Wednesday, July 31, 2019

July 31, 2019--Trump's Base

The consensus is that the reason Trump went after the four congresswomen of color and then Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton is because he is stoking his base of racists and white supremacists. His dead-ender 35 percent who, literally, would be fine with him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

I join that consensus with one caveat--

He must be terrified to be doing this. If he feels so secure about his people's blind loyalty, why does he see the need to pour accelerant on the political flames?

Perhaps he is terrified because he senses they aren't quite as loyal as everyone is assuming. Some may be becoming fed up with his outrages others are maybe beginning to get bored with his stand-up act. Even popular reality TV shows get cancelled.

For me this is good news. 

Certainly there is legitimate concern about what he has thus far unleashed, but I hope to see him press on with his racist and misogynist agenda because even if it excites the core of his base it will incite Democrats and liberals to organize, contribute, and above all vote.



Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

July 30, 2019--Who For Certain Can Defeat Trump

Awaiting the second debate, which every Democrat I know is dreading, a number of friends have asked me to repost something I wrote back in February. Here it is--

I spent much of the weekend agitating about the 2020 election. 

Two more aspirants formally announced that they are seeking the Democratic nomination. Neither was unexpected--Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The latter without hat or gloves declared her candidacy in a blinding snowstorm. That image more than what she said proclaimed I'm ready to run no matter the obstacles. 

And then, waiting in the wings was Beto O'Rourke who held a counter-rally in El Paso last night at the same time as Trump's.

With respect for these three who will be joining at least seven others and after that at least ten more candidates, none make me feel they can beat Trump, assuming by Election Day he's not deposed or imprisoned. 

Though like other popular candidates such as Ron Reynolds from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, running from Sing Sing, wouldn't manage to find a way to win. Such is the fervor of his dead-ender 35 percent. 

There is, though, at least one heavyweight already in the ring, Kamala Harris, who might find a path to 270 electoral votes, and one more candidate-- the ever-coy Joe Biden, who, if he weren't 100 years-old, could be nominated and win. 

But the passion among Democrats and Independents is tipped to the progressive, youthful wing of the party. What else explains the excitement about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or, for that matter, Beto. The good news, at only 29, AOC is constitutionally too young to serve as president. Otherwise, heaven help us, infatuated Dems might suicidally nominate her.

There is though a solution to our search for a winning candidate who also, to quote a popular TV commercial, knows a thing or two. Also, she knows how to go high and low.

Michelle Obama.

I know, she says no way. But I say, let's get to work drafting her. Let's get a petition drive going with a target of at least 10 million signatures. That could attract her attention.

On a personal note, she has seen the Obama legacy largely obliterated from changes in the Affordable Care Act to the abandonment of the nuclear treaty with Iran. She has also seen devastating attacks on the environment (remember the Paris Agreement?) and as a Harvard Law School graduate has witnessed equally ferocious challenges to the rule of law itself. And do not overlook what she must feel about Trump and the racist birther business.

She's also a mom who cares about the world her children will inherit.

Her book, Becoming, has thus far sold nearly three million hard-cover copies (an all-time record for a First Lady memoir) and all polls show her by far to be the most admired American woman (she is most admired by 15% of the population, three times higher than number two, Oprah), who if she ran would sign up in a second to be her media advisor and spokesperson. 

(Also helping, husband Barack is most admired by 19% while Trump languishes at 13%.)

If Michelle would agree to run all Democratic money would flow to her and she could early next year begin to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. (Anything but gold.)

The one concern--complacency.  Look what happened to Hillary as she waited around for the coronation that never happened. But Michelle is smarter than that and appears to actually like people.


Monday, July 29, 2019

July 29, 2019--Zwerling's Law

Because I invoked Godwin's Law occasionally during the 2016 campaign when friends would compare Trump with Hitler, the Nazis, and fascists such as Mussolini--the Law states that as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Nazis or Hitler approaches--they accused me of helping to elect Trump because I "normalized" him. As a result, more than two years later, some are still not talking to me.

