Thursday, April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020--Who Was that Masked Man?


Masked Man?  Clearly not Mike Pence. 

He was maskless at the Mayo Clinic the other day when he and a delegation of Trump administration officials visited to thank doctors for their work on combating the virus.

The Mayo has a firm policy that anyone working there or visiting MUST wear a mask. When Pence showed up without one and declined to use one his hosts offered to provide, they pressed him and he continued to demure, asserting that the masks are to protect people from spreading the virus and since he is not infected (he claimed to be tested "regularly") he didn't need to wear one.  

And didn't. 

His hosts were gracious enough not to turn him away, as I would have.

What conceit, what arrogance. Or was it vanity--that he didn't want to mess up his $500 haircut?

Wondering about this, a panel of guests on Morning Joe Wednesday, searched for an explanation about why Pence insisted on going without a mask.

They came up with all sots of complicated speculation while a simple one was obvious.

It is not just because the person he is making a career out of sucking up to, Trump, also refuses to wear one. Though they both insist on never being seen with one.

Let me suggest a stretch of a comparison to how President Franklin Roosevelt, who was paralyzed from the waist down from polio, did all he could never to reveal the steel braces he needed to wear on his legs.

Doing so was political--FDR wanted to project strength and thus this "cover up."

The last thing Pence and Trump want is to appear fallible. And they do not want to remind voters that there are complicitous in the spread of the coronavirus. Their agenda is to deny its reality and obscure their series of policies that have it much worse, much deadlier.

Wearing a mask would underscore that the pandemic is still very much with us and until and before there are effective treatments, including vaccinations, they are desperate to vamp their way though the crisis by using theatrics, distortions, and lies to cover up their failures.

For them, business as usual.

As Jared Kushner just said, It's a "great success story." 


Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018--Anti-Intellectualism

In my frustrating attempts to understand the America in which we are living, I suppose Donald Trump's America, struggling to understand why at least 35 percent of Americans support him with enthusiasm, no matter what he says or does, no matter how much he lies and makes a mockery of civility and shreds our traditional ways of conducting ourselves domestically and in the world, I turned again to one of my college professor's, Richard Hofstadter's, most enduring works--Anti-Intellectualism In American Life.

In it he argues that anti-intellectualism is one of the unintended consequences of the expansion of pubic education and the resulting democratization of knowledge. He sees this woven into our cultural fabric, one result of our evangelical Protestant heritage that valued belief more than intellectual rigor.

No wonder that after Trump was elected sales of Anti-Intellectualism briefly became a bestseller. It should be required reading. I know, you want me to say, "Assuming his 35 percent read!"

Reading through it again, I came upon this from the chapter, "The Rise of the Expert." How many in the public had become disenchanted with President Woodrow Wilson's inability at the end of the First World War to take progressive action and how, as a result, during the mid 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was careful not to overpromise or include too many "experts" in his cabinet or to lead newly enacted social programs.

"Keep the whole thing pretty quiet," he counseled one member of his Brain Trust. Hofstadter wrote--
The public had turned on the intellectuals as the prophets of false and needless reforms. As architects of the administrative state, as supporters of the War, even as ur-Bolsheviks; the intellectuals [had] turned on America as a nation of boobs, Babbits, and fanatics.
Rings familiar. 

And here I thought pseudo-intellectual Steve Bannon and his alt-right minions came up with this business about the administrative state on their own. Now I realize his and their ideas are not only half baked but also not original.


Richard Hofstadter

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

May 3, 2017--Jack: One Smart Cookie

This time I called Jack.

I was so upset by President Trump's erratic behavior during the past 48 hours that I wanted to talk to a fervent supporter of his in the hope he could talk me down, get me to see things in a different light. Or, failing that, talking with him would give me the opportunity to vent. Irrationally, to hold him responsible for the Trump presidency.

Considering what was going on in Washington I knew Jack wouldn't be reaching out to me so I dialed him up. I got his answering machine and left a neutral-sounding message so as no to scare him off. He called back in less than half an hour.

"I know why you're calling."

"Really?" I tried not to sound aggressive or sarcastic.

"You never do. I mean, call.  So I assume it's not to talk about the weather, which by the way, is beautiful. Fifty-five and sunny."

"You're right, I'm calling to talk about your boy." So much for my trying to sound moderate.

"What is it about? North Korea?," he said in a mocking tone, "NAFTA? The Philippines? Andrew Jackson and the Civil War?"

"All of the above and then some. What's going on with him? It looks as if he's spinning out of control."

"It's Trump being The Donald. That's the two sides of him, Trump the serious person and The Donald, the adolescent."

"If you're feeling this way, considering that to you he can do no wrong, things must be worse than I imagined."

"Let's talk about North Korea," Jack said, sounding reasonable.

"Shoot. Sorry, not 'shoot,' I mean go on."

"You're all upset that he's willing to meet with Kim Jong-un?"

"No, in fact," I said, "under the right circumstances I'd be in favor of that. Maybe it could help calm things down. I mean Trump is talking about the possibility of 'a major, major conflict.' I don't think even supporters like you are eager to see that."

"Not eager, but if all else fails I'd rather see military action soon rather than after Kim has nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the United States."

