Maybe do both.

Help

• Alcoholics Anonymous: http://www.aa.org/
• AA Orange County: http://www.orangenyaa.org/; (845) 534-8525
• AA Sullivan County: (845) 295-1010
• AA Ulster County: (845) 331-6360
• National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence: national@ncadd.orgwww.ncadd.org
• Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Council of Orange County: www.adacinfo.com; (845) 294-9000
• Recovery Center, Monticello: 845-794-8080

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Nothing grand about this old party today

By Bob Gaydos

Donald Trump, the face of the GOP?

I almost don’t know where to start with this. The disintegration of the Republican Party, from a proud political party dedicated to the advancement of its view of the American way of life into a hostile, bigoted, fearful, reactionary group beholden to wealthy forces that care only for enhancing their own way of life, has left me confused, angry, fearful and sad.

It’s not just the sorry collection of presidential candidates the party has put forth. Nor is it just the inability of a Republican-led Congress to do anything but oppose every initiative by a Democratic president and, out of pique, shut down the entire government. And it’s not just the utter disrespect the party that constantly spouts patriotism demonstrates for the Office of President at every opportunity.

What confuses and saddens me the most is the apparent willingness of rank-and-file Republicans and Republican officials at every level of government to sit quietly by as if to say that everything Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Fiorina, Rubio, Bush, Paul, et al say is OK. No problem. So it’s a lie. So it’s hateful. So it’s racist. So it’s stupid. So it's unconstitutional. So it’s inflammatory. So it’s really not the American way. So what? We’re okay with it.

Why do I feel this way? Because I don’t hear any Republican saying otherwise. Have you heard a Republican mayor, council member, county legislator, county executive, state legislator, governor, district attorney, etc. say publicly that Donald Trump’s utterings are racist, fascist and play to people’s fears? That they could lead to violent behavior on the part of individuals who feel justified because, after all, they are only responding to the words of the leading Republican presidential candidate?

I haven’t. Not one. Republican presidential candidates only began dumping on Trump recently when he said that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. Some party leaders joined them in criticizing Trump. This was apparently one Trump too much for them. It’s not what America stands for, they said. Not what the Republican party stands for, they said.

True. But Trump has been saying ugly stuff like this for weeks with no one complaining. Especially no rank-and-file Republicans. Did they expect him to stop on his own?

I know they're out there, those rank-and-files. I live in the middle of them. And I know that some of them certainly don't agree with much of what Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Paul, Bush, Carson, Christie and the rest have had to say about immigrants, guns, global warming, and Planned Parenthood, not to mention threatening Social Security.

While I have never belonged to any political party, I understand and respect their function in our society. I don't understand how longtime Republicans have let a super-conservative, ultra-religious, anti-science, anti-education, anti-government, anti-fact fringe element take control of their party without managing so much as a murmur of disagreement.

Sarah Palin was the warning flare. She was photogenic, but embarrassingly dumb. But she was the Republican candidate for vice president. Trump, Cruz and Carson are merely the culmination of years of Obama-bashing and dancing to the orders of Fox News and the brothers Koch. As the messages grew angrier and uglier, always rooted in fear and fiction, Republicans marched merrily, unquestioningly, along.

To Donald Trump. An adolescent bigot and misogynist with a huge ego, a couple of billion dollars in the bank and no allegiance whatsoever to the Republican Party. How dumb is that?

If Republicans now blow their party up in a desperate attempt to convince Americans that the American Way is the way of old, angry, closed-minded, resentful, greedy, white men who are constantly being told the government is their enemy, Rupert Murdoch will lose no sleep. His Fox News puppets will find another flock to boost their ratings and sell their books. The Koch brothers will find others to carry their water, selling their principles for generous campaign contributions. And Trump will go on being Trump, a reality TV star divorced from reality.

A two-party political system depends on at least a minimal effort by both parties to work together for the common good. If one party is, instead, intent on opposing everything the other proposes and does so in an increasingly hostile, intractable manner, there is no governing. It’s merely making lots of noise, fueling fear and anger among voters in the hopes of gaining power. It is a cynical, dangerous philosophy that can infect the entire body politic if allowed to go unchecked. That’s why I am frightened of this unwillingness by Republicans to call out the fear-mongers in their midst.

The Republican Party has been festering for years under the threat of Tea Party retaliation for those who dare to disagree. Just look at the sorry example of former House Speaker John Boehner. That festering sore has erupted in the form of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie and all the rest.

Even George Pataki, former New York governor and comparatively sensible Republican presidential candidate, is not immune. Pataki has declared, correctly, that Trump is "unfit to be president." But with his showing in the presidential polls at less than one percent, Pataki felt it necessary to declare war on ‘’radical Islam.” Send in the troops, kill them all, he Tweeted. His poll numbers didn't budge.

He has obviously been in the wrong political party from the beginning of this campaign, but not to worry. Pretty soon there won't be a Republican Party, at least not one to which he and all those other silent Republicans once belonged. That Big Tent they once spoke of has been folded and stuck in the garage. Sorry, women, Mexicans, gays, blacks, Muslims, college students, union members, atheists, scientists … Maybe some other time.

There’s nothing grand about this old party today.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com