I contend now and told them then I was just taking Trump seriously, not boosting him, and if we didn't try to understand his appeal, the worst could occur. And, while many liberals tried to ignore or mock him, look what happened.

Now, of my own, here's a very different law--

Zwerling's Law states that for people older than 60, unless there is something urgent, one is not allowed to bring up medical issues until at least three other topics have been discussed.

I have been noticing that as we age together, with friends, barely after exchanging greetings, we are talking about our latest medical test results, Mohs surgery, blood-thinner side-effects, diverticulitis, cataracts,  and of course colonoscopies. Frequently we begin with colonoscopies.

It is only then that we turn to the latest Trump outrage, what we have been reading or seeing in the movies, or how Joe Biden's poll numbers are looking.

Even after not having seen Mary and Al for three weeks and beginning by talking about the sultry weather, almost immediately, violating my own law, I got us to switch to medical talk when I reported about a recent visit with my neurologist.

I should have invoked Zwerling's Law on myself.

It makes existential sense for folks my age to be most concerned about how our hearts, lungs, and bowels are holding up; but it doesn't necessarily make for snappy conversation.


Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019--Trump's F-You

How petty. How small minded. How mean spirited. How nasty. Only our president is capable of such behavior.

I'm talking about plastic straws. But, first, I need to supply a little context. 

That brings me to light bulbs.

You may remember that during the waning days of Barack Obama's presidency he issued an executive order which required that by 2020 traditional incandescent light bulbs were to be phased out. They use too much energy, generate too much heat; and thus, going forward, old-fashioned bulbs are to be replaced by low-energy, compact fluorescent ones. Forget that they do not give as much light as classic bulbs, the government still was to require us to switch over.  

I say "was to" since under Trump this will not be required. It's one more of his many attacks on anything Obama, anything that contributes to his legacy. 

If Obama was for it (say the nuclear deal with Iran) Trump is against it and will do all he can to take it down. 

In biggest picture terms at the top of Trump's cut list is Obamacare. It has been my view that if the Affordable Care Act had been named for someone else, say Harry Truman (he was the first president to call for federally subsidized national healthcare), my guess is that Trump would not have been obsessing for years about how to get rid of it. I doubt if he even knows who Truman is. He certainly doesn't know from "The buck stops here."

I'm OK with TrumanCare if that would assure ObamaCare's survival.

Now we have a flap about plastic drinking straws.

Liberal Seattle is the first city to ban non-compostable plastic straws and other cities are sure to follow. San Francisco, Washington DC,  and New York among them.

Plastic straws  are the seventh-most common trash item found washed up on beaches thanks to the massive number American use--about 500 million a day.

This alone is enough to engage Trump's imagination--anything these cities might do is by definition bad and needs to be undermined. He knows that his base sucks up these kinds of things. 

Forgive the pun.

His people say these kinds of federal moves are a restriction on their freedom. Like electric cars and seat belts.

Ever looking for a way to pander to his base and make a quick buck, soon after Trump heard about Seattle he began to sell Trump-embossed plastic straws on his "Trump Campaign Store" website.


Liberal paper straws don't work.

STAND WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP and buy your pack of Trump straws today.

Trump Straws - Pack of 10 $15.00


Please allow 12-14  business days.

Thus far he's raked in $200,000. At least he doesn't charge for shipping and handling.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019--Mueller's "Labored Performance"

I'm still under the weather so this will be brief.

That is how the New York Times referred to Mueller's appearance before committees of the House of Representatives--"labored"--and so his testimony included little for Democrats to pick over.

There was virtually nothing new that could be used in a march toward impeachment.

It was sad to see--the great man reduced in stature--but perhaps ultimately good political for progressives.

Good in that moving to impeach Trump much less actually impeaching him--I'm with Nancy Pelosi about this--is significantly bad for the Democrats' long-range agenda: ridding us of Trump.

The vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, do not want to see Trump impeached. Not that they want him to continue in office but they realize it would paralyze the government such as it is and ultimately lead to nothing. The Dems will tear themselves apart (as are the still 20 seeking the nomination) and it would only give Trump the opportunity to operatically claim he is being persecuted because of his policies.