"I don't know what to say about that. I can't think my way to a solution. It could come to . . . I can't say the words."

"So," Jack asked, "are you all bent out of shape because you didn't like Trump calling Kim a 'smart cookie' and that he'd be 'honored' to meet with him?"

"That's closer to what's making me crazy."

"So let me try to help you out."

"I'm listening."

"If we want to avoid war, which could easily kill and maim millions, including thousands of Americans, and if China is not willing to fully pull the plug on the North Koreans, and if resuming the six-party talks we had during the Clinton and Bush administrations is a nonstarter, a one-on-one between Kim and Trump might be the last best hope before declaring war."

"You mean art-of-the-deal style?"

"Trump fancies himself the best negotiator ever and probably thinks, grandiosely, that he could strike a deal with Kim. I think he sees some of himself in Kim. Or Kim in himself. Someone very connected to his father, who, when his father died and Kim was only in his twenties, took control of the country and has seen it get stronger.

"There was a long article in your New York Times on Sunday about how the North Korean GDP is growing and small businesses are coming into being. Obviously I'm not seeing any of this as good, particularly the brutal ways in which Kim consolidated and maintains his power. But it is a version of the truth and is sort of similar to Trump's life. What you in one of your blogs called 'the daddy problem.' Again, no value judgements intended. I'm simply trying to be coldly objective."

"It's not easy to go along with this--Kim is a monster--but I'm not hanging up on you."

"Well, Stalin was a much bigger monster who killed tens of millions of his own people and your boy Roosevelt thought he could deal with him, again, one-on one. Didn't he at one of the conference among the wartime allies, near the end of the Second World War, didn't Roosevelt push Churchill aside so he could have direct access to Stalin? And they did make some deals, didn't they? Historians tend to feel Roosevelt wasn't at the top of his game--he died shortly thereafter--but this is still a potentially valid historical parallel."

"So Trump would be 'honored' to meet with him? That Kim is a 'smart cookie.'"

"I could do without that. It was a stupid way to put it, but that was The Donald speaking."

"He can't walk that one back. Even Republicans are going crazy about it."

"I also thought that was stupid and . . ."

"'Thought' or 'think'? What tense do you mean?"

"'Thought.' Past tense because I have a new view about it now."

"Which is?"

"Maybe, maybe underlined, it's Trump not just being crazy but crazy like a fox. He may be figuring that the best way to get to Kim is through a combination of credible threat and flattery. Again, like Trump himself who seems to be threatenable and desperate for flattery. If I'm right about this, Trump may be focussing on the big picture--more than anything else he wants to avoid a major war and make a deal. So he's willing to make himself seem weak or vulnerable while at the same time flexing military muscle."

"Not uninteresting. But that assumes he's a normal person. Trump, that is. And Kim for that matter. They may both be crazy."

"Could be," Jack said.

"What you're suggesting is that maybe Trump can put aside his own colossal ego for the sake of finding a way out of this seemingly hopeless situation."

"Now, you're talking," Jack said.

"This is very, very speculative and doesn't fit my image of Trump as being out of control. But I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for awhile to see if you're right."

"The Andrew Jackson business, however," Jack said, "Is crazy. And not like a fox.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

May 2, 2107--Trump and Franklin Roosevelt

During the countdown to his first 100 days, Donald Trump was not shy about listing his accomplishments, which included claiming that he got more done than any previous president. Including Franklin Roosevelt, who, among other actions, got Congress to pass laws that established the FDIC, Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Glass-Steagall bank regulatory act.

A little research revealed that during Trump's first 100 days he signed 28 bills that passed both houses of Congress.

Here is a rather complete selection--

Trump signed H.J.R. 40 on February 28. The bill repeals an Obama-era rule which prohibited the mentally disabled from being able to purchase firearms.

He signed H.R. 255 on February 28, called the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act. The law authorizes the National Science Foundation to support entrepreneurial programs for women.

H.R. 321, the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers Women Act was signed by Trump, also on February 28th.

He signed a congressional action that repealed an Obama-era regulation that prevented coal-mining companies from dumping waste into nearby waterways.

President Trump signed a Congressional Review Act which rolled back financial disclosure requirements for energy companies mandated by Dodd-Frank.

On January 31st, Trump signed into law H.R. 72, which authorizes the Government Accountability Office to obtain all federal agency records needed for the GAO to perform its duties.

He signed a Senate bill on January 20 which allowed him to appoint General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense.

In March he signed Senate bill 442 which authorized the appropriation of funds for NASA research and exploration.

President Trump signed a congressional review action which abolished a land management rule aimed at streamlining the process for aging federal land use decisions.

He authorized the repeal of another Obama-era rule which mandated that all states issue ratings for teacher-prep courses within their borders.

Trump signed an action which abolished federal standards established by Obama that determined which schools were doing well in terms of student performance and which were not.

He signed the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017, which designates March 29th as National Vietnam War Veterans Day and encourages the display of the American flag on that day.

The president abolished an Obama rule which limited the number of unemployment applicants states could drug test.

At the end of March, Trump signed a bill which designated a VA clinic in American Samoa to be named the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Cinic.

