July 21, 2016--CoiffeurGate

French President Francois Hollande, how shall I put this, on his head, at best, has a rim of hair.

But the socialist president has had it tended to by a private though publicly-paid-for hairdresser, Olivier Benhamou, otherwise known as Monsieur O.

Hollande's popularity could hardly be lower--he failed to deliver on all his election promises. The French economy is worse than when he took office four years ago, youth unemployment hovers at close to 25 percent, and of course there have been a series of hideous terrorist attacks.

But because of CoiffeurGate Le President's numbers have declined even further.

We in America, frequently looked down upon by the French because of their self-proclaimed superior culture, life style ("soft power"), food, language, and politics have had our own grooming flaps.

Remember back in 1995 when Bill Clinton tied up air traffic in Los Angeles for more than an hour to have his hair done on the tarmac onboard Air Force One. Embarrassed, Clinton forked over the cash to cover the cost and avoid another count of impeachment.

And of course there was John Edwards, the Two-Americas John Edwards, who in 2008 had the campaign pay for two $400 haircuts and thereby was exposed as the millionaire phony he was.

Then, also in 2008, the McCain campaign dolled out thousands for Sarah Palin's hair, makeup, and fancy outfits.

But there's a difference--Clinton and Edward's, whatever one thinks of them (me--not much), unlike Francois Hollande, had hair. And Sarah Palin, if nothing else, was something to look at.

And compared to President Hollande, they were modest. He had the French government pay Monsieur Olivier in euros about $10,000 a month. Every month since assuming office in 2012. About what a senior minister in France is paid.

He may be worth it but Monsieur O needs to hold back a bit on the dye. On Hollande's hair it looks to me like black shoe polish.

Speaking of hair, we do have Donald Trump. The French as you might imagine are loving his candidacy, very much including making fun of his coiffeur.

I can't help but wonder how much The Donald's  haircare costs. I mean, its upkeep and styling. But who cares--the taxpayers aren't paying for it. He's self-funding his campaign. And I assume his hair.

June 18, 2016--Presidential Hair

Commenting about candidates for the presidency as we entered the age of campaigning on TV, my father used to say, as John Kennedy was moving to succeed Dwight Eisenhower, "Without a full head of hair like his, you don't have a chance to be elected. Ike, with just that wisp on top, would not have fared well if he had to run on television."

With that my Dad would stroke his bald pate and look, ruefully and disappointedly over at me, noting my own rapidly receding hairline, realizing he would have to settle for my becoming a surgeon (which I failed to do) and not president. His real American dream.

So what to make of our current crop of candidates' hair?

Scott Walker (remember him, the governor of Wisconsin and Koch Brothers' favorite), the establishment GOP's great white hope, faded fast and dropped out first because of hair problems. His bald spot--much like a monk's tonsure--was made more visible on HD TV by the fact that his remaining hair was dyed extra black with what could only have been shoe polish.

It didn't help his candidacy when a letter surfaced that he wrote to a Jewish constituent in which he said, "Thank you again and Molotov," when he meant Mazel tov.

Marco Rubio, already suffering from the problem that he's youthful-looking and short (sorry, vertically challenged, and thus those 2-inch lift boots he was spotted wearing last week), both of which make it hard for voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief ensconced at the head of the Situation Room table, also has a hair problem. Though artfully disguised, at only 44, he is already sporting a comb-over, which becomes apparent when on the stump in windy Iowa where he has to pay more attention to beating it back in place than repeating his over-rehersed Mr. Robot talking points.

Raphael Cruz is also working on a comb-over. Look carefully and you will spot the beginnings of serious thinning along the seam of his part.

But the three candidates who have by far the most politically interesting hair are Donald TRUMP (an easy call), Hillary Clinton, and even Bernie Sanders.

In reverse order--

Bernie's hair looks as if it's cut by his wife. No $1,250 haircuts for socialist Bernie like the one that undid poor Two-Americas John Edwards. And no hair dye either to make him look more youthful (not that he needs that--he's pretty much got all the Millennials voting for him). And certainly no hair gook. The windblown, absentminded professor look do appear to be working for him. But from time to time I've been noticing evidence of a comb-forward. A modified Chuck Todd. This alone suggests that he's thinking of himself as a viable candidate, not just Crazy Bernie.