For months it will be all Trump all the time.

So I am thinking that Mueller's labored testimony is a blessing in disguise.

Or is this thinking the result of my cold that never seems to want to go away?


Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019--F-You Moment From Donald Trump

I will return tomorrow with a report about such a moment from our president.

Monday, July 22, 2019

July. 22, 2019--Cow Cuddling

I knew the culture was shifting when I encountered one of my New York City neighbors, a well turned out middle-aged woman, pushing a baby carriage down Broadway.

What was unusual was that she has neither a baby of her own nor a grandchild. She lives alone with a Bichon Frise. A Bichon who was under a blanket in the full-size carriage. 

"Is something wrong with her?" I asked when she stopped to talk.

"No. I'm just taking Lydia for a walk. She prefers the carriage to the sidewalk and so do I."

We chatted a bit more and then she resumed her stroll, all the while engaged in a conversation with Lydia.

When I told Rona about this she said she thought Lydia was a service dog.

"But what does that have to do with pushing her around in a baby carriage?"

"I suppose nothing." Rona was not that interested in pursuing the subject. Manhattan is full of eccentrics.

But not too many days later we were out for breakfast in a neighborhood restaurant and were stunned to see at a table in the rear a man alone with what looked like a small horse.

Now that was beyond eccentric and captured even Rona's curiosity.

"What's going on?" she asked, truly puzzled but also intrigued. "Can he possibly be a service animal?"

"Inconceivable," I said. "Dogs I get, but horses?"

When we got home I did some research and discovered that sure enough the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does in fact, in addition to dogs, allow that "miniature horses" can be considered service animals. And, as such, can be taken most everywhere. Clearly including restaurants in as unrural a place as one can imagine--New York City.

(Look it up if you're skeptical.) 

More recently, there was an article in the New York Times about cuddling cows as a form of "animal-based therapy."

At a bed-and-breakfast on a farm in upstate New York the owners supply cows for guests to cuddle. For $75 an hour-long session one can have access to two cows that are apparently friendly to humans and without prompting will lie down to allow themselves to be embraced by those seeking communion and nurturing of a sort with the natural world.

"It's not a petting zoo," say the farm's owners, it's more an opportunity for stressed out folks to participate in living a "natural life."

They do advise that wearing the right kind of clothing is smart since cows "might slobber on you." And avoiding wearing open-toed shoes is a good idea since cows are prone to "drop things."

I'm not sure if this is an issue with other animals that are known to provide. Alligators, for example.

You can look that up too.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019--"Spare Me the Revolution"

Tom Friedman is not my favorite columnist. For example, to me he can be a little giddy when it comes to extolling the wonders of globalization.  

But earlier this week he wrote a meaningful op ed, most of which I have included below. It is the best piece I've read about how Democrats are inadvertently conspiring to lose the election to Donald Trump.

It will likely make you angry but it also provides a plausible roadmap for how to win--

I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris — and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.

That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably.

Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for.

Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure — ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets.


Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 18, 2019

July 18, 2019--Wither Kamala Harris?

It began so auspiciously. Kamala Harris's campaign for the Democratic nomination. 

20,000 turned out in Oakland for her announcement ceremony. Millions in cash and pledges poured in with promises of more to come. Hollywood gazillionaires have deep pockets.

Then there was The Debate. She took frontrunner Joe Biden down in a preemptive strike by attacking him face-to-face on the most vaunted part of his legacy--his record of support for civil rights. 

Harris knew that Biden's core constituents are African Americans, especially African-American women, and unless she could attract some to support her candidacy it was doomed. So she went after him. Almost calling him a racist by saying she didn't think he was a racist. She just let that hang in the air. And it seemed to work.

For a week after the debate things were looking good for her. No matter that she slammed Biden for his position on court-ordered school bussing, which though designed to reduce segregation all evidence shows was a disaster for blacks as well as whites. Schools were no more integrated and neighborhoods were shredded by White Flight though some individuals such as bussed second-grader Kamala, by her account, benefited.

