November 21, 2017--Civil Wrongs and Rights

Though I know at least half the books about the Kennedys are hagiographies, about Camelot and all that, and half of the other half are about their dark side--their involvement with the Mafia, Cuba, and the women (Marilyn and dozens of others)--still when another Kennedy book comes along before I come up for air I'm halfway through it and the tears are already flowing about what was (Jack's presidency) and what might have been (Bobby and Teddy's thwarted White House aspirations).

So, I'm more than halfway through Chris Matthews's Bobby softball biography, Bobby Kennedy: A Raging Spirit. It's no more than halfway decent but, for the Kennedy junkie that I am, that's enough. More stitched together and racing along in jump cuts it lacks the flow and insight of his book about Kennedy and Nixon, Kennedy & Nixon, for me still the best explication of Nixon's turbulent inner world as exposed by his complicated feelings about the Kennedys, especially Jack.

This son of a grocer from dusty Yorba Linda, California, Nixon was no Kennedy. And, sadly, he was daily aware of that more than anyone.

The good Bobby, the one that emerged later in life a year or two after his brother was assassinated, devoted his last years to calling for equal treatment of all Americans, especially the forgotten ones in impoverished Appalachia, sharecroppers' hardscrabble farms in the Black Belt of the Mississippi Delta, the migrant worker camps in the steaming valleys of California, and the churning inner cities.

The tears flowed for me for the first time when Matthews wrote about the integration of the University of Alabama in June, 1963. It was Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General who mobilized the forces to implement the court order to allow two black students to register. The iconic scene etched in most American's memories was of the diminutive Alabama governor George Wallace, surrounded by state troopers, standing in the doorway to thwart their enrollment.

In the close background the millions who watched this confrontation on live TV, could see the fury, the hatred on the faces of local Alabamans who gathered to bring the threat of violence to the situation.

Also watching this on television were the Kennedy brothers. 

Jack soon had enough and told Bobby and his staff to arrange for a primetime half hour with the three networks for later that evening. He intended to make a speech about what he was witnessing and feeling.

That night, to the nation, he said--

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. . . . 

This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. . . . 

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

Five months later Jack was shot dead in Dallas and almost exactly five years after that Bobby was gunned down in Los Angeles on the night he won the California primary, which likely would have led to his nomination to face Nixon for the presidency, as his brother had in 1960.

With this era in mind and especially thinking about the Trump presidency and racial strife, which continues even after eight years of Barak Obama's presidency, Rona suggested we see the new movie a friend, Jonathan Sanger, produced, Marshall, about a case that Thurgood Marshall tried in 1940 some years before he became the first Negro to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

It is a very good movie which I urge you to see before it disappears into Netflix.

It is about an actual trial during which Marshall takes the lead in defending a black man accused of raping a white woman. On the surface, sadly familiar territory, but in this film, based on an actual case, the events and trial are not set in Mississippi or Alabama (as, for example, is To Kill A Mockingbird) but in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The script is tight, the acting and direction generally flawless, the story upsetting and riveting, but, stepping back for a moment, most remarkable and important is to be reminded that this trial took place in the Northeast. 

For those of us who like to think of ourselves as a bit superior to those in the middle of the country, it is good to be reminded that less than an hour from New York City, not so many years ago, things were not so different when it came to what used to be called "race relations."

Both the Matthews' book and Marshall are vivid reminders of that.

February 3, 2017--Once More, Jack

Though a number of friends recommended I not answer the phone when Jack calls, when he rang me again the other morning I ignored that advice.

I'm not exactly sure why some of my friends were offering such counsel, but I suspect it's largely because what Jack has been saying about me and my fellow Democrats rings truer than any of us would like--that we are in large part the source of our own political problems. That we didn't do enough to help Hillary Clinton get elected. That we took her victory for granted and spent more time talking about the election than becoming directly involved.

Thus far only one person I heard from, "Gala Girl," appears to have done well on Jack's parlor game challenge, Who Do You Know? She claimed to have friends from all of Jack's categories, except that she doesn't know any coal miners!

All the other readers and friends who either called or wrote to me confessed that for the most part they knew as friends very few plumbers, policemen, or waitresses. Some who disagreed with Jack about our being out-of-touch with Americans who elected Donald Trump, had no problem with the fact that they didn't know anyone currently serving in the military or working as a lab technician. And thus, like them, I should ignore Jack's jibes.

"Things are bad enough without us beating ourselves up about the results of the election," one said.

Jack on the other hand said, "I see you have a new obsession."

"How so?"

"With all the things going on this is what you're paying attention to?"

"What might that this be?" From his attitude I was already beginning to regret that I didn't let his call go to voice mail.

"With all that's going on from the immigration ban to Trump's on-going obsession about how many popular votes Hillary secured, you keep coming back to railing about congressional Democrats gathering the other night on the steps of the Supreme Court."

"I'm all in favor of activism of all kinds. In fact, we need more and more of it right now to show Trump that there will be political consequences for his words and deeds. Really, he needed to alienate the Australians? One of our loyalist allies?"

