Not-hating Trump

Not-hating Trump

 [Oct. 30, 2019:  The first draft of this piece was written several months before the beginning of the impeachment inquiries.  This makes the challenge of Not-hating even more daunting.]

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,

            from “Serenity Prayer”

                         Reinhold Niebuhr

Yesterday Notre Dame de Paris burned.  It was the biggest news of the day.  For one day, it threatened to knock Donald Trump down to page 2, and he couldn’t stand it.  He had to insert himself into the story somehow, so he tweeted this: “So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!”

 As if no one else in Paris or the rest of the world had any idea what to do!  In one sense, the tweet was quite an accomplishment:  In twenty-seven words, he managed not only to show his stupidity, childishness and arrogance, but to embarrass his fellow Americans.  Again.

 "I think no Man ought to hanged for his Looks, but I am thankful to Providence, that the Dispositions of some Men are so strongly express'd in their Countenances, that they only need to be seen to be despised."  --Resident of Rhode Island writing about a Tory politician in the Colonies, 1757.

Every day, it seems, he needs to check in with the world to embarrass us again.  He is addicted to thrusting forward his swollen ego, no matter what—no one can stop him--lest one single day go by when he isn’t at the top of the news. He can't help it.

Granted, as Trump behavior goes, it wasn’t a big deal; not even close to the most hateful, harmful or idiotic thing he has done.   I'll not even mention his lying, cheating, incompetence, and sexual predation, nor his wrong-headed political views.

It was just another stupid, unnecessary demonstration, just another instance of why I hate him. Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.

I can’t stand Trump.  I detest him, loathe him.  I want him to go away, to cease to exist. I’ve wanted him to be gone since long before the election in 2016.  

Is my hatred for him irrational?  Yes, probably, but he has given me more solid reasons to hate him than anyone I can remember, and that includes Nixon and Reagan, both of whom I hated mightily.  You others who hate Trump--the millions of you here in the U.S. and around the world—you understand how I feel.  Those of you who love Trump, or merely tolerate him, or who dislike him but somehow believe he’s good for the country—well, I can only claim that, based on real evidence, your feelings for him are more irrational than mine.

If you like Trump, I think there is something wrong with you, and you won’t want to read this piece anyway.  It’s not about you or Trump; it’s about me. I have come to the uncomfortable realization that because I hate Trump, there’s something wrong with me.

My problem is that I don’t want to hate anyone.  It’s disagreeable to find this feeling in my heart.  I sincerely want to stop hating Trump.

The purpose of this piece is just to explore the possibility of not-hating him.  If I can not-hate Trump, maybe I can eliminate hate from my heart entirely.  I’ll consider it a major challenge to take on in my later years.  

But first, with some embarrassment,  I have to make the full admission:  I wish he would die.  I want his existence to end. That would be the easiest way.   It seems so unjust that he goes on, talking, tweeting, eating, lying—living-- when good people I have known and loved are dead. 

Please note: I don’t want him to be assassinated; that would be too honorable an end for him.  I wish no more than he might suffer and die—and soon-- from some disease that takes the rest of us. My own loved ones, and many other I have admired, have suffered and died from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and alcoholism.  I wish no worse a fate for Trump.

Wishing the death of another is no small thing, and it's not easy to admit. I was chatting about it the other night with my wife.  Looking back, neither of us could recall a single instance when when we did have that wish.  Obviously, Trump is a special case, at least for us.  We believe it would improve the chances for a better world now and for generations to come.  Note also:  In general, my wife is a better human being than I am.  If she has the wish, then many more--millions I'm sure--have it, too.

Short of death, a severe stroke would be perfect for him.  We've had some personal experience.  In the spring of 2008, my wife’s brother Les had a stroke that almost killed him.  In retrospect, it would have been better if it had killed him.  The ischemic stroke (on the left side of his brain) rendered the right side of his body immobile and useless.  Even after extensive physical and occupational therapy, he was never again able to walk without assistance.  Nor could he speak comprehensibly.  What few things he could say were stock words and phrases “God dammit!, “Way, way, way,” “Yeah,” and “No.”  This condition is called aphasia, and in his case, it was almost total. 

  If there is any condition that would suit Trump, (short of death), this would be it:  He would be unable to talk!