President Trump signed a Senate resolution approving a memorial to recognize military men and women who had served in support of Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield.

Trump signed a House resolution that abolished Obama-era hunting restrictions on national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

In early April he signed a House joint resolution which eliminated workplace safety regulations implemented by Obama which were aimed at reducing injuries and death in the workplace.

Trump authorized a Congressional Review Act bill which eliminated Obama-era rules protecting private citizens' internet and browsing data from being used by their internet providers.

Trump signed a measure on April 13th which allows states to withhold Title X family-planning funds from clinics which provide abortion services.

He signed a bill authorizing a number of programs to enhance weather forecasting and alerts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

President Trump signed a bipartisan measure in April which extends the life of the Veterans Choice Program. Once implemented it will help provide veterans with healthcare at a faster rate than at present.

He signed a Senate resolution which reappointed Steve Case as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents at the Smithsonian Institution.

Trump signed a measure which appointed Michael Govan as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian.

And he signed during his first 100 days, a Senate resolution that appointed Roger W. Ferguson as a citizen regent on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents.

You get the picture. We're not talking FDR.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

December 20, 2016--Trumpian Times

With exactly one month to go before Donald Trump is inaugurated, there is already evidence that "the system" is working." As it has during our entire history.

Yes, I know, but keep reading.

This may not please born-in-America radicals who, right or left, want to see the system overthrown and replaced by their own version of libertarian or authoritarian utopias. But we have weathered various forms of dangerous times and one way or the other came out the other side. Changed, but fundamentally intact.

The latest concerns about the strength of the system involves worry that with Trump as president democracy is threatened. In Sunday's New York Times Review section, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote--
Donald Trump's election raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: is our democracy in danger? With the possible exception of the Civil War, American democracy has never collapsed. . . . Yet past stability is no guarantee to democracy's future survival.
They calm down a bit and then conclude--
American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency.
This leaves the implication that though collapse is not, in their word, "imminent," if there is a crisis of 9/11 proportions, they wonder out loud what a president "with authoritarian tendencies" will do.

This concern/fear conforms to what I continue to hear from progressive friends.

For example I was stopped at the elevator the other day by a neighbor who we know to be totally rational and unflappable. A very successful  commodities trader. He leaned uncharacteristically close so as not to be overheard--though there was no one in sight--and in whispers shared his dystopian vision of what an unfettered Donald Trump will bring down upon us. It didn't take him very long to evoke reminders of strongmen such as Mussolini and Hitler.

I must admit, I tuned him out not wanting to have my day spoiled or my opinion about his rationality impeached.

And then when I returned from doing a raft of chores there were three emails from friends equally agitated. One concluded with fear about what that "psycho facist" is planning for America.

I tapped out a few things in response but had no illusion that there was anything I could say that would help him get through this. Except, I suppose, agree, though I suspect not even that would help.

Another friend just today wrote about her fear that the promiscuous Republican Congress will "roll over" for whatever Trump wants to do, including ending Social Security and Medicare, both of which she and her husband depend upon. "If the Electoral College or federal courts don't stop him--and I mean soon-it will be the end of the system and we will begin to look like Syria."

Since she is an American history buff, here's a portion of what I wrote back to her--
You know even more than I that the so-called "system" was designed by our Founders to include all sorts of checks and balances to assure that the United States would never be headed by a monarch, dictator, or tyrant. Having lived under that sort of rule, they made sure that the Constitution limited the power of the presidency by assigning most authority to Congress and the states. 
Though since the mid 20th century more power than ever has accrued to the president, Congress, with the assistance of the increasingly powerful federal courts, still can undo anything they deem to be overreaching or unconstitutional. 
Franklin Roosevelt discovered this when Congress refused to go along with his plan to "pack" the Supreme Court. He didn't like their decisions to curtail some of his favorite New Deal programs. FDR was very popular but Congress ultimately limited his authority. 
When in the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy was amassing power due to his unfettered pursuit of alleged Communist infiltration of the federal government, just when it looked as if he might win the Republican nomination for president and even the election, the press and a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress stepped in to censure him and in that way pushed back successfully to thwart his demagogic appeal. 
And of course there was Richard Nixon who turned the federal government into a criminal enterprise. Eventually he was impeached and forced to resign the presidency.  
I could go on but want at the end to mention evidence that Congress, under the control of Republicans, even before Trump is sworn in, is moving to investigate the Russian hacking of the recent election. Something Trump does not want Congress to do. Ignoring him, they are making plans to proceed. Among other things, it's also a muscle-flexing signal to him not to take them for granted.
So, my friend, try to keep one eye on history and the other on Trump because he may need to be resisted when he moves beyond talk and Cabinet nominations and begins to actually do things. Until proven otherwise, I'm betting on the "system" to prevail.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, December 05, 2016

December 5, 2016--Breakfast With FDR

After a half-hour attempting to talk about the results of the recent election, our friend slammed her fists on the table and, starting to get up, said, "We can't talk about this anymore. Ever."

I said, as calmly as I could, "If it's come to that, for the sake of our friendship, we need to try to keep talking, because, if we don't, it's possible that we'll never again speak with each other."