What to make of Hillary?

During her years as First Lady she struggled almost as much with what name to adopt--Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Eva Peron, Golda Meir--as she did with her hair.

Beyond her name shifting (really struggles about her identity) even more on her mind was her hair.

On the Internet there are people keeping track of everything going on in the world, including how many hairstyles Hillary sported while First lady. From their and my research I have counted at least 32. Thirty-two!

With even more on display during the past few months in Iowa and New Hampshire. Neither place good-hair-day territory.

Then, beyond imagining, irresistible to make fun of, is the now iconically famous whatever-it-is that The Donald does with his hair.

If there is anyone on the political circuit paying more attention to his or her hair than Hillary, it is TRUMP.

The style never varies and the color is consistently applicated. Couple that with all the sculpting, fixing, and the pumpkin-colored spray-job on his face and the chauk-white mask around his eyes and you have  a living, breathing cartoon superhero.

Counter-intuitively, all this attention to his hair and looks is stereotypically . . . feminine.

So we have big-bully Donald TRUMP coming off at least as girly as Hillary Clinton.

How this campaign continues to fascinate with its surprises.

Hillary Clinton a mass of contradictions, calling on her husband to pull her out of tough spots (as now in Iowa) while at the same time showing off her cajones as a potential commander-in-chief, while blustery tough-guy Donald Trump spends hours each day fussing with his hair.

Though, he said, if he's elected he'll be so busy in the White House that he won't have time for his hair and will get a buzz cut.

That prospect is almost enough to get me to vote for him.

May 6, 2015--Liking Obama Again

A friend who back in 2008 supported the candidacy of Two-Americas John Edwards and then Likable-Enough Hillary Clinton after he dropped out, subsequently offering lukewarm support for Barack Obama when he defeated Hillary and then went through the same disillusionment cycle most of his supporters did after he was elected president when he couldn't seem to get much done domestically or act consistently internationally, over coffee the other day declared that she had gone back to liking him.

"Really?" I asked, a bit incredulously knowing her tepid interest in him.

"Yes, really."

"Tell me," I said.

"Well, first, consider the alternatives. John McCain and then George Romney. Does anyone think either one of them would have been a better president?"

"Actually, millions do. Have you checked out Fox News lately or radio talk shows?"

"Touché. But, since no one here is listening, I mean does any smart person think either McCain or Romney would be better?"

"I'll have to think about that since it feels a little elitist."

"Let me help you," my friend offered, "Those who still prefer McCain or Romney would have us at war with Iran. How does that sound? Part of my point is that we're not bombing them because Obama, who was mocked back in 2008 for saying he would negotiate with the Iranians, may be in the process of pulling off a truly historic deal which, if we got very lucky--and neither Republicans in the Senate nor Netanyahu in Israel mess things up--could, with Iran's help, redefine for the better many of the disputes and wars in the Middle East."

"I agree. Obama has messed up with red lines in Syria and not seeing the ISIS threat soon enough, but he knows the history of the region and realizes that when dealing with all the rivals factions one size for certain does not fit all."

"And so it may be one of those things-could-be-much-worse deals. Not my favorite reality--I'd like it to be simpler and more infused with hope and possibility--but life there is not reducible to a string of clichés."

"And domestically? Obamacare? I thought you hated that," I reminded my friend. "That he bargained away any possibility of Medicare for all, the famous single-payer option, when he may not have needed to."

"Well it's true that I think he was too quick to take that off the table but look at the results. First at least 16 million people now have medical insurance who didn't before Obamacare and even impartial parties acknowledge the cost of medical care has gone down and along with it so has our deficit. His critics were wrong on all fronts--that no one would sign up and costs would skyrocket. Obama gets a B+ from me for that."

"What about the economy? Yes, the stock market more than doubled during his six years in office, but what about the middle class and those in poverty? Didn't things get worse for them while the top one percent or five percent got richer and richer?"

"Again, no one wants to hear this anymore (though it's still true), but look at what Obama inherited and look where we are today."