Les lived on for eight and half years after his stroke.  He had no wife or children to help care for him, so he lived with us in our home for six years, where his sister, my wife, was his primary care-taker.  His state insurance paid for some in-home additional help; otherwise we would not have been able to have him with us.  As it happened, we did have to move him to a nursing home in 2015.  He passed away there in the fall of 2016, a year or two younger than Trump is now.  

I’m thinking also of Thich Nat Han, the Buddhist teacher and writer.  In 2014, at the age of 88, he suffered a massive stroke.  Now 92, even with his disabilities, he continues his spiritual life.  Here’s an update by his students:

“Despite not being able to speak as a result of his stroke, the monks and nuns write, Nhat Hanh remains active, participating in physiotherapy and sangha events when possible.
As is to be expected for someone so advanced in age recovering from a major stroke, there are times when Thay’s health is stronger, and other times when it is weaker. On good days, Thay is able to eat several small meals a day and join the sangha for walking meditation in his wheelchair, or perhaps participate in a formal meal in the meditation hall, eating with great concentration, dignity and presence. When he is with the sangha, Thay will often gesture, bright-eyed, to remind us to enjoy listening to the sound of the birds, or with a gentle smirk he will point to his mouth to remind us to smile. On good days, Thay has been able to offer his solemn presence and witness at ordination ceremonies, or his joyful presence at festivals, watching his students performs songs, skits and dances.”

Thich Nat Han

A similar stroke—or worse-- would be just the ticket for Trump.  (Again, please note:  I am wishing for him no worse a fate than that suffered by people I have admired and loved!)  With his money and large family (families), caring for him would be much easier than it was for us and most other people whose relatives suffer in this way.

Stroke of Luck:  The Trumps at Home. 

In fact, here’s a pitch for a new reality TV show depicting the Trump family’s trials at home taking care of the grumpy, stroke-addled old man.  It would be a fantastic opportunity for Melania, Ivanka, the boys and their kids to stay in the public eye, pushing the old man’s wheelchair around their penthouses and golf clubs, showing their undying devotion to The Donald. Die-hard Trumpophiles could still keep track daily of the old man and lavish their pity and concern on him. Maybe even his ex-wives and other celebrities would drop by from time to to time to pay their "respects."

It seems only right that Trump should have a wasting, incurable disease, and it would provide the additional benefit of allowing him sufficient time to look back on his life and repent.   

This brings us to the story of Lee Atwater.  He was the cocky GOP hack that George Bush the Elder picked as Republican Party Chairman before the 1988 election.  Atwater was the "brains" behind the smear campaign, including the infamous Willie Horton TV ad, that doomed Michael Dukakis's run for president in 1988.  By all accounts, Atwater was proud of his dirty, no-holds-barred campaign tactics.  (He took pride even in his extra-marital sexual conquests.)  The only thing that mattered to him was winning. (Remind you of anyone?)  The problem came when he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer at the age of 38.  He suddenly realized that he had been living his life all wrong  He converted to Catholicism and--there's no better word for it--repented.

Before he died, Atwater apologized to Dukakis for the "naked cruelty" he displayed in the 1988 campaign. He also wrote letters of amends to other people whom he had wronged.

In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The 1980s were about acquiring – acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul. [Wikipedia]

Who could resist these charmers?  Trump and Atwater in 1988. 

Trump told CNN that Lee had asked him if he'd be interested in being Bush's running mate.  But that, as everything else he says, should be taken cum grana salis.

It remains doubtful that Trump could ever learn on Atwaters's "dime."   He appears incapable of that kind of learning.   Another saying goes (I don't know whom to attribute it to): Any reasonably intelligent person will learn from his own mistakes.  A wise person will learn from others' mistakes.  By this logic, Trump is neither intelligent nor wise, and I remain pessimistic about the possibility of his repentance, even if he too is struck by a fatal illness.

Again, I cannot help but wonder why Trump does go on living.  He’s seventy-some years old.  That’s more than enough life for such a greedy, useless person.  (I hesitate here to use the term “human" in his case because he's done so little to justify that status.)

In fact, this one appalling injustice makes me wonder again whether it is better to be dead than alive. It’s an age-old question and beyond the scope of this short piece, but we’ll briefly return to it a later.

As stated above, as long as Trump so obstinately does continue to live on, the task remains to find a way to not-hate him. 

