June 5, 2018--David Fairchild Day

For a change of pace I've been reading The Food Explorer: The Adventures of the Globe-Trotting Botanist Who Transformed What America Eats.

It chronicles the remarkable adventures of David Fairchild who in the mid to late 19th century travelled the world in search of foods not available in America and as a consequence the thousands of plants and seeds he sent back to the new U.S. Department of Agriculture, which were test-cultivated by farmers, dramatically changed our diet.

Before Fairchild what was available for Americans to eat was quite limited. Eating in America was about subsistence not enjoyment.

Without what Fairchild rounded up there would be no citrus fruits available to us--no oranges, no grapefruits, no lemons. There would be no avocados, no pomegranates, no mangoes, no bananas, no grapes. 

Until stumbling on Daniel Stone's book, I had never heard of David Fairchild. I did know about the sumptuous Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in Coral Gables, Florida but did not associate it with him nor with what he did to transform an important part of our lives.

Thinking about him and the hundreds of others who profoundly but without due recognition contributed to life in America I thought that perhaps there should be a David Fairchild Day so that Americans could learn about his achievements as well as hopefully be inspired to venture out on their own.

Running this thought by Rona, who liked it as well as the book, she suggested coming up with a list of 364 other people we could celebrate in modest ways on days of their own--many of whom are lost to history--as a way of recognizing their achievements and, again, to inspire us. Especially young people, who are seeking to lead adventurous, accomplished lives.

Provoked by her, here is a simple of the kind of people who might make Rona's top 364--

Sybil Ludington Day: 

There are others who deserve more credit than Paul Revere, who didn't finish his ride before being captured by the British. Notably, Sybil Ludington, a sixteen-year-old girl who rode sidesaddle alone in the rain for 40 miles (twice Revere's distance) to alert her father's troops that they needed to meet at the Ludington farm to fight back British raiders in Danbury, Connecticut. During her ride she used a long stick to knock on doors but also to fight off a highwayman she encountered on route.

James Armistead Lafayette Day:

During the Revolutionary War some aristocrats sent their slaves to battle in their place, but James Armistead Lafayette, a slave, asked his master for permission to fight on the side of the rebels. He became the first African-American double agent. First, he was assigned to spy on the defector and traitor, General Benedict Arnold, who trusted him so much that he asked Arimstead to guide British troops through the local roads. Subsequently, he served undercover with British General Cornwallis and while with him reported secretly to the patriots about British troop and arms deployment that contributed significantly to the capture of Cornwallis in the Battle of Yorktown.

After the war ended, he returned to his life of servitude since a 1783 law that freed slaves who served in place of their masters did not apply to him since he was technically a volunteer. But with the help of his owner and General Lafayette, he was granted his freedom.

Martha Graham Day:

She was an American dancer and choreographer whose style, the Graham technique, reshaped American dance and is still widely used here and worldwide. She in effect created modern dance, which liberated dance from the restrictions of traditional ballet. To do so she needing to battle the dance establishment which largely rejected her highly-charged, "primitive" style. She danced and choreographed for over 70 years and was the first dancer to perform in the White House and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Lydia Folger Fowler Day:

Born in1822, in 1850, Fowler was the first American-born woman to receive an MD degree. After attending Wheaton Seminary in Norton, MA, she entered Central Medical College in Syracuse, NY, one of the few institutions that accepted women as students. During her second term, while still a student, she also served as principal of the "Female Department." After graduating, she was appointed professor of midwifery and diseases of women at the college, becoming thereby the first woman professor in an American medical college. Later, she lived and practiced in New York City, lecturing frequently to women on hygiene and physiology while championing women's rights and the temperance movement.

If you have further suggestions about who might be honored in this way, please pass them along.

Having my change of pace, now back to reading about the potential for fascism in America,  including a fascinating book, Jules Archer's, The Plot to Seize the White House, that chronicles the movement in 1934, during the second year of the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, to replace him with an American-style facsist dictator. 

Leaders of this crackpot movement, funded by major bankers and business leaders (allegedly including J.P. Morgan), offered the role of "American Caesar" to two-time Medal of Honor winner, Marine General Smedley Butler. He was to recruit 500,000 veterans to form the "Silver Shirts," the American equivalent of Mussolini's Black Shirt and Hitler's Brown Shirt thugs. 