Harris's poll numbers rose five to 10 points while Biden's plummeted by similar amounts.

But then something seemingly surprising happened--her campaign appeared to stall. She began to slip in the polls and contributions to her campaign went from flow to trickle. 

And on Monday of this week an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Harris slipping to fourth place in head-to-head competition with Trump, trailing still frontrunner Biden (who led Trump by nine points) by eight points, trailing second-place Sanders by six points, and third place Warren by five.

Well within the margin of error, unlike the other three who did well in the poll, Harris led Trump by just one percentage point.

None of this is good news for Harris.

What happened?

I suspect over time underlying race and gender issues are coming into fuller play.

Too many Democratic voters were turned off by the overly-aggressive way in which Harris raked Biden over the coals. She was perceived to be more angry than assertive. It was too much a beatdown than a disagreement about ideas and policies. And too many women as well as men, white as well as black, think of this as you will, felt she was acting in an emasculating manner. Instead of confronting his political history she was attacking his manhood.

Biden came away from the confrontation looking like a punished child.

As I did, on YouTube replay the confrontation to see if she crossed some of these tripwire lines. 

We should probably be beyond these kinds of reactions in our public discourse. But sadly we aren't and it may be costing Kamala Harris a potential path to the nomination. We are not yet that enlightened to be OK with a black women taking down a 70-plus year-old white man. We still have a long way to go.



Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019--Sick Days

We arrived in NYC and immediately both caught nasty colds. Wheezing, sneezing, and especially coughing. So I haven't been doing any writing. I hope to tomorrow, Tuesday, and if I do will have something to post on Wednesday about Kamala Harris--"Wither Kamala Harris?"

Friday, July 12, 2019

July 12, 2019--AOC & Company

It is no secret that Nancy Pelosi is having more than a spat with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

They are fighting for the very soul of the Democratic Party: Speaker Pelosi is concerned about two things: retaining the Democratic majority in the House and defeating Trump in 2020.

AOC and her colleagues believe it is time to pass the leadership torch to a new generation of the Democratic base, largely women and people of color; Pelosi, as she thinks about the big political picture, believes it is about the center holding so that the Democrats can be a party that is broadly inclusive and therefore they must be careful not to overreach in their policy agenda.

I confess, as I obsess about deposing Trump, to being closer to the Pelosi point of view, acknowledging this may be as much generational thinking as we are both old!

My friend Dan La Noue also thinks about these sweeping realities and again, in part for generational reasons (he is young), is also thinking big but in ways quite different than Pelosi.

Here is a sample of his thinking taken from his response to my recent White Male Privilege blog--

Dan wrote--

A lot of great insights in the WMP posting. But I disagree with the characterization of AOC and company. Nancy Pelosi wasn't pushing for a Green Deal, nor was she willing to speak so bluntly and truthfully about the horrors of the dentention camps on the border. AOC and her friends did that, and they've reframed the debate about these critical issues in way that captures much-needed attention. Conservatives are brilliant about pushing the Overton Window to get people to think about things differently, and these new Dems are taking a page out of their book and putting it to good use. Gutless politicking isn't going to defeat Trump and/or mobilize voters. That's how Hillary bricked a layup election.

I responded--

To me until after Election Day it's all about defeating Trump. In my view, though I am attracted to some of their policy positions, the AOC Four politically are only helping Trump. 


Dan responded--


Remember when the GOP claimed Obama, a mild-mannered center-left guy, was a blood-gargling Kenyan islamo-socialist? My point is that Trump and company will demonize Democrats no matter what. So if you're a Democrat, why not be bold and say/do things that actually give your side something to vote for? This is why I don't worry about AOC and Co. the way some others do. And frankly, I think deep down the Right's hatred of them has more to do with race than any one policy they propose. Call me crazy.


I then said--


Not so crazy! You make a good case. But I still fear that AOC's Squad (as they refer to themselves), if they become the face of the Democratic Party, no matter how that happens, will help Trump get reelected. If that occurs than all the inspiring policies in the world will go for nought.



Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019--Relocating

We've been busy preparing to relocate for 10 days and had a small car emergency so I will not have anything to post until Thursday.

Then I will share how a smart young friend administered a really well done critique of how about I am viewing the upcoming presidential election.

Hint--he thinks I've got it pretty much all wrong.


Wednesday, July 10, 2019

July 10, 2019--White Male Privilege

Continuing to ponder the gender implications of the large vote Trump received in 2016 from white women, Guest Blogger Sharon wrote--

One of the questions I keep hearing is should Dems try to get Obama/Trump voters back or go full out Progressive to motivate more new voters.

As much as I hate many aspects of data mining and micro-targeting, it would probably help if the Dems knew more about these and other more reasonable Trump voters and those Dems that didn’t vote in 2016.

With that said, I suspect the real challenge isn’t what candidates say or how they say it but who they are. There just might not be anyone with a wide enough appeal. I cringed when Bill Maher said the only one who could beat Trump for sure is Oprah. But I fear he may be right.

It’s a tiny sample but when a friend from the Midwest had brunch with a friend from New York, he asked him why he and friends voted for Trump. His reaction was people knew him. For me that was a dis-qualifier. But with so many people not paying attention, this may be the key. 

As for more civilized discourse, an acquaintance assisting at the polls on Democratic primary day last month said a woman drove into the church parking lot screaming at her about representing “the party of death” and how she’d never vote for a Democrat. I thought this might just be a disturbed individual. Then I  googled our moderate businessman Senator and former Governor Mark Warner.  The first entry is an ad to defeat him in 2020 because he sides with the “party of death.” Interesting new branding. Not encouraging. 
I wrote--

The most recent ways the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot is to give so much attention to AOC and three (three!) of her colleagues. This gang of four is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP now that they have someone even better than Nancy Pelosi to demonologize. How self-defeating can we be.

And then Jill Davenport wrote--

I was just this minute reading your blog about women and I believe you’re exactly right. And Bill Clinton was exactly right when he spoke about white men dying of broken hearts.  

There’s another reason as well, and this affects both genders . . . the white male privilege is on shaky ground, and so is the privilege thereby extended to their female counterparts.  They are terribly fearful of the most awful thing that they can imagine . . . being outnumbered by people of color who by nature they believe should be shining shoes in airports.  

Having a black man for president was an unspeakable affront to the proper order as they see it and they thus feel it needs to be restored.  

Obama brought out the latent and carefully hidden racism which came forth like a toxic flood when T-name took over "my" White House.  All of it is, of course, the result of just fear. 

I thought--

Jill's new idea about how for many conservative women male privilege is extended to them is something important to ponder. For me it helps explain why so many white women voted for Trump and how important it is for progressives to understand this in order to find ways to prevail.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

July 9, 2019--Trump's American History 101

In case you missed it, or perhaps decided to torture yourself by tuning into Trump's July 4th speech surrounded by tanks at the Lincoln Memorial, or perhaps you thought you were hallucinating when you heard him talking about our Revolutionary War airports, let me at least disabuse you of the latter--he did make mention of such airports and so you weren't having a delusional episode.

He in fact said: "Our [Revolutionary] army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets red glare, it had nothing but victory."

Oblivious, he mashed up the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Wright Brothers' first flight nearly a century later.

When Trump learned he had flunked History 101, as usual he blamed the mishap on something other than himself--it was raining and, he said, that knocked out the teleprompter.

To quote him, "I guess the rain knocked it out, but I knew the speech very well. So I was able to do it without a prompter."

About why you may have tuned in, you're on your own, as I confess I am.

But since you may have watched as I did, did you catch the performance of the "Marine Corps Hymn"?

In the background you could see Trump mouthing some of the words. Since I'm good at lipreading I can share with you what he was singing--


From the balls at Mar-a-Lago
To the shops at Tiffany's

I fight the New York Times

On the newsstand and TV

Who cares about rights and freedom
Or our democracy
As long as I don't have to serve
As a United States Marine



Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, July 08, 2019

July 8, 2019--Make American Men Great Again

For more than two years, my sister-in-law, Guest Blogger Sharon, and I have been attempting to understand why so many women, white women, 53 percent of them, voted for Trump. It seems so against their best interests. 