Words

One way to evade the problem, if not solve it, is to use other words.  Instead of “hate,” I can say “detest,” "despise," “loathe,” “abhor,” or even something fuzzier like “comtemn,” or more indirect, like “hold extreme disdain for.”  The English language is rich with words of extreme dislike.  This if ever is a case when I might profitably dust off my thesaurus; after all, my spiritual development is at stake.  

There is another good reason for this.  The word “hate," after all, is used in so many ways. We’re not dealing here with the kind of hate in “hate crime,” nor the kind when I say “I hate the Lakers,” or “I hate this cold weather,” or “I hate broccoli.”  (See below.)  The “hate” in question here is just a very strong antipathy toward another person--strong enough to wish for that person’s demise.   I realize now, as I write this, that I might profitably eliminate the word “hate” from my vocabulary, at least in the way I use it to express my own feelings toward other people, however disagreeable those people may be.  I can easily become more temperate in speech (and thought!) without sacrificing my lofty rhetoric and righteous opinions.

I can still "hate" the Lakers [1] and Duke, but not literally.  I just want them to lose every game.

Love your Enemies? 

For those of us brought up Christian—nominally, if not truly--there is a persistent pressure at least to acknowledge, if not embody, the rationale of not-hating.  And not just not-hating, but actually loving! The most famous religious example comes from Jesus himself:

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”


Luke 6:27-36 New International Version (NIV)

 

Nothing could be clearer.  I would emphasize one small detail, however.  Jesus does not say, “With no hope or expectation of reward.”  He does say, “Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High.”  [2]

Reward or not, this is an ideal very rarely practiced in any era of history before or after Jesus, of whom Mark Twain quipped, “There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him--early.”

Our Lord was not the first to expound this kind of radical morality.  Plato, some four hundred years earlier, using the persona and logic of his teacher Socrates, explored the topic in the Republic.   
Here he is chatting with his pal Polemarchus:

[Socrates]: “Isn’t a moral person a good human?”

“There is no doubt about that.”'
“It necessarily follows, Polemarchus, that people who are harmed become less moral.”

“So it seems.”

“Now, can musicians use music to make people unmusical?”
“Impossible.”

“Can skilled horsemen use their skill to make people bad horsemen?”

“No.”

“So can moral people use morality to make people immoral? Or in general can good people use their goodness to make people bad?”

“No, that’s impossible.”

“So harming people is not the function of a good person, but of his opposite.”

“I suppose so.”

“And is a moral person a good person?”

“Of course.”
“It is not the job of a moral person, then, Polemarchus, to harm a friend or anyone else, it is the job of his opposite, an immoral person.”

Plato. Republic.

And in another dialogue, Socrates says,
"Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons ; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our argument ? Or do you decline and dissent from this ? For this has been of old and is still my opinion ; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step." [Crito] 

Skip forward twenty-five centuries, to Mohandas K. Gandhi. Here are a few quotes I gathered by that revered enemy-lover: “Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.
“My freedom from hatred - I would even claim for myself individually, my love - for those who consider themselves to be my enemies, does not make me blind to their faults.

“A satyagrahi loves his so-called enemy even as he loves his friend. He has no enemy.”

Probably the most reasoned and nuanced rationale for enemy-loving comes from our own Martin Luther King, Jr. Just a few days ago I had the good fortune, and was greatly edified , to read his Sermon delivered at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, 17 November 1957. (I recommend this brilliant speech to anyone.)

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church

Rev. King refers to Jesus’s words in Luke 6:27-36, quoted above, but gives us much more, as in, 

“…far from being an impractical idealist, Jesus has become the practical realist. The words of this text glitter in our eyes with a new urgency. Far from being the pious injunction of a utopian dreamer, this command is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. Yes, it is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies.”

So there are many reasons, spiritual and practical, to make an honest attempt to love your enemies.  Even Trump.  The problem is how.

One way, possibly, is to make distinctions between the hated person and his/her ideology and behavior, as in:  Love the person but hate what he does/stands for. I may attempt to love Hitler, for instance, but abhor or “hate” his nationalism and genocide.  From this point of view, every human being, no matter his actions or inclinations, is equally deserving of love.  Therefore, if there is a God, then He loved Hitler and Milosevic in the same way that He loved Gandhi and Mother Theresa.  OK; that may be true for God, but it is not true for me.  I am not on God’s level. It may be true that God loves Trump, Roseanne Barr and the Dalai Lama in equal measure, but to me it doesn’t seem fair or logical.  But I cannot pretend to know the Mind and Heart of God (if there is One.)

