October 30, 2018--October-November Surprises

The big October surprise, which was supposed to leach over into the first week in November, was the fear Trump would instill in midterm voters about the "caravan" of migrants heading from Honduras to the American border.

The fear was further fueled by Fox News sycophants who in a stream of fake news "reported" daily without evidence about how the thousands marching north were infiltrated by "Middle Eastern terrorists." 

Just as that was building into a political wave--poll numbers began to trend in support of Republican candidates--the stock market started to gyrate so that the so-called Trump rally lost all its gains for 2018 (giving the lie to his claim that the economy had never in history been better), a new mad bomber appeared, sending explosive devices to more than a dozen Trump critics from George Soros to the Obamas to of course Hilary and potential 2020 opponents Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Joe Biden.

(As an aside, how much like chopped liver do Bernie and Elizabeth Warren feel for not receiving bombs of their own? Just like anyone not on Nixon's "enemies list" expressed disappointment for not being included.) 

Trump harmed himself politically by making light of this, referring to it as "that bomb thing." And didn't do much better when an anti-semitic mass murderer attacked a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11 worshipers. After a few perfunctory comments Trump referred to it as a "bad hair day." Something he should be an expert about, having one 365 days a year.

As a result, the polls appear to be reversing themselves again and it is looking likely that the Democrats will gain control of the House and lose only one or two seats in the Senate.

So much for October-November surprises, though there is still a full week before the election, lots of time for Republican dirty tricksters to pull a few stunts.

On that subject, though I am not prone to believing in conspiracy theories, there's a Pulitzer Prize awaiting a journalist who gets to the bottom of how the migrant caravan was organized to culminate in ugly confrontations at the border the day before Election Day.

I suspect that the political party that gave us Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and Roger Stone might somehow be tugging on the strings. If we can get that story out even Fox News would have to offer some coverage.

February 13, 2018--#metoo

Friday afternoon, exasperated, Katy Tur on MSNBC, said, "All I'm hearing is 'he, he he.' Not a word about 'her.'"

She was referring to what she and the rest of us were hearing from Donald Trump about Rob Porter, his recently fired White House Staff Secretary. Though an ordinary-sounding job title, the Staff Secretary has frequent direct access to the president and is responsible for determining what printed material is given to the president to read or, in Trump's case, ignore.

To serve in that position, like his predecessors, Porter needed a top secret security clearance. Which he didn't have since the FBI, about a year ago, when reviewing his application, discovered that he had physically assaulted both of his ex-wives and thus did not approve assigning him that status.

Late Friday afternoon, in a virtually unprecedented move, unannounced, Trump invited the White House press corps into the Oval Office to take a few questions. It was no surprise that all of them were about Rob Porter. Trump had clearly thought carefully about what he would say.

At length, with a heavy-sounding heart, he spoke about what an exemplary employee Porter had been and how he would be missed. He called his departure "very sad" and that "we hope he will have a wonderful career." That "it's been a hard time for him."

He also reminded us that poor Porter had not been proven guilty, that he was merely the victim of allegations. There had not been due process. 

It was widely noted by Katy Tur and others that Trump spoke not a word about the women who had been physically assaulted. He didn't point out that what they had endured was also "sad" or offer the hope that they too would have "wonderful careers" or lives.

Over the weekend a little research revealed that with Trump there is a distinct pattern about these matters--when someone is accused of spousal abuse or sexual harassment, in all cases except Harvey Weinstein's, Trump totally ignored the women and consistently made excuses for the men.  

About Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama, who was credibly accused of molesting and raping minors, Trump,  not acknowledging the then girls, emphasized that Moore hadn't been convicted of anything. It was classic he-said-she-said though it was clear who Trump believed. 

And in the cases of campaign managers Cory Lewandowski and Steve Bannon, both accused by ex-wives of domestic violence, Trump did not seem concerned and stood by them when the accusations came to light.

Then, still fitting the pattern, when Fox News's Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were exposed as serial sexual predators, Trump fell in line in support of them.

About Weinstein Trump couldn't resist joining the condemnation since he was a major donor to Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats' campaigns. And so he overcame his reluctance to criticizing the men and took a swipe at Weinstein, saying, with unintentional irony on the very anniversary of the notorious Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape, that he was "not at all surprised" by revelations that the movie mogul repeatedly paid to settle charges of sexual harassment. It was obvious that Trump was speaking from personal experience.

"Still missing from this discussion," Rona said, "is more analysis about Trump's reticence."

I said, "I think in general it's been claimed that he's a classic chauvinist right out of the era in which he, a spoiled rich kid, came of age. A world where powerful men felt free to sexually exploit women, especially in the workplace. Mad Men like."

"I think that's only a part of the story," Rona said, "More significant to me is that he himself has been charged with sexual misconduct by at least 15 women and that he allegedly raped Ivana, his first wife. So he is directly implicated in his own world of similar accusations. Thus to talk in a more balanced way about the current burst of sexual allegations would potentially force him to confront his own behavior. So, by making excuses for the men accused, men like Rob Porter, via the psychological mechanism of projection, he is making excuses for himself. Diminishing the claims of the women suing him by assigning or projecting his behavior onto them. 

"You remember the hashtag Maureen Dowd created for him in her Sunday column? Instead of #metoo, she came up with something more appropriate for him--#me." 

"Perfect," Rona said with a sad smile.