A true patriot and supporter of FDR's, General Butler exposed the plot and testified about it to the initial, liberal version of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which found his testimony to be credible.

On the other hand, maybe I'll watch a little of the French Open.

David Fairchild With Mangoes

June 2, 2016--Unfit to Print

In a story ostensibly about Bernie Sanders supporters, how they are hoping that if Hillary Clinton is indicted it will rescue his candidacy, the New York Times article drifts into a story about Donald Trump and fascism.

As the paper of record that purports to print "all the news that's fit to print," it is disturbing to see the daily barrage of anti-Trump articles that claim to be independent-minded journalism but no equivalent stream of Hillary Clinton articles.

As an example of how far the Times is willing to reach to diminish Trump, I fail to see how a piece a few months ago about the age of Trump's fleet of aircraft is in any way germane. Does it really matter that his planes and helicopters are on average 20 years old? Buried in that article, incidentally, which I suppose was to reveal yet another way to assertion how much he is actually worth in spite of his claims, were quotes from aviation experts who uniformly said that 20 years old is an ideal age for a plane (all the bugs have been eliminated) and it is fiscally smart to buy a previously-owned one rather than a more pretentious and expensive new model.

But enough about that.

In the Sanders' article, a string of supporters talk about their hope that Hillary is indicted. How can you blame them--he is irrevocably losing and a hail Mary of some kind is his and his followers only hope.

Julie Crowell, for example, a stay-at-home mother, is quoted as holding out for "an 11th-hour miracle: divine deliverance at the hands of the FBI."

"If there's any chance of her getting indicted, they shouldn't even consider her for the nomination," said Zachary O'Neill, "We can't have a criminal in the White House."

Though history tells us there is precedent for that too.

Then in the article we get to polls that show that an increasing number of Sanders supporters say they will not vote for Clinton in November. "Bernie or Bust" signs are proliferating.

Finally we get to Victor Vizcarra, 48, of Los Angeles, who said that a Trump presidency would be more exciting than a "boring" Clinton administration.

Though why he would say that with Bill Clinton back in the White House as the First Whatever escapes me.

He goes on--

A dark side of me wants to see what happens if Trump is in. There is going to be some kind of change, and even if it's a Nazi-type change, people are so drama-filled, they want to see stuff like that happen. It's like reality TV. You don't want to just see everybody happy with each other. You want to see somebody fighting somebody. [Italics added]

I suppose just another day in the New York Times newsroom.

March 15, 2016--Affectionate Pressure

I have been under affectionate pressure from many liberal friends about some of the things I have posted here about Donald Trump and his remarkable candidacy. In truth, some admonitions that have actually been less than affectionate.

But there I go again, illustrating what they see to be my problem--while attempting to understand why Trump has gathered so much support, I have used words such as remarkable to describe what I see to be the Trump phenomenon. As if remarkable sounds too much like support (it doesn't) or phenomenon is too dispassionately analytical (it may be).

Why haven't I, some say to me, reached the obvious conclusion about him and move on? Don't I see him to be a fraud and a bully, worse, a racist bigot, a misogynist with fascistic aspirations?

Yes, I see all of those tendencies and more.

But if you have been wondering about me, hear me clearly--I have no intention of voting for him in November if he is the Republican nominee.

(As a sidebar, I do not see him winning the nomination--I predicted here months ago that the prize will go to the over-coy, over-eager Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney, clearly, was not ready for his closeup.)

And, these friends have also been unhappy to hear that I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton. I find her qualifications and resumé to be suspect and her inclination to play by her own rules and lie about the consequences unacceptable. Perhaps even felonious. It is no surprise to me at all that the vast majority of young women are voting for Bernie Sanders.

My hope is that somehow someone like a Joe Biden will be able to enter the race. Someone with real, as opposed to self-proclaimed accomplishments.

Otherwise I may sit this one out.

But again, Trump is not anyone for whom I have any admiration or even respect and will not knowingly render him any support.