Anyway, what does Trump stand for?  As far as I can tell, he has no coherent ideology.  Even Hitler was intelligent enough to write a book (Mein Kampf) about what he believed in, hateful though that was.  As for Trump, his magnum opus is something called The Art of the Deal, and he didn’t write (or even read) it himself.  So Trump’s ideology is only Trump, and it is not possible for me--at least not yet-- to separate what he “stands for” from his person.

“There’s a Bit of Good in the Worst of Us and a Bit of Bad in the Best of Us.”

It was difficult to find the originator of the above commonly quoted saw.  It has been attributed variously to John Truslow Adams (whoever he is), Edgar Cayce, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Louis Stevenson.  .

Whether or not he came up with the idea. Dr. King embroidered adroitly upon it in his Dexter Ave. Church speech:

A second thing that an individual must do in seeking to love his enemy is to discover the element of good in his enemy, and every time you begin to hate that person and think of hating that person, realize that there is some good there and look at those good points which will over-balance the bad points. I’ve said to you on many occasions that each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality. We’re split up and divided against ourselves. And there is something of a civil war going on within all of our lives. There is a recalcitrant South of our soul revolting against the North of our soul. And there is this continual struggle within the very structure of every individual life. There is something within all of us that causes us to cry out with Ovid, the Latin poet, “I see and approve the better things of life, but the evil things I do.” There is something within all of us that causes us to cry out with Plato that the human personality is like a charioteer with two headstrong horses, each wanting to go in different directions. There is something within each of us that causes us to cry out with Goethe, “There is enough stuff in me to make both a gentleman and a rogue.” There is something within each of us that causes us to cry out with Apostle Paul: “I see and approve the better things of life, but the evil things I do.”

Gandhi wrote: 
"Man and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. "Hate the sin and not the sinner" is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practised, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world."

The problem here is that I cannot discover one single thing in Trump that might possibly “overbalance the bad points.”  The Needle-in-a-Haystack principle comes into play. I am aware that I too am a uneven mixture of good and bad, as are my friends and loved ones..  Perhaps those that know (and love?) Trump can see his good points and love him for what he is, warts and all.  Perhaps his grandchildren enjoy playing with him and sitting on his lap and reading stories with him. (They can read to him!)  But I doubt it.  I personally would not allow small children, or animals, to be alone with him for even five minutes.  And even if I were able to detect something good in him, however small, it would not allow me to love the despicable entirety of him.

Even Gandhi and King realized that loving one’s enemy wasn’t an easy thing to do; it requires effort and work.  Perhaps, though, just not-hating will be a more realistic goal for someone (like me) not born with such spiritual talent.  

One last note on this topic:  Each of the four illustrious men quoted above were executed or assassinated.  That’s something perhaps you should remember before making a firm commitment to loving your enemies.[3]

A Sick Man

That brings us to a new point.  Trump is not a well man.  Many have pointed to his narcissism, going so far as to call it a diagnosable personality disorder.  But unfortunately, it isn’t one that excuses his countless obtrusions into an unwilling world.  In fact, it only exacerbates his mischief, and my hatred—excuse me, my extreme disdain-- for him.  

Besides narcissism, there are many signs that Trump suffers from some form(s) of senile dementia.  His difficulties with language, inability to read or concentrate, irritability, angry outbursts, difficulty with problem-solving and complex tasks, inability to separate illusion from reality; all point to dementia.  His father Fred died from Alzheimer’s, albeit at the ripe old age of 93.  

Alzheimer’s took former president Reagan as well—finally.  It was clear to many observers that he was suffering early symptoms of the disease while he was president and leader of the Free World, especially during his second term, 1985-89.  I despised him when he was president, but my feelings softened somewhat after learning that he was terminally ill.

Likewise, I hated Nixon less after he’d been forced out of office and he became ill.

If Trump is ill, suffering from dementia, it would make it much easier to not-hate him.  At the same time, it might be difficult to avoid harboring a feeling of “It serves him right.”