Recently she wrote-- 

I still haven’t totally figured it out, including what role religion may have played. I think there are people whose world view or “values” may trump (sorry) self-interest. Just look at the number of women who voted for a misogynist. Or are so pro-life that they are willing to give up control of their own bodies.

Then I wrote--  

About the women who voted for Trump: like you I've been obsessed with trying to understand this since he was elected. Some of it is a version of Evangelical belief about the appropriate place for women in the social and family hierarchy. "In their place" below men. But I have come to conclude it's less about religion than about gender. 

Likely for most of Trump's white men the women's movement tripped off all sorts of scary bells and whistles. Having in many cases to deal with female bosses; having to deal with dramatic changes in sexual behavior where women have come to assume an almost equal role; needing wives to enter the work force not for career reasons but because the men couldn't earn enough to pay the bills and sustain them as stay-at-home wives and mothers, often with the women earning more than their husbands, as a result feeling dispossessed, these men are angry about their shrinking hegemony within the family and the larger society, and voted for Trump in the belief that he would restore things to their natural, their rightful gender dispensation.  

And then for the these women--they want their husbands back. The ones who could support them, dominate them, and make them feel protected and secure. They too feel that something profound has been abrogated, overturned. Thus, that is what making America great again means to them. It really means how to make men a regressive version of great again. 

To progressive women this represents a retreat from all that has been fought for and accomplished during the past 50-60 years; to conservative women this would represent a restoration of the natural order.

The Dems need to figure out how to relate to this in a non-condescending manner for at least two reasons--they'll lose again if they don't and because it's the right way to engage Trump supporters--with understanding and sensitivity. Doing so, though, doesn't mean we need to roll over and come to agree about everything. Or very much. But we do need to show respect for how they are experiencing life in a changed America, and try to find some empathetic common ground.

Toward the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign, when it finally dawned on her and some of her advisors that they were losing white working-class voters--women as well as men--some of her people who had kept Bill Clinton at arms length from participating in campaign strategizing, realizing he was in fact their best strategist, finally asked him what he thought was going on with these voters, mainly the men. He said, "They're dying of a broken heart."

He was right. And since it was too late to reach out to them in appropriate ways, Hillary Clinton lost their votes and ultimately the election.

Fair warning. 




Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, July 05, 2019

July 5, 2019--Holiday

I hope you are enjoying the holiday. I will return here on Monday.

Thursday, July 04, 2019

July 4, 2019--A Tale of Two Cemeteries (Concluded)

Mt. Hebron

My father’s obsession with his family’s cemetery, however, was of quite a different sort.  

Among the Zwerlings, he was the only one preoccupied with the family plot.  To the others it was just that place in Queens where they might eventually have to be taken after marrying off the children and retiring to Florida.  But to him it represented a different order of reality.  Again, in the tradition of the Zwerlings, it was more about real estate than visiting the departed and reporting to them life’s quotidian events. To him it was a matter of being sure there was a physical place for everyone entitled to be there. And that the arrangement of those places, the individual gravesites, were appropriately hierarchical.  

Proximity to the family patriarch, Louis, his father, my grandfather, and mother-grandmother, Anne, was, as it should be, where the hierarchy began, with the sons and their wives and then the sisters and their husbands arranged in descending tiers by birth-order and gender.  As the oldest, the first-born male of a first-born father, this meant my father would reside right below his father and mother, and so on down the Zwerling family tree.

An awareness of the shape of the Zwerling family plot would immediately see that the task my father set for himself was not easily accomplished.  If they had been able to purchase a plot with hierarchy and primogeniture in mind, they would have bought something more in the shape of a pyramid.  But in the gridded-out reality of Mt Hebron, obtaining a family plot in this configuration was impossible.  So my father, the arranger, had to work with the rectangle that was bequeathed to him by his father, Grandfather Louis.