She had been saying, hotter and hotter, that I was being naive insisting it is too soon to be drawing conclusions about what kind of president Donald Trump will be. "All he's been doing thus far," she quoted me as saying, is appoint people. He hasn't at yet actually done anything."

"But," she had been insisting, "all his appointments are either rightwing racist ideologues like Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general, a bunch of hawkish has-been generals or," much worse to her, "Goldman Sachs billionaires with no governmental experience. Talk about draining the swamp. And what about that white-supremacist Bannon?"

"Who do you expect him to appoint? While campaigning he said these are the kind of people he'd select. Successful people and people not tainted by government experience. His criticism included claiming that the messes we find ourselves in are largely because we've been governed by professional politicians and government workers who are incompetent."

"That's quite an overstatement, don't you think?" she pressed, "I know some government officials and they're hardworking and pretty good considering the problems we face."

"So you expected Trump to appoint Bernie Sanders secretary of the treasury? As Obama said, elections have consequences. But, again, I am not drawing any conclusions. Not for a few months after he's inaugurated. To see what he and his people do. Could be a disaster, who knows, but they could shake things up in a few good ways."

She banged the table again but sat back down. So I pushed on, "I know your favorite president is Franklin Roosevelt, FDR." Sullenly, she nodded. "One of mine too, but I found while reading Listen, Liberal, that many of his major appointments were quite unconventional. Not right out of the elite leaders most presidents then and now draw upon."

"There you go again with that book," she muttered.

"It just so happens that I have the book with me. Let me read a bit to you, here on page 39, about some of FDR's appointments--
Look back to the days when government actually worked and you will notice an astonishing thing. Unlike the Obama administration's roster of well-graduated mugwumps, the talented people surrounding Franklin Roosevelt stood very definitely outside the era's main academic currents. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's closest confident, was a social worker from Iowa. Robert Jackson, the U.S. Attorney General whom Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court, was a lawyer who had no law degree. Jessie Jones, who ran Roosevelt's bailout program, was a businessman from Texas with no qualms about putting the nation's most prominent financial institutions into receivership. Marriner Eccles, the visionary whom Roosevelt appointed to run the Federal Reserve, was a small-town banker from Utah with no advanced degree. Henry Wallace, who was probably the nation's greatest agriculture secretary, studied at Iowa State and came to government after running a magazine for farmers. Harry Truman, FDR's last Vice President, had been a successful U.S. senator but had no college degree at all. 
I looked up to see her reaction.

"He also had the famous Brain Trust with plenty of people from Harvard and Columbia."

"Your point?"

"That he also turned to well educated and experienced people to help guide his thinking and legislative agenda."

"True, including appointing the richest man in America, Wall Street insider, Joseph Kennedy, to serve as first head of the SEC, saying he was the best choice because he knew how the system was rigged and where the skeletons were hidden. To drain the swamp you need people who know the swamp. Which brings me to my final point."

"Thankfully," my friend said under her breath.

"Then there was small-town lawyer Cordell Hull, his Secretary of State, who did not always get FDR to do the right thing. For example, he pressed Roosevelt to authorize during the Second World War the internment of Japanese Americans. More than 120,000 of them."

She looked away. "A lot of people, you included, are worried that Trump will do a version of the same thing to Muslims in this country. That banning them selectively from entering this country is not that far a stretch from internment. Whatever Trump might be thinking about that--and I doubt it will come to that--unlike FDR he hasn't made any moves to do so whereas the progressive Democrat Roosevelt did what he did. And further, because of his anti-Semitism, or minimally indifference to the plight of European Jews, with pressure from key members of the State Department, including Hull, how many Jews did he relegate to horrific deaths in Germany's concentration camps? How many could Roosevelt have saved?"

"I have no idea," she said, still not looking at me.

"My point--how presidents act is not always predictable. And before condemning them I continue to contend we have to wait until they act. Becoming president history shows can change candidates and president-elects. Until they get those extra-top-secret briefings and have time to contemplate the world situation and the immensity of their power, all bets are off."

She said nothing and began to slip into her coat.

"My real point is that things are usually more nuanced and complicated than they seem. Thus, the comparison to Franklin Roosevelt. We both think very highly of him, but . . ."

With that, my friend left.

That was two weeks ago. I haven't heard from her since. This is very unusual when we're in town.


Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 11, 2016

March 11, 2106--Gut Check

In a wise column in Wednesday's New York Times, "Only Trump Can Trump Trump," Tom Friedman finally came around to understanding the Trump political phenomena.

He wrote--
Donald Trump is a walking political science course. His meteoric rise is lesson No. 1 on leadership: Most voters do not listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If a leader can connect with them on a gut level, their response is: "Don't bother me with details. I trust your instincts." If a leader can't connect on a gut level, he or she can't show them enough particulars. They'll just keep asking, "Can you show me the details one more time?"
Friedman could have added that there were a number of earlier presidential candidates who also connected viscerally with voters and, while running for office, offered few details. 

It is a distinguished list--

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

Two Democrats and two Republicans.