It's a touchy subject to bring up with us aging baby-boomers.  Many of us have seen our parents suffer from various forms of cognitive impairment in the their later years.  Many of us are currently taking care of them.  Sometimes we have had to hide the car keys.  And we know that we're next. And by "next," I mean right now for many of us.  According to this month's (June 2019) AARP magazine, "Three out of 4 [Americans 65 or older] will have two or more serious health conditions. At least 1 in 4 can expect memory lapses and fuzzy thinking, while 1 in 10 will develop dementia."  And even 1 in 10 (which I think is an overly rosy estimate), means millions.  Thus, it gets more and more likely that we make mental mistakes just carrying on in our daily lives.  The "fuzzy thinking" mentioned above includes voting behavior as well.  But we don't want to admit it.  If we talk to a friend or family member whose memory is slipping, we'll excuse it, forgive it, and probably blame it on poor life-style choices. Alcohol, tobacco.  Meat, sugar, gluten, dairy.  Sleeplessness, lack of exercise.  Anxiety, worry, depression, despair.  Grief.

Meanwhile, they're thinking the same about us.  But here's a thing I can't quite understand:  We're quite willing to vote for 70+-year old politicians, (even liberals like Bernie or Biden), apparently thinking that they're somehow exempt from the mental deficits that naturally accrue to age, that afflict us and our loved ones. Just because they say so! They can't drive a car at night any more, but they're perfectly qualified to lead the country!  [4]

Freeloaders

Much recent research has been conducted on the “Free Rider Problem” in society.  Put simply, it postulates that a certain percentage of people (probably around 10%) will avoid productive, cooperative work and “let the suckers do it.”  This is true in non-human societies as well, such as (male) chimpanzees, baboons and lions.  Fortunately, humans and other animals have developed strategies to counteract it, such as shaming and ostracism, which keep the free-loading population relatively small.  It’s an evolutionary arms race, in which both behaviors contribute to ever more sophisticated social cooperation.  

Trump is an extreme example of a free rider.  Much has been made of the fact that he avoided military service during the Vietnam War, but so did many of us whose reasons were not just simple cowardice; in fact, unlike the vast majority of his fellow Americans, Trump has never performed any productive work at all.  He’s a con man.  He has amassed his fortune by inheritance and by persuading others to do work for him. In truth, that might be his only real talent.  An important part of his con (and this is true for most other wealthy Republicans as well), is to convince the middle and working classes that the real free riders are poor people and immigrants.  

The con worked so well that he was elected president in 2016, surprising even himself. Though he has never admitted it publicly, his main article of faith is in the stupidity and gullibility of the American public.

For a good, brief scholarly discussion see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/.

Natural Disasters

What I’m getting at here is more than just another reason—there are too many to list!-- why I hate (excuse me, detest) Trump.  This sort of behavior—free-riding—is natural, in the sense that it has evolved in humans and other animals—usually males—as a strategy to maximize survival and increase reproductive success.  Thus, it is possible to regard Trump’s ascendancy as a kind of natural disaster, like an earthquake or an epidemic disease.  To be sure, some disasters are unpreventable while others, like epidemics, are preventable, thanks to modern medical science.  I leave it to informed readers and political scientists to decide how to prevent the rise to power of tyrants, con men, and fools.  The point is that it doesn’t make sense to hate a disaster.  Shit happens, and eventually we just have to accept it and move forward. And this is the attitude that I'll try to adopt.  I might not like a disaster, but it would be silly either to love it or hate it.

My Own Motivations

By way of introduction, I must make yet another admission.  At some time in my life, I have been guilty of much of the bad behavior and attitudes that I blame Trump for. In my youth, I was at times boorish, arrogant, mean, sexist, unkind, and generally thoughtless.  And lest I forget, perhaps the most unpardonable (and most Trump-like) of my sins:  Pure, old-fashioned stupidity.  

In my case, the bad behavior was fueled mainly by drugs and alcohol, something that Trump cannot be accused of. [5]  But I’m not proud of it now, and I am very glad that my past isn’t known by every person on earth.  I have made my confessions to God and a few appropriate human beings.  

The point:   Much that I hate about Trump I also have hated about myself.  And so by not-hating Trump, perhaps I may be partially absolved for the misdeeds of my youth.