"I agree. But what seems to be sticking in your craw is the fact that that geriatric group of your congresspeople opted to sing This Land Is Your Land. What's with that?"

"It underlined for me how impotent and out of touch my party leaders are. Nancy Pelosi who can't sing is tottering around on her last legs and Chuck Schumer looks like he's ready for Weight Watchers or needs to check into a care facility. These are the people who are going to lead the opposition and help elect Democrats two years from now? I don't think so."

"I watch some MSNBC," Jack said. "That might surprise you, but I want to check out what Rachael is up to and your version of Bill O'Reilly, loud-mouth Chris Mathews. I want to listen in on what the left-wing opposition is saying and plotting. From my perspective, I'm happy to see not much to win over Trump-type voters. Though at least some of them are recognizing that progressives need to get out into the country to find out what's on voters' minds. You know visit some of those 21-percent counties."

"What are those?"

"Like the ones in Iowa and other swing states that voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, giving him 21 percent margins but then this time around voted equally overwhelmingly, by 21 percent, for Trump. There's a whole lot to learn in those places. And there are quite a few of them.

"If you're looking to start a business, consider setting up a tour company that buses Democrats for overnight visits to these districts. Especially tell them which diners to go to to have breakfast with the locals."

"In some ways we're agreeing. Which brings me back to the other night at the Supreme Court. Not only are our leaders totally out of touch and self-involved, but This Land Is Your Land? This old hippie song? I mean, I like it. But do they think it appeals to millennials and Latinos and the working poor? I don't think so. If anything, they made themselves seem irrelevant and ridiculous."

"On top to that," Jack said, "I noticed that they didn't even know the words. They had to read them from a handout."

 "And meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump was firing people and on the phone talking to the Mexican president, warning him that if the Mexican police don't do a better job of securing the border he might just have to have American troops invade Mexico because there are 'bad hombres' there."

April 4, 2016--Trump Is Post-Peak

A friend wondered if Donald Trump has peaked. 

What with his various stumbles last week--

His campaign manager being charged with assault and battery;

His reckless comments about encouraging Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia to take up their own defense, including developing nuclear weapons;

And his being lured into acknowledging that if abortion becomes illegal, becomes a felony such as manslaughter or even infanticide, which he now supports, of course doctors who perform them would have the be "punished" (Trump's word) but so would women who take the first step in initiating this "crime" when they schedule an appointment and then undergo the procedure.

This latter thought--that women would also need to be "punished"--unleashed such a storm of criticism about Trump's misogyny and outrageous views that he felt the need to "walk it back" as well as change his position at least four times since Friday after stepping in it during a brilliant, badgering interview conducted by Chris Matthews where this "punishment" kerfuffle began.

One would have assumed that this outrage directed at Trump would have come exclusively from those on the political left who believe fervently in a woman's right to choose.

And though the chorus of criticism came mainly from that source, a great deal of it was from those on the right--anti-abortion conservatives, including Ted Cruz, who gleefully joined in the vilification of Trump.

Cruz, in his usual weasely way, said: "Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing women. We should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world."

Cruz and his ilk were delighted to see Trump blunder into further trouble with female voters though, like Trump, they too want to criminalize abortion but claim that only the doctors should be punished. Calling for the prosecution of women seems to them too Scarlet-Lettery. Or, closer to the truth, too politically risky.

In an email back to my fellow progressive friend, here's what I said about Trump's peaking--

Trump is post-peak. 

Among other things the Trump phenomenon is a classic media tale--build him up then delight in tearing him down. The usual mix of entertainment, distraction, ratings, money, and blood sport. Bread and circuses. Everything about this is just so hypocritical and cynical.  

My favorite thing at the moment is how Trump stumbled into revealing the ugly truth about abortion. A truth GOPers don't in general want to hear or acknowledge-- 

Trump really favors abortion but to pander to the base and have a chance to win the nomination he flip-flopped and became pro-life.  

But what are the implications--to ban it, to make it illegal, not only must the doctors be "punished" (T's word--interesting choice) but also the women. Anti-abortion people have focused on punishing the doctors (including winking at murdering them) but see women opting for abortions to be victims.  

This is more sexist regression--women again perceived to be victims. But, of course, it is women who choose and thus to be consistent in a lunatic, anti-abortion environment, they too must be punished. 

Which is what Trump said.  

And as a result got massacred by the Republican establishment who are afraid to state the full implications of their heinous policy (to ban all abortions with no exceptions) because that would drive even more women than at present away from supporting GOP candidates.  

They've been hiding from this truth for years but Trump ripped off the scab. Or, if you prefer, revealed what's under the rock. 

He may be crazy but in his unpredictability and version of "truth"-telling he's dangerous to Republicans. That's the real reason they hate and want to get rid of him. Not that he's a loser and would bring the party and its current candidates down. 

But because of what Jack Nicholson said, "They can't handle the truth." 