FDR famously said that he didn't have all the answers, all the specifics about the ways in which he would take the lead to bring America out of the Great Depression. That he would try many things, that he would experiment and then see what worked, expand on that, and abandon the rest. That's more or less how he governed. 

Ike said it was "Time For A Change" after 20 years of Roosevelet and Truman and that was pretty much it.  All he needed to do was connect to people's guts. Which he did. His campaign button said--"I Like Ike." That was enough.

JFK also connected at the gut level. He promised to close the missile gap. He incorrectly, probably deceitfully, pointed to "the fact" that the Soviet Union had more and bigger and better missiles than we. Voters didn't press him for details, and he didn't offer any. But in any case they went on to elect him because they connected with him emotionally and trusted him to do the job.

Ronald Reagan specified even fewer things. People simply liked him and that was sufficient to move them to trust him. They believed he would bring "morning" back to America. Sort of, make America great again. And to his admirers he did.

On the other hand, it doesn't always work--Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan in 1964 was, "In Your Guts You Know He's Right." When a Democrat button appeared, mocking his, "In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts," that helped assure that Goldwater lost 44 of 50 states.

The other day on Morning Joe, a very frustrated Bob Woodward unsuccessfully pressed Trump to be specific about one of his most effective appaluse lines--how he would get Mexico to pay for the border fence.

Trump refused to, saying there are five ways he had in mind. That was it. Woodward, a scion of the Washington Establishment and master of the traditional ways in which to categorize political behavior, was unrelenting, visibly turning red as he asked again and again. Trump didn't budge. "Trust me," he in effect said. "Elect me president and then I'll show you what I'll do."

I suspect that despite that lack of specificity, not one Trump supporter switched allegiance  to Ted Cruz or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton. They both have 15-page, single-spaced proposals about what they would do about illegal immigrants. But no one is listening to them with their ears. Clinton and Cruz are having trouble connecting with voters at the gut level because your gut can turn you off as well as on.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 01, 2016

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.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

September 1, 2015--TRUMP: Read My Lips--Yes, New Taxes

With Donald TRUMP continuing to surge in the polls--state-by-state and nationally--Republicans are beginning to panic. Not just about the possibility that he might win the nomination but that he might, just might become president.

We know he'd build a "great, great" fence (his description) and deport 10 million illegal immigrants (they love that red meat), but now members of the GOP corporate establishment are worried about what else he might do if he were elected.

And they are not liking what they are hearing and fearing.

He's talking about Republicans' favorite subject--taxes. But he's not talking about cutting them further for rich folks such as himself (that really hits home), but raising them significantly for people who make money by manipulating the system and who take advantage of all the loopholes that enable the least productive capitalists to earn more than those who, like TRUMP, actually do and build things. And have their own money, their own skin in the game.

This to them is truly dangerous stuff. Would he be, like Franklin Roosevelt, a traitor to his class?

Here's are some of the tax increases he has been talking about--

He says he would institute stiff tariffs on American companies that build factories in other countries. He has threatened to increase taxes on hedge fund managers' compensation. People he rightly says are "getting away with murder." And he has said he would change the laws that enable American firms to pay much less in taxes by merging with companies based overseas in order to benefit from their cheaper rates.

None of this is music to the one-percenter's ears.

And let's recall that he opposed the war in Iraq before it was launched (not so either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden) and his heath care views are more Bernie Sanders than Jeb Bush or the current Republican flavor of the month, Doctor Ben Carson.

So TRUMP continues not only to be amusing and provocative but seriously uncatagorical and interesting.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015--The New Cold War

This report from the New York Times isn't from 1955 but appeared yesterday--
In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is drawing up plans to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, official say.
What happened to détente? What happened with the Obama administration's claim that it had successfully pressed the "reset button" in our relations with Russia?

This sounds to me like all too familiar sabre-rattling.

But there's more.

A few days earlier the Pentagon announced that a Russian jet fighter buzzed a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying well outside Soviet borders over the Black Sea. It came within 10 feet of the American plane and maintained its provocative position for 10-15 minutes before breaking off. Overnight, the Russians announced they would match the U.S. buildup in Eastern Europe.

This to me sounds like back to the future and is very scary.


We know that Obama and Vladimir Putin despise each other and can't stand to be in the same room.

Nixon managed to meet and talk with Nikita Khrushchev, Roosevelt and Truman sucked it up and met and negotiated with Stalin, so why can't the current U.S. and Russian presidents do the same thing?

They would probably claim it's because they disagree about Crimea, which Russia annexed a year and a half ago. Obama sees Putin threatening more incursions in other culturally Russian parts of Ukraine; Putin sees it as an inevitable part of Russia's national destiny. We in America above all should understand his version of Manifest Destiny.

But none of this requires Cold-War-style confrontations. If Putin and Obama had a civil working relationships it all could be resolved with a few phone calls.
"Vlad, what's going on with you guys? I mean in Crimea." 
"Well, Barack, it's a traditional part of Russia, the people there are of Russian descent, speak Russian, and want to be a part of Russia. So why not let things take their course?" 
"I see your point. But what we need to do, Vlad, is sell the idea to our own people and make the case that you let the Crimeans vote about affiliating with Russia. Which they did and overwhelmingly wanted to. I'll work on Poroshenko to convince him it's no big deal. He owes me one. Everyone knows Crimea has been largely autonomous for decades so we should be able to put a fig leaf on the situation. How does that sound?" 
"I think I can make that happen. In the meantime, send my best to Michele." 
"And mine to . . . Sorry, I forgot her name. The gymnast?" 
"Alina, Alina Kabaeva. Will do. Talk to you soon. Call any time. You know I don't sleep."