Sixty-eight years old, and I don’t want to live what's left of my life with any hatred in my heart, not even for Trump.  I’m not trying to put on the white robe and compete with anyone in a spiritual contest.  For me, it’s about survival, not about being goody-goody.  I’m a recovering alcoholic, and I belong to an organization (which I choose not to name) that advises persistent practice of spiritual principles, including patience, kindness, tolerance and love.  The consequences of not practicing these principles are relapse and death.  I want to be a better person for no other reason than to go on living.  

Which brings us back to the question:  Is it better to be alive or dead?  (Please excuse if it recalls the hackneyed "To Be or Not to Be" conundrum.)  Most of my favorite people have passed on.  Might it not be better just to get it over with and join them, and leave this sad physical world—and increasingly unjust society-- to Trump and his rotten ilk?  I don’t think the question can be answered with reason or logic.  Speaking only for myself, I just don’t feel like dying yet.  I’m like Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov:  

Dostoevsky

“Even if I do not believe in the divine order of things, the sticky young leaves emerging from their buds in the spring are dear to my heart; so is the blue sky and so are some human beings, even though I often don’t know why I like them.
I love those sticky little leaves and the blue sky, that’s what! You don’t love those things with reason, with logic, you love them with your innards, with your belly.”

Praying for Others

Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House of Reps., said this just yesterday, (May 22) about Trump:

"He just took a pass. And it just makes me wonder why he did that," she said. "I pray for the President of the United States. And I pray for the United States of America." Nancy Pelosi, (quoted on CNN, May 22, 2019.)

It was after he had done something particularly stupid and unnecessary—it doesn’t matter exactly what; as I mentioned before, it happens every day—and had put himself at the top of the news.  By all accounts, Ms. Pelosi is a devout Catholic and uses prayer, presumably,  as a way to get along with, if not directly influence, difficult people in the rough-and-tumble political world.  Good for her!

Her comments—not what Trump had done—caught my attention because it is something that I have tried before with some success, i.e., praying for someone who is causing me trouble or upsetting me.  It happened during early sobriety.  There was a person I worked with (this job was half a world away, in Indonesia), whose vagaries and constant stupid behavior were driving me crazy.  I mentioned this to an older friend who suggested that I pray for her.  The specific advice was:  Pray for her for thirty days straight.  I tried it and it seemed to work.  I didn't even have to go the whole 30 days.  Her behavior didn’t change much, but my own feelings toward her did change, and soon I was able to regard her with something like benevolent tolerance.  

Some years later, however,  I changed my mind about praying for others.  It was after I pondered the exact wording of the second part of the Eleventh Step: “…Praying only for the knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.”  [Italics mine] It was a revelation!  Nothing about praying for others, nothing about praying for world peace or anything else external. As we say informally in the program:  It’s an inside job.  

Upon reflection, I came up with several reasons not to pray for external things or other people.  First, I’m asking God to arrange things the way I want, not necessarily the way He wants.  It betrays a lack of trust that His way is ultimately best.  Second, even the act of praying infers that God doesn’t already know what should be done, if anything.  It’s God the harried bureaucrat, who needs to be called daily and reminded what needs to be done.  Third, there’s a very high likelihood that God doesn’t get directly involved in human affairs anyway.  He prefers to allow the laws of cause-and-effect to operate.  Human beings, individually and collectively, are absolutely responsible for their actions and their consequences.  I have yet to see any convincing evidence that prayer has any effect on external outcomes. Fourth, praying for external results, however good and noble, might absolve me of the responsibility of actually doing something to help, if it is necessary or possible.  For example, by praying for the victims and families of a school shooting or natural disaster, I might think it unnecessary to volunteer, write my congress-person, or donate money, if I have any.  Maybe I won’t even need to vote, leaving the election results up to God.  Fifth, I run the risk that by praying and talking about it, I come across as holier-than-thou.  This is where I think Ms. Pelosi erred, when she said publicly she was praying for Trump and the country.  It was more a political act than a spiritual one. (Not that the political act was a bad thing.  I’m on her side, after all, not Trump’s.)

Lastly and most importantly, praying for external results and things tends to distract my attention from what needs to be changed inside me.  That’s why the wording of the 11^th Step is “…praying only for the knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.” As Gandhi (I think) said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”  The short form of the prayer that works for me (only me!) is:  God, please help me.