But I will continue to attempt to figure out the political, social, cultural, and even psychological reasons he has attracted so many followers. Neither I nor any of my friends thus far have answered all the questions I have about these questions and thus many remain.

For example, I have been pressed to see Trump as a crypto-fascist in the mode of Benito Mussolini. There are fascistic strains being exposed, but what are the economic and cultural pressures that might lead to the emergence of an American Duce? Many conditions are dire here, but it is far from 1920s Italy. And how do Evangelical Christians, as opposed to Italian Catholics affect these impulses? This is a key difference and no one to date has shown me how to think about this.

Some say to me that I am meandering into the slippery world of psychohistory. That to psychoanalyze Trump is both an easy thing to do--his omnivorous narcissism and inordinate need for adulation are right there to see on the surface--but hardly worth unpacking. I have responded that I am less interested in his personality disorders than I am in the social-psychological forces at work within our society. Our pervasive national pathology. Our tendency toward anti-intellectualism, know-nothingness, even what historians such as my undergraduate history professor, Richard Hofstadter, have called the "paranoid style in American politics."

Probing beneath the surface of the day-to-day news cycle, I have also written here about how self-loathing can lead one to an interest in Donald Trump. There is more to say about this and over time I hope to be able to do that.

Is there a will to believe that is driving interest, even devotion to Trump? If so, why are Americans, unlike our Western European allies, so prone to belief at the expense of evidence? Scientific as well as religious? Is it simply that after the Founders' generation we have been waging a war against the Enlightenment? If so, isn't that something we should be talking about?

Also, I have been asking, what about belief-driven behavior on the progressive side? Are the people who have turned to Sanders, since his numbers make no fiscal sense at all, just as belief-driven as those chanting "USA, USA" at Trump rallies? "Bernie, Bernie," doesn't sound all that attractive to me.

While on the subject of progressives, also agitating many of my progressive friends, I have been asking if we are as prone to confirmation bias as we accuse conservatives as being? In the spirit of searching for justification for our views, seemingly seeking evidence, how might we be filtering out or ignoring data and views that are legitimate but contradict our fervently-held beliefs? Are we so much smarter and objective than the conservatives we abhor?

And what about the penchant for seeking scapegoats? On the Trump side finding them among undocumented immigrants and more generally people of color. On the other side, I have periodically found friends also engaging in stereotypes--labeling Trump supporters "ignoramuses," "sexists," and "bigots." Is that the best we can come up with when attempting to understand Trump's appeal?

If a large part of Trump's power, many who excoriate him claim, comes from his exploiting and pandering to people's frustration and rage about what they perceive to be America's dissent into a society that panders to people here illegally or others who allegedly are ripping off hard-working Americans who are trying to survive by playing by the rules, what about all the grousing and withering complaints I hear from some of my friends? Much of it quite nasty.

Aren't many of us also frustrated by what we see to be America's failings and even decline? About our rigged system? Don't too many of us on the left join many on the right in looking down our noses at America's struggling unwashed? Aren't we all guilty of having insufficient understanding and too little empathy?

If any of this is true shouldn't we be more honest about our views and, more important, behavior? So many of my friends who understandably despise Trump and say we have to stop him because we will need to tell the next generation why we didn't act to stop him are doing little more than sending money to Bernie from the comforts of middle-class lives. Where is our movement? Is Black Lives Matter the best we can do?

This is just part of my list of unanswered questions. Questions I feel require better answers if we are not to rip ourselves apart. Like him, hate him, one thing Trump has inarguably done is to tear the scab off much of our collective, ideologically-spanning hypocrisies.

Admittedly, many of my remaining questions focus on people like, well,  me. To me and those like me who are leading contradictory lives, substantially satisfied, living in relative comfort and security, it is essential to understand the implications of these unflattering things, including our claim that it is only others who are vulnerable to false prophets.

Perhaps that's too quick a characterization. Among other things, it excuses us from the unpleasantness of having to engage in a difficult self-examination.

As valid as our characterization of "others" might be, to note that is the easy part. The hard part, the more important part, is to look within ourselves, do more fessing up, take more responsibility, and do a lot less finger pointing and condemning.

We're too smart for that.

There's a stereotype for you.