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.

May 18, 2016--Zwerling's Law

Back on March 1st I posted a piece about Godwin's Law. Actually about Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

It stated that "as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazi analogies approaches."

This intrigued me because I was finding that this was what was happening to me with growing frequency whenever I wanted to have a conversation about Donald Trump's political success (no matter what one thought about it or him). Before very long Nazi or Fascist analogies would manifest  themselves. Generally he would not only be labeled a demagogue (perhaps fair) but would also most frequently be compared to Benito Mussolini (in my view, over heated).

I was reminded of this yesterday when reading Charles Blow's op ed column in the New York Times, "Trump's Asymmetric Warfare."

It's actually a pretty good piece that begins with a reference to MSNBC's Chris Matthew's perception that Trump is difficult to attack because "conventional forms of political fighting won't work on this man."

Blow asks, "How do you embarrass an embarrassment."

Well and good, but Trump so clearly makes Blow crazy that he also said, "There is no way to sully a pig or mock a clown."

I'm OK with the clown reference because Trump is a very entertaining entertainer, but "sully a pig?" This goes for meaningful discourse in the paper of record?

Further, there is the whiff of Godwin's Law when Blow writes, "This had made him nearly impervious to even the cleverest takedowns, and trust me, many have tried [think poor Elizabeth Warren who tired and is now referred to by Trump, devastatingly, as Pocahontas], comparing him to everyone from P.T. Barnum to Hitler."

Blow cleverly doesn't say he agrees with this latter comparison. As a journalist, all he's disingenuously doing is reporting what others have said.

Oh really.

But Blow has more to say. Now about Trump's supporters. These, he claims, are people who "tire of higher-level cerebral function."

And concludes, "Trump's triumph as the presumptive Republican Party nominee is not necessarily a sign of his strategic genius [Blow also refers to him as a "simpleton"] as much as it's a sign of some people's mental, psychological and spiritual deficiencies."

Thus, Zwerling's Law--If Nazi analogies don't work, blame the victims.

In this case, the victims are those duped by Trump. To the likes of Charles Blow to support Trump by definition assumes one has been duped. There can be no other explanation. And so to be venerable to Trump's lies and manipulations, one has to be mentally deficient.

It is just this sort of arrogance too common among liberal elites that is ironically proving most helpful to Trump in his ascendancy. Perhaps all the way to the White House.

Charles Blow

March 1, 2016--Godwin's Law

Do you know Godwin's Law?

More formally it is Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies and was coined in 1990 by Mike Godwin, former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation.

It states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

That is, if any discussion, regardless of topic or scope, goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Nazism.

Godwin's Law, when invoked, effectively shuts down the possibility of two or more parties continuing a discussion, even one that started out fairly benignly.

These days, Godwin's Law is working overtime during an increasingly contentious political season. We have candidates--exclusively Republicans--casually accusing each other of Nazi-like ideas and proposals.

Just last week, the reenergized Ted Cruz said that Donald Trump's preposterous promise to deport 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants was the equivalent of sending troops in "hobnailed boots" to round them up.

And I must say that in more and more of my attempts to engage in civil discourse with friends who have been critical of my paying serious attention to the campaign of Donald Trump--not endorsing him but seeing what can be learned about the current state of America from his disquieting run--that after two or three e-mail exchanges, the conversation gets shut down by friends comparing Trump to Hitler or more frequently Mussolini, to whom he does bear some physical resemblance. (Just as Ted Cruz looks so much like Senator Joseph McCarthy.)

I have attempted to push back against this use of Godwin's Law, but unsuccessfully. And as a result we stop talking about politics and agree to chat about the upcoming baseball season, which is fine.

But then, over the weekend, Donald Trump may have really stepped in it and as a result may have disqualified himself from any longer being considered a feasible candidate for the presidency.

When pressed by Jake Tapper on CNN to disavow white-supremisisit Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's support, Trump, who two days earlier had done so, hemmed and hawed, finally saying, actually lying, that he had no idea who Duke is and did not want to disavow anyone or any group until he knew for certain what they were about.

That latter point is not unreasonable except for one thing--anyone older than 50, anyone who knows anything at all about American social or racial history knows about David Duke. He is not some obscure figure living under a rock (though he probably does) but someone of great prominence who even ran for president back in 1988.

So, Trump was either lying and pandering to white-supremisist voters (unacceptable enough) or he really never heard of Duke--his ignorance is also beyond disturbing as is his craven attempt to blame his equivocation on a faulty ear piece--that he couldn't hear the question.

Beyond terrible.

But as bad as he is, he is no Fascist , no Nazi.