December 9, 2015--Political Stand-Up

The other night I was reading with Hardball turned on in the background.

Among Chris Matthew's guests was Eugene Robinson, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the Washington Post. They were trying to make sense of Donald TRUMP's call for a "pause" in allowing Muslims to enter the country until we can "figure out what the hell is going on."

Their point--as it was true for most media outlets and politicians from both parties--was that this was an outrageous example of ethnic profiling, impractical to implement, likely unconstitutional, and inconsistent with everything we stand for as Americans.

About 10 minutes into this discussion, MSNBC cut away to the World War II aircraft carrier Yorktown berthed in Charleston, SC, where Donald TRUMP was speaking before a large group of followers who had come together to hear him and take note of the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I looked up from my book. I had only seen and listened to TRUMP in snippets. The most liberal of the cable news networks was about to do something unusual--stay with him for awhile and let viewers come to their own conclusions about what he had to say. And they did so, allowing their coverage to run on and on for a full 45 minutes, uninterrupted for commentary and, more unexpectedly, for commercials.

This was TRUMP red in tooth and claw.

As it turned out, what struck me was not so much what he had to say but how. His performance, because performance it was.

I have listened to many campaign speeches, even gone in person to a number presidential candidates' rallies--all were versions of performances, but none compared to TRUMP's, which was more than anything else pure comedic entertainment. Political stand-up shtick.

First of all, if you close your eyes he sounds more like Mel Brooks than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, both great stump performers. Also, take a look at him with his Zero Mostel hairdo.

Then there are the gestures, facial expressions, the mugging, the shrugs, the self-referential asides, the winks and nods, the bantering with individual audience members who called out or disrupted him. Like all practiced comedians he loves hecklers and has ready put-downs that serves both to silence them and rally those who are there to embrace and enjoy him.

He's not quite in Don Rickles' league when it comes to attack humor, but for a political operative he's pretty good and I found myself chuckling along with the audience. When putting down the MSNBC reporter covering the event he was at his biting, nasty best.

When scorching Chris Christie (who TRUMP claimed he was forced to do because of what the NJ governor said about his plans for traveling Muslims) he pretended to do so reluctantly.

In full shrug he said, "I have no choice. He's never attacked me before. So I have to do it." And he did with comedically savage strokes, pretending to be Christie at one of his daily breakfast meetings with his staff, improvising a dialogue among them about shutting down the George Washington Bridge for six hours. It was laugh-out-loud funny.

No, he resisted making fun of what the rotund Christie might have eaten at the breakfast. My guess is the next time he riffs about who my mother used to call Chris Crispy the breakfast menu will be up for grabs.

And then any time he referred to Jeb Bush he rested his head on his hands as if sleeping. Talking continuously about poor Jeb's lack of "energy" has served TRUMP well. He also never failed to mention use's dramatic descent in the polls. Jeb who was originally thought to be the inevitable nominee, largely as the result of TRUMP's relentless mockery, is now languishing with George Pataki in political Purgatory.

With about five minutes left in Hardball's time slot they cut back to Chris Matthews and Gene Robinson who looked as if they had aged ten years. They sat there as if stunned, uncharacteristically silent for at least half a dozen beats. They couldn't figure out how to respond, what to say. Perhaps it was also the first time for them that they had seen the full TRUMP spritz.

Between them they have nearly 100 years of experience covering politics. They exist and operate within a political paradigm where what candidates have to say about the issues is what counts. Their policy proposals and five-part programs to take on ISIS are what they're used to vetting and commenting on. But shtick about Christie at breakfast or how TRUMP makes fun of Jeb Bush are beyond Matthews' and Robinson's purview.

They aren't getting it. They aren't comfortable or familiar with what TRUMP is about and why he is doing so well in the polls.

It's not about policies stupid, it's about mobilizing anger and fear through political comedy and entertainment.

TRUMP is more like George Carlin and Bill Maher than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush.

When I stopped chuckling and thought about the political content of TRUMP's performance, I was as horrified as Matthews and Robinson. What he is proposing to do about Muslims is abhorrent to me. Nothing less than unAmerican. But there I was being swept along. I reminded myself of something Geraldo Rivera of all people said many months ago--"Who would you rather watch for an hour--Jeb Bush or Donald TRUMP?"

The answer is obvious.

For many months I have been writing and warning about TRUMP's appeal. One of my liberal fiends thinks I have gone over to "the other side." Well, I haven't.

Another said, "You're spending too much time in Florida." Well, I haven't been.

I am not intending to vote for him. I am simply attempting to explain his appeal and, frankly, as a political junkie, enjoy his craft.

Most of my progressive friends explain TRUMP's appeal by claiming that "Americans are stupid."

It is not wise to be thus dismissive. The American people are who they are, who they've always been. In their stupidity they somehow managed to elect Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

Unlike Matthews and Robinson we should try to figure out what is really going on out there in the country beyond the Beltway and in from both coasts. Smugly mocking our politics and TRUMP will help assure his election. We do so at our peril.