So now that their relationship is ruptured, there will be no conversations of this kind and as a result we have economic and diplomatic sanctions flying in both direction, Russia has been kicked out of the G-8 (which is now again the G-7), and there are not-so-veiled threats of more to come, including additional close encounters in the sky and at sea. All we need is for one jet fighter pilot to make a mistake and launch a missile and who knows what would happen next.

This is the way adolescents behave, not the leaders of the world's two most powerful nations, both still with hundreds of intercontinental missiles at the ready and thousands of nuclear warheads.

Where are the adults?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 09, 2015

April 9, 2015--Running Against Washington

It is tempting to do so. Pretty much everyone thinks that "Washington" is broken and that to run against it as a presidential aspirant is a smart political idea.

Ronald Reagan did so successfully ("Government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem") as did Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. And now we have Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other Republicans proclaiming that they are outsiders (though at least two thus far are government employees, U.S. senators) and will either get the government to work, get it off our backs, or promise to do a combination of both.

I was reminded of this when reading, in The New York Review of Books, about David Axelrod's political memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

In 2008, in a debate before the New Hampshire primary Axelrod recalls Hillary Clinton, by implication criticizing Barack Obama, declaring that she had been fighting for change all her life and "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Axelrod, and through him his candidate, seeing the political opening, jumped on her claim that it is difficult to bring about real change. He writes--
I recognized the opportunity that Hillary handed us. She was too much a part of the system in Washington ever to change it--and without changing the politics in Washington, real solutions to big problems would never come.
This may be a good way to win nominations and even get elected but it is a terrible approach to governing.

Like it or not, if we are to have a government (and even Tea Party people want some government--their Medicare, their Social Security, their military, their border police, their courts, their jails, their tax cuts) the only way for it to function is through various forms of bipartisan deal making. Deals between the President, his (or her) administration, and Congress, whichever party controls it.

Hillary was right--you have to be part of our system to get anything done. Forget changing it. And maybe she'll get a chance to try to function the old fashioned way. She may be boring, less than likable, and past her prime, but when she was a senator she did work this way and was able to get quite a lot accomplished.

The three presidents who got more of their agenda approved than any of their successors (whether or not you like their policies) were able to figure out ways to work with Congress. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan. Privately, very privately, for the most part they expressed little respect for specific members much less the system itself. But they held their noses and figured out ways to work with Congress, including, if they could, through intimidation.

To get things done, the lessons of history suggest, those willing and adept at working the system do better than those who claim to be outsiders. It's not sexy but it works.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, August 16, 2013

August 16, 2013--Arab Winter

Fridays in August should be times for languor and light spiritedness. Pass by this then if you want to protect your tranquility, but I cannot resist saying a few words about the escalating crises in the Middle East.

With a state of emergency declared in Egypt--after hundreds there were slaughtered by the military in an attempt to take the country back from the democratically-elected leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood--with continued unrest in Bahrain; democracy under threat in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and possibly even Turkey; and an all-out civil war raging in Syria, what ever became of the hope engendered by the Arab Spring that commenced in Tunisia more than two years ago?  The hope that authoritarian leaders from Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would topple one-by-one and liberal democracies would take their places?



Isn't this what Barack Obama early in his presidency in a speech in Cairo saw to be the strategic opportunity in the region? And wasn't it for this that he was awarded a preemptive Nobel Peace Prize?

But now we have this--a tectonic nightmare of old authoritarian regimes overthrown and supplanted by radical leaders, many of whom either have ties to al Qaeda or tolerate their presence. Who foresaw that this would be the last gasp of 19th century colonialism and the dawn of a complicated new day in the Muslim world? 

Actually, many did who knew anything about the history of the Arab lands and the contesting forces active in every country throughout the region.

Does anyone doubt that events in Egypt will lead to a civil war there at least as ugly as the one underway in Syria? With the military government so casual about murdering hundreds of protesters isn't it inevitable that this will not suppress the opponents of military rule but motivate and inspire them to become more aggressive, ultimately take up arms, and prevail?

Is there any doubt that at some point in the not distant future we will see similar situations in Jordan and even Saudi Arabia where corrupt monarchies currently rule?

Then what we will have? A region in full turmoil with access to oil severely restricted. What will then be the consequences for the global economy? 

The ideals espoused by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in historical perspective look naive. 