He spent endless hours with an outline of the full plot inscribed on a large sheet of oak tag, and within it, using an architect’s T-sqaure and triangle, drew a series of perfectly scaled grave-shaped rectangles, in various combinations and permutations until he had it laid out as appropriately as he could, considering the restraints imposed on his grand design by the unyielding boundaries of the family plot.  And when he had his plan worked out as much as possible in primogeniture order, he made a final rendering, using draftsman’s indelible ink; and at a series of family meetings with his brothers and sisters and their spouses, he got each to initial the rectangle assigned to them until all were duly filled in and signed off on.

And thus the responsibility his father bequeathed to him was done. . . .  

That is until his sister, my Aunt Madeline began to upset the scheme by marrying a series of husbands who in turn died shortly after each wedding, and, most critically, were buried, one by one by one, side-by-side in the Zwerling plot. 

By the time Husband Number Three was interred, my father began to worry.  As you by now would expect, he worried not so much about his carefully crafted plan, but, in frankness, more about his own eventual disposition. If Madeline mainatined her current pace, by the actuarial time my father would need the final services of Mt. Hebron, there would no longer be room remaining for him.

Thus, he convened an urgent Zwerling family gathering and laid out the issue squarely and frankly. Madeline was understandably distraught, having lost her third husband, Morty, just the previous month. He had jumped off the roof of their apartment building—it was well known that she was not easy to live with.  

But in spite of Madeline’s grief, with at least the appearance of sympathy, my father was able to forge ahead and succeeded in mobilizing a majority of sibling and spouse votes to let Madeline know there were no more places at Mt. Hebron for subsequent husbands. That is unless she was willing to relinquish her own plot.  Or, perhaps she would prefer to have my father arrange to move one or two of her husbands to a different part of the cemetery.  

Considering her options, Madeline agreed that though there would likely be more husbands (that was not open to family discussion) there would be no more places for additional deceased husbands. 

That should have been the end of the story.  But again there is more.

As it turned out, there would be room for two more husbands because my father, when his time arrived, did not after all require his place in Mt. Hebron. Nor would my mother.

Read on.

When a Jewish person dies, it is considered desirable that the person be buried as quickly as possible.  The dust-to-dust imperative is very strong indeed and thus the sooner the better. As might be expected, to expedite the process, my father had arranged for a prepaid funeral. For him it was also an opportunity to shop for his own casket and arrange for the limousines and memorial service, including that there be nothing that involved a rabbi or any prayers in any language—he was an outspoken lifelong atheist. 

His place next to his father’s side at Mt. Hebron awaited, but my mother had a different plan in mind—something more indelible than the ink he had used to make the oak tag diagram.

During their 60-year marriage, she had participated in dozens of discussions about Mt. Hebron. Or, to put it more appropriately, my father’s plans for them at the Zwerling plot.  She had only hinted to my father how much she did not look forward to spending eternity with The Zwerlings.  It was an era when wives hinted at things that concerned them. She, in truth, dreaded the thought that she would not be with her parents and her real family.  She also hated the idea that she would have to spend her afterlife listening to the Zwerling arguing, talking simultaneously at the top of their voices, literally forever.  

And so she directed my brother and me, and then the funeral director--“Let’s put him in Mt. Lebanon.”  

Luckily there was still room.  Again, in the informal shtetl ways of the Tulowice Landsmanscahftn, without the existence of a notarized plan, she was able to get her remaining siblings to agree to find a space for him and one beside him for her.  

She did feel some guilty that this new arrangement placed him right next to his family rival, brother-in-law Harry.  They had been in a series of failed businesses together and had not only fought about money but about such things as how many spare light bulbs to have on hand—my father thought six were enough; Harry always believed in buying by the gross. She knew, as a result, that there would be an eternal fight right there at Mt. Lebanon. About light bulbs and also who was at fault for driving customers away from their last deli. (She personally blamed my father.) 

But she also knew she would be in the warm vicinity of Mamma and Papa. And, when her time came, being separated by my father from Harry, would bring her more peace than she was accustomed to in life. 

In any case, she assertively said--"Who cares. Let them fight."




Labels: , , , ,