That said, I must admit that in recent years I have relented somewhat on my self-imposed ban on praying for external things--or other people.  Upon even closer reading of the Steps, I see that in every case, the pronouns are “we" and “us,” not “I” and “me.”  So now I can pray, (though not very confidently), for the knowledge of His will for us and the (collective) power to carry that out.  So maybe:  God, please help us.  Why not?  What could it hurt?   

Long story short:  I am not going to pray for Trump.  If Ms. Pelosi wants to pray for him, more power to her.  It won’t do anything for him except perhaps make him more hateful.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

It has only just recently (June, 2019) occurred to me what might be the easiest and most obvious way to avoid thinking about Trump, if not precisely stop despising him.  Just stop watching the news on TV!  Not long ago my wife and I were in Spain for two weeks.  In our hotel rooms, we sometimes watched the news from Spain and the rest of Europe.  Though Trump was mentioned from time to time, I cannot recall once seeing his disagreeable visage on the screen.  It was such a welcome break!  It wouldn't be so difficult to limit my own exposure to Trump coverage and commentary.  Naturally, I'd prefer to blame the news networks, especially CNN and MSNBC, for their seemingly non-stop coverage, but once again, the problem is mine, not theirs.

Zen Thing

To end this piece (finally), I’ll have to make reference to Zen, not the Zen popular imagination, but the Zen I’ve been practicing for the past thirty years or so.  I am fortunate to belong to a group here in Spokane, a sangha, who conduct sitting meditation together twice week, book discussion meetings once a month, and four-day retreats twice a year.  We all try to maintain daily practice at home as well.  Once again, I mention this not to boast of any spiritual accomplishment.  In fact, we have a saying for that:  There is nothing [7] to attain.  My practice is more remedial than ambitious.   

Bodhidharma in his Cave

Before and after our zazen (sitting) sessions, we recite or chant short sutras—prayers to a not-God, as it were.  The one at the end is called “Four Infinite Vows” or “Great Vows for All.”  I’ll not give all four vows here, just the one most relevant to the foregoing discussion:

     Greed, hatred and ignorance rise endlessly;

      I vow to abandon them.

I have repeated this vow many, many times.  At times, I even pay attention to what it means.  Perhaps this time, at last, as I conclude this rambling rumination, I may realize its true intent and abandon all hatred, even for Trump.  

Just let it go.

*********************

NOTES

 1 Apparently I'm not the only one.    "The Lakers are in the Position to Build the Most Hated Team Ever." https://www.sbnation.com/2019/6/28/19102489/la-lakers-rumors-free-agents-lebron-james-hate

2  Aristotle, not the Bible, is the probable source of "Virtue is its own reward."  Here's another article I just came across:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/changepower/201708/seven-studies-show-virtue-truly-is-its-own-reward.   
I had to smile when I looked at #7: 
"Selfless people have more sex, study finds,"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160804141642.htm
Definitely more of a reward than virtue per se solum, it seems to me.

3  The Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde trope. (R. L. Stevenson)

4 On the increase of dementia, see 

"Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016,"  The Lancet, Nov., 2018.  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(18)30403-4/fulltext

5 Trump doesn't drink.    "Untreated, teetotalers like the Diet Coke–swilling Donald are often control freaks, hyper-competent [sic] because somebody has to get things done in an alcoholic household, shockingly honest [sic] and occasionally suffused with rage—all scars from the family tragedies that have led to their not drinking."  Susan Cheever,"What Donald Trump Learned From His Alcoholic Brother Fred," Newsweek,June 19, 2019.

6 One really last note on this topic:  Just today, June 18, I came across a new book at the local library:  Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from Our Culture of Contempt, by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Though I became curious about what he thinks of Trump, frankly I have no intention of reading his book.  Brooks seems legit, a "real" conservative, and writes columns for the New York Times and Washington Post.  Apparently he's Catholic and proffers his own interpretation of Jesus's injunction from Luke 6. I'm guessing also that he was one of the many conservatives who voted for Trump hoping that he'd somehow mature and "grow" into the role of president.  And isn't it up to us enlightened souls, from both left and right, to squelch our contempt and allow this benighted sod the chance to grow spiritually? Not gonna happen.

7 Nothing here can be regarded conventionally as the absence of anything, or maybe as the Big Nothing, the Void.  "Nothing is more real than nothing." --S. Beckett in Malone.