Not everyone wants a government similar to ours (in fact, a majority of Americans themselves aren't too happy with the state of our own current government), not every country (especially those with arbitrary borders drawn up by the West after the First World War) is culturally set up to embrace democracy. And when they do fight for and achieve the right to vote--with our endorsement--they elect leaders from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

This is just another sad example of unintended consequences, of the danger of getting what one wishes for.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

August 7, 2013--Knight's Moves

Chess is a game; a passion; can be a way of life, an obsession; and, for those of us like me, who do not play seriously or well, it is about metaphors. 
The most obvious are the military ones--about conflict, attack, retreat, capture, defeat, unconditional surrender--while for me the most interesting are those about the rest of life.
I know all the moves. Though by this I am not speaking braggadociosly or metaphorically--that I smugly claim I know all the moves--rather I mean I know how each piece moves and some rules such as those about passed pawns and castling (the only play in which two pieces are moved simultaneously--if one is extra patient and does not move the king or one of the rooks and the spaces between them have been vacated, one is rewarded for that patience by being allowed to castle, to make a strategic and advantageous move--a life lesson in metaphor about the opportunities that accrue from restraint). 

But I do not have the mind nor the patience to do enough studying or playing to rise above the level at which I used to play as a young boy with my father, who took pleasure in regularly "mating" me (speak about metaphors!) in Guinness-Book-of-Records' time.

I was inspired to think again about chess after moving on to the second volume of James MacGregor Burns' excellent biography of Franklin Roosevelt, The Solider of Freedom

Writing about FDR's strategic style, Burns compared Roosevelt's moves to those of chess's knights and not to the king's, which is surprising since so many of FDR's opponents and haters claimed that he aspired to be an American monarch. 

Middling knight's moves are dramatically different from those permitted the all-important king's--one measly space at a time in any direction, though not into check, into peril. Burns compared Roosevelt not to a ruler but to the unpredictably eccentric knight, the sole piece that moves in two directions at the same time and with the sanction--again the only piece permitted to do so--in its asymmetrical, staggered way, to leap over other pieces, in all directions, over friend and foe alike, and over white as well as black pieces. 

Here from Burns, comparing FDR with Hitler--
Grounded in the security of doting parents, fixed home, social class, family traditions, Roosevelt could not easily gauge this product [Hitler] of social void and revolutionary turmoil. Hitler had lacked a home, but had found a new home in the Nazi party, in its ideas, and comradeship. Though Hitler knew how to use the carrot as well as the stick, he had become a terrible simplifier. While Roosevelt proceeded with a series of knights' moves, bypassing, overleaping, encircling, Hitler went right for his prey--opposition parties, Nazi dissidents, Jews, small nations.
But as quirkily strategic as knights may be, researching a bit, I learned that they are especially vulnerable to lowly pawns. Here, from something I turned up--
Since knights can easily be chased away by pawn moves, it is often advantageous for knights to be placed in holes [a square that a player cannot hold with his or her own pawn] in the enemy position as outposts--squares where they cannot be attacked by pawns. Such a knight on the fifth rank [there are eight ranks in total] is a strong asset, and one on the sixth may exercise as much power [as the usually much more powerful] rook. A knight at the edge or corner of the board controls fewer squares than one on the board's interior, thus the saying, "A knight on the rim is dim!"
Thinking and acting as a knight served FDR well as he confronted enemies domestic and foreign. For the rest of us just attempting to make it through life while pursuing happiness, thinking and acting more like knights--with their capacity to bypass, leap, and circle--sounds about right.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

July 9, 2013--Midcoast: Little Old Ladies

The morning had not gotten off to a good start and the highlight, by 11:00, was finding a parking place right in front of the Maine Coast Bookstore where we had gone to buy a copy of the New York Times.

When we emerged, grumbling that we had arrived too late and all the copies had been sold, a woman approached us with brochures in hand, looking as if she wanted to sell us tickets for a Puffin cruise or a half-off special for a twin lobster dinner.

"Do you know about Frances Perkins?" she asked. We tried to ignore her. She persisted, "There's an exhibit about her inside." She pointed toward a path through a lush garden that led to what looked like a small store adjacent to Maine Coast.

She smiled at us, undoubtedly picking up our out-or-sortness. "It's free and will only take a few minutes. You have the perfect parking spot for both the bookstore and the Frances Perkins exhibit."

"Maybe we should," I mumbled to Rona. "Lately, I've been reading a lot about the New Deal and Frances Perkins played a big part in it. Especially when it came to figuring out how to conceptualize the Social Security program."

"Wasn't she the first female cabinet member?" Rona recalled.

"Indeed she was," the woman with the brochures bubbled. "And do you know, she summered in Newcastle, at her grandmother's place right across the bridge from here." She gestured up Main Street. "She's buried there. Frances. At the old Glidden Cemetery. Between her husband and grandmother, Cynthia Otis." She looked around and whispered conspiratorially, "They say it's haunted."

"This is right down your alley," Rona said to me, still smarting about not being able to get the Times, especially its crossword puzzle. "You love old cemeteries. You never seem to get enough of them. So maybe we should go inside and learn a little more about Frances Perkins so when we visit the cemetery you'll know who's who."

The docent, that is what she turned out to be, was enjoying our spatting. "Come inside with me. It's cool and I have ice water for visitors."

We followed her and she directed us toward the corner of the room where the exhibit started with information about Fannie's childhood. "She was named Fannie Perkins but later, after college--she went to Mount Holyoke--she became Frances Perkins, thinking it would be a more fitting name for someone wanting a career. She felt there were enough barriers at the time to women's advancement that she didn't want to be stuck with, to her, an unserious-sounding name such as Fannie."