February 1, 2016--The Emotional Culture of America

The day before the evening caucuses in Iowa--the first time in 2016 that actual votes will be counted--it feels timely to pause, reflect, and predict.

I'm being advised by some friends, including one of my best friends who is wicked smart and well informed, to stop paying so much attention to Donald TRUMP. The implication loud and clear is that by doing so--even with a critical or satiric edge to my writing--I am aiding and abetting his candidacy. That it's obvious he's dangerous and needs to be defeated.

Perhaps my friends are right. I should step back and think about what they are counseling. Not necessarily come to agree with them, but take seriously what they are saying.

We go back and forth for a few rounds and then someone claims that TRUMP is dangerous because of what they see to be his fascistic inclinations.

If TRUMP is a fascist, what else is there to say? Except that hopefully the America of 2016 is not the Italy of 1922.

All of this aside, as I pause to think about the current state of the presidential race, to wonder if I have been showing too much favor to TRUMP and his candidacy, I should ask myself how I think he and others are doing, what can be learned from that, and who am I inclined in November to support.

I have been arguing here that TRUMP has tapped deep chords in current American consciousness and has exploited or resonated with them (take your pick) with astonishing effect.

As a candidate he was initially thought of to be a "clown," an impostor, someone only interested in enhancing his "brand" and, once he accomplished that, he would drift away and return to his literally gilded tower.

But, unlike other Republican political comets, from Michele Bachmann to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin, he has not flamed out but has lingered at the top of the polls now for more than seven months. No other first-term candidate in 100 years has done so so consistently for this long. Not even ultimately popular candidates such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, or John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In the face of friends' criticisms I have tried to insist it's important to understand as fully as possible TRUMP's success, and successful he has been, so we can better root it out, defeat him, and--most important to me--learn as much as we can about what it means about today's America. To continue to mock him, write him off, assume he will implode will not get that job done. So, it has been my view that we had better be sure we do not continue to ignore the forces undergirding his appeal and energizing his candidacy and in that passive way be of unintended help to him..

As examples of these views, here are excerpts from a few of the emails I have sent to friends in an attempt to explain my posture--

TRUMP and the other spawn of reality TV, talk radio, and Fox News have seized control of the process. Maybe of reality.

And, they are no longer beholden to the forces that launched them or the people who bankrolled them . Interesting, isn't it, that we haven't heard much lately from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon from Las Vegas. 

What I mean to say is that politics is now operating in a parallel universe of its own. 

I am eager to see if (1) TRUMP maintains his refusal to participate in Fox's debate Thursday night and (2) if he doesn't show up what, if anything, will be the consequences. 

We can already hear the whiners saying that he's afraid of someone wearing a skirt (Megyn Kelly). How can someone who fears a WOMAN be trusted to stand up to really bad guys such as Putin, the Ayatollahs, or ISIS. (Roger Ailes of Fox News already said literally that.) 

It may be that Donald is a political Frankenstein, more powerful than his creators. And, to them, more dangerous. If so, they deserve him.

*  *  *

The case for TRUMP is that more conventional, better prepared and experienced candidates and presidents have been dangerous disasters. Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush come to mind. 

But it may be that he has just the right temperament for the job that now needs to be done. In my view, he is so threatening to the status quo that the array of forces, worried about their prerogatives, are lining up against him. From Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox News, to the Rush Limbaughs, to the Republican establishment Koch Brothers, to the Wall Streeters, to the professional bureaucrats, and of course all the liberals and movement conservatives. For me, this is an attractive list of opponents and enemies.

*  *  *

I'm concentrating now on both the process and on what what is happening reveals about the political and emotional culture of America. For that, for me, the TRUMP phenomenon is as important as it gets. I think there is a great deal to study and I'm trying to see and learn as much as I can. 

Next stage--after some dust settles (I think Hillary and TRUMP will win in Iowa, Bernie and TRUMP in NH, and then Hillary and TRUMP in SC, with Hillary and TRUMP then on inexorable paths to the nominations) for me then it will be time to try to understand what kind of presidents they might make.  

It may be true that TRUMP could be dangerous, but I do not until there is more actual evidence join in that feeling. And to me also, because Hillary is so full of personal ambition and inner demons, she also frightens me. 

My fantasy since I can't see myself voting for either TRUMP or Clinton-- 

Hillary gets indicted or censured for the email mess and Joe Biden and/or John Kerry enter the race. The Bernie people would go crazy, of course. But Biden and Kerry are the only two people I feel good about. To me either of them would be good presidents.

Otherwise, Hillary wins it all in a walk.