"It's true," I said, "No one wants to hear about George W. Bush, saying it's now Obama's economy."

"It is. It is. But to ignore the economic crisis Obama inherited is not only unfair but intellectually irresponsible. To make a valid assessment of what Obama has done and failed to do it's necessary--beyond spouting talking points or making things up--to look at where things stood in January 2009 and how they are today. I already mentioned that the deficit is down by about two-thirds, unemployment levels are at 20-year lows, wages have ticked up a bit, the banks are being held somewhat more accountable, and the real estate market for most is stabilized. We also are seeing a strong dollar and are rapidly moving toward energy independence."

"And Obama gets credit for all of this?" I was skeptical.

"Of course not, but he's getting all the political blame for the widening gap between rich and poor (even by Republicans whose tax polices are really more responsible for that) and the continued slippage in the wellbeing of the middle class. So he's entitled to credit about the things that are working better."

"Anything else?"

"Well, this is admittedly just an outline. The full picture is more nuanced and balanced. This is to give you a glimpse of why I am liking Obama again."

"You never loved him."

"That's true, but I was enthusiastic about his election and to a lesser extent his reelection. But there are others things to like."

"Such as?"

"Immigration reform. I know it's controversial and maybe even illegal, but his executive order was a big, bold deal."

"Agreed."

"Then there's Cuba for another. A big another. About Cuba I say, enough already. They are not a threat and though the Castros are still in charge, somehow, with countries such as Saudi Arabia, to cite one example, we have decent relations even though they are the opposite of a democracy. In fact, there's more freedom in Cuba. Women can drive and everyone gets educated."

"And they have the best cigars."

"Also," holding up her cup for a refill, "better cafe con leche."

June 18, 2014--The Six Americas

I hesitate to bring him up, he was such a . . . you know what, but John Edwards, during the 2008 primary campaign, reminded us that there are two Americas--"the privileged and the wealthy and the America of those who live paycheck to paycheck."

He of course was oversimplifying--for example among the less-privileged there are the working poor and those, without hope of work, who live in unrelenting poverty. And then there are the "privileged" who are the wealthy one percent and the simply affluent. This could then be thought of as four Americas.

But his reductionist two-Americas lens was still a good one through which to see the United States. It continued to be as the Occupy Wall Streeters reminded us.

The two-Americas idea was not entirely new, not even in it phrasing. It was derived from the findings of the presidentially-appointed Kerner Commission, which, after the urban riots of the 1960s, in 1968, reported that the United States was "moving toward [becoming] two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal."

The Kerner conclusion about race adds two more Americas for a total of six. And though the commissions findings were and are essentially true, they too lacked nuance. For example, the report barely mentioned how poorly many other millions of color, Hispanics for example, were doing. And it did not take even a glance at how women were faring or look at the stratification within the black community.

But as with Edward's summation, it too attracted attention, debate, and led to some palliative social policies.

Thus one could say that are more than two Americas. Six at least and even eight.

I've already noted that there is an America for most people of color, not just for African Americans, and that the socioeconomic divide if far more complex and its complexity is more important to pay attention to than Edwards' simple wealthy-versus-paycheck people.

And it may be almost equally important to consider the two ideological Americas, which also has a geographic component.

A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that the partisan divide stretches way beyond Congress. Liberals and conservatives prefer to live near people of like minds and want their children to marry those with similar political views.

More distressing, beyond having differing views that are subject to debate and compromise (both essential to a functioning democracy), Pew reported that 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republican see the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being.

Then there are the two cultural Americas, both closely aligned with the two ideological Americas. Some have declared the Culture Wars ended with "victory" for the progressive perspective that, among other things, supports same-sex marriage.

It is true that in a crescendo of court decisions and actions by voters and state legislators it is now legal in 17 states for men to marry men and women to marry women; but in states and cities along both coasts, in contrast to pretty much everywhere in between, battles rage about what to teach children--evolution or intelligent design; abortion, in spite of Roe v. Wade, is available on demand in only four states; and various forms of Christian prayer at public meetings, recently declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, now occurs commonly in much of America, including in Congress.

So how many Americas do we have? Ten? A dozen? Much to understand. Much work still to be done.