"Just like your Aunt Fannie," Rona remembered, "who worked in a sweatshop, became a suffragette, was about as old as Frances Perkins, and wanted us to call her Fay."

"Which my father, to needle her, always refused to do."

Being surrounded by history, the aura of the remarkable Frances Perkins, and recalling my Aunt Fay begin to pull us out of our funk. The ice water on the very hot and humid morning also helped.

It was indeed a small exhibit and we had worked our way through it in less than half an hour, though we enjoyed the docent's chattering.

As we turned to leave, a group of four clearly very elderly women walked haltingly up the garden path. When they finally made it to the door I held it open for them and Rona rushed over to help one, who was using a walker, up the single step into the room.

After they caught their breath and soaked up some of the air-conditioned air, the docent welcomed them and, as with us, told them where it was best to begin. Rather than follow that suggestion they shuffled toward that part of the exhibit that had information about Secretary of Labor Perkins' role in 1935 in establishing Social Security.

Though the docent, Alice, continued to point to other parts of the exhibit, the women seemed only interested in Social Security. I assumed that was because all of them must receive it. Perhaps depend on it. Also, I confess, I thought maybe they were a little past their prime and not following what Alice was suggesting. So I drifted over to them to see if I too might be able to help orient them to where they were and what surrounded them. It could easily be that at their age they could be quite confused.

"You know if it weren't for that," the woman who seemed oldest said, pointed with a trembling hand toward the section of the exhibit devoted to Social Security, "it would be so difficult for Henry and me. He's gone, wouldn't you know," she said wistfully to no in particular, "I don't know how we'd get by. Even heat our house. It gets so cold here." She shivered as if to demonstrate how frigid it gets during Maine winters.

"Do you remember the time," I asked, "before there was Social Security?"

"What did you say, son?" She cupped her ear toward me.

"I was asking about Social Security."

"Oh, that. Social Security." I waited for her to continue, which she didn't. She appeared to stare blankly ahead.

But she continued, "I remember back in, what was it, 1930 or so when it was approved." I didn't correct her recollection of the actual date. "How old was I then? About your age," she said with a full smile. When I shrugged, with a twinkle, she said, "I'm just having some fun with you, dear."

"I too am old enough to collect it," I said, returning her smile, "For a number of years now. Though I appreciate your flattering me. On these days when I'm all aches and pains I can use whatever encouragement comes my way."

"Did you know my father knew Eleanor Roosevelt?"

"No, I didn't." This seemed like a non sequitur.

"You know about My Day?"

"I sure do. It was the newspaper column she wrote, I think, six days a week. For many years."

"For more than 25 years. It was published in 90 papers around the country. She wrote about family matters but also about workers and women and how badly Negros were treated. To some, it was very controversial. Well, my father worked for United Press, actually United Features, and he was her editor and responsible for syndicating it."

"That's amazing," I said, truly amazed at who one from time-to-time encounters.

"They were so close that my family, including me, spent a weekend in the White House and then many times we went to Hyde Park and stayed in Mrs. Roosevelt's cottage. I forget the name. It's something like Overkill."

"Val-kill," I said. "I think that was its name."

"That's right. It so frustrating when you get to be my age how much you forget."

"You're doing just fine," I said, meaning every word of it.

"And Ernie Pyle as well."

"Who?" Rona asked.

"You're not old enough, darling, to remember; but I'm sure your uncle does." I held back from telling her that we are married. This happens all the time.

"Wasn't he," I said, "the war correspondent? During the Second World War? As we would describe it today, he was embedded with the troops, even on D Day."

"The very same. It was my father, also, who suggested to him that he become a war correspondent. I remember him too. He asked me to call him 'Ernie.' Such a sweet man. But he was killed in the pacific after the German's surrendered. My father was so upset, believing it was his fault that he died in combat."

She sighed deeply, thinking back over all those years and the events of her life.

The docent, Alice, was hovering in the background and to lift everyone's spirits and bring us back to Frances Perkins, said, "Do you know about her contributions to the Social Security Act? How, if it weren't for her, after it was passed by Congress, it likely would have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?"

"Indeed I do," one of the other women said. "At the time they were overturning all sorts of programs. The National Recovery Act and many of the minimum wage laws. I remember that as if it were yesterday. So when they were working on Social Security, Frances Perkins said it was important that they think about how to protect it from the Court. She came up with the idea not to call it insurance, thinking it would be found to be unconstitutional if it was presented that way. She suggested--and this is what they did--that it be considered a tax program. And she was right--the Supreme Court upheld it."

"Not unlike what just happened with Obamacare," one of the other women added with a wink.

"Time for us to go," the first woman announced. "We have to get home before the temperature hits 100. We all have weak hearts," she whispered to me.

"I don't know what your doctors think," I leaned close to her, "but your hearts seem pretty strong to me."

After they left, Rona said, "Who needs the newspaper anyway when were surrounded by so much richness. The crossword puzzle, on the other hand . . ."

Labels: , , , , , , , ,