February 7, 2018--Rupert Murdoch's Boys

Rupert Murdoch, worth at least $13.1 billion, owner of various news outlets and TV stations, including in New York, the salacious Post and, nationally, the Wall Street Journal (known for its Neanderthal editorials and high-quality reporting), entertainment companies such as F/X and the National Geographic channels, and of course the nefarious Fox News Channel, home to the likes of Bill O'Reilly (gone but insufficiently forgotten) and Sean Hannity (still awaiting his ultimate fate), Rupert, now married for the 10th or 11th time (kidding) to Mick's Ex, Jerry Hall, approaching 90, with at least half his marbles (enough to talk to Donald Trump almost nightly offering advice and encouragement) has for the past couple of years been dividing and turning his empire over to his two adult sons, James and Lachlan--the entertainment division to the former and the news operation to the latter. 

This represents an opportunity, perhaps even hope, especially for his media holdings in America as son Lachlan is reputed to be of a more liberal persuasion than his father (he pushed vigorously to fire Roger Ailes when his sexual harassment behavior was exposed) and might, just might be inclined to calm things down at Fox by dumping the evening opinion shows (right-wing rants) and while he's at it the insipid morning show, Fox&Friends, which Trump watches religiously and from which he gets many of his most corrosive and paranoid daily talking points.

But then again, Lachlan's half of the pie is the most profitable part, netting the Murdochs nearly $1.0 billion a year in net profit.

Though the money keeps pouring in, Fox News's viewership is aging out and dying off. Their 3.3 million daily viewers are on average 68, almost old enough to be required to begin drawing down their IRAs.

With these trend-lines there's no real future for Fox News as it's currently configured while for Lachlan, only 46, it is too soon to be presiding over such a geriatric operation.

Then, though he holds dual citizenship (he was born in England but lives in America) he is more American than Brit and thus to have a life in New York and Aspen, where he owns a sprawling mansion, to live a cosmopolitan life, presiding over Fox News as it spills hate out over American airwaves, to be responsible for Sean Hannity, is a cultural and social problem. And not to forget, these mesmerized viewers led the spawning of the Trump constancy. No Fox, no Trump.

I can see the possibility of son Lachlan guiding Fox in a still conservative but moderate direction. There is a younger viewership for that and so the bottom line, over a carefully staged transition, would not be undermined. The Fox News channel would remain a cash cow.

On the liberal side, the Washington Post and New York Times (both at the time, as Fox, family owned) over a decade morphed from outlets for traditional Republican editorial policy into liberal institutions. (The New York Post, another example of generational transition, was for many decades very liberal, at times, socialistic, and then along came Rupert Murdoch.)

So there is precedent. Above all, one cannot overemphasize the propensity of children, when inheriting businesses, to want to put there own stamp on things. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?) Of course, children (sons) thinking they're smarter than the "old man" frequently wind up bankrupting the family business. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?)

In regard to Fox News, if that were to happen, I could live with it.

The Murdoch Boys

January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!

December 5, 2017--The Ugly Reaility

The latest sexual harassment outing is of James Levine, not a household name, the former music director and revered conductor of the Metropolitan Opera orchestra.

These charges, as with Roy Moore's, go back many years, actually decades, to as long ago as 1986. Again, those who revealed the abuses spoke about how they feared accusing Levine because, as musicians, he might have on-going power over their professional lives. 

In addition, as with Moore's accusers they were ashamed of what happened, including how in some cases he lured them into "relationships" in which they continued to participate. 

Most of my information about Levine's behavior as well as that of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Louie C.K., Harvey Weinstein, and of course Donald Trump comes from the New York Times. Striking to me again yesterday morning when the Levine outing appeared was how graphic the gray-old Times has been in its reporting.

In the case of James Levine there were specific and vivid descriptions of how the conductor lead his young victims into reciprocal masterbation. With Weinstein we learned about his attempts to get aspiring actresses to massage him prior to forcing them to participate in various forms of sexual activity. We learned details of Matt Lauer's office set up, including the button he had at his desk so he could lock the door to provide a safe environment for him to have forced sexual intercourse with young staffers. And then there are the details of Mark Halperin's and Garrison Keiller's sexual proclivities and "techniques."

And not to be forgotten, was the Times's publishing the transcript of the Billy Bush tape in which Trump boasted about grabbing women's p****s. With the paper of record not using the bowdlerizing ****s.

Reading the article about James Levine yesterday morning I raised this graphic reporting with Rona. I indicted I was not comfortable with it, even wondering if the Times, competing for readers, was being so explicit in order to attract subscribers who would enjoy the soft-core reporting.

Rona said, "But that's the point. To make readers feel uncomfortable. Not just intellectually but to engage our sense of disgust. To employ euphemisms would take away some of that visceral outrage."

"Good points," I conceded, "I get it and think, in my case at least, it is working. I am fully disgusted."

"One more thing," she added, "And don't think it's a stretch."

"Go on."

"You remember, I'm sure, the mass murder at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut in 2012.  Do you recall how you said at the time that to make a powerful, maybe persuasive case for some form of federal control of automatic weapons and high velocity ammunition, rather than Obama and others just talking about it, to make the case more persuasively, they should have released the autopsy photos of the murdered children so that we could see the full effects of these kinds of combat weapons on small children. It would be hideous to see. But, again, that's the point."

"I do remember that. Maybe you're right. Maybe we have to stop covering up the ugly details of sexual abuse and even mass murder."

"We can't just sit around," Rona said, "and allow ourselves to become inured to it. It's not about pseudo-outrage and titillation. We need to find active ways to fight back."

May 22, 2017--"Vile Scumbag"

A friend, referring to Donald Trump, posted this on Facebook--

Vile scumbag. How I so purely and truly despise this spineless sack of shit coward. When will the carnage end? It is just so exhausting.

About all other subjects, my progressive friend is an otherwise moderate and thoughtful person. He is also literate. But here he is so in a rage that he's sputtering semi-coherently.

I have other liberal friends, all of whom oppose the death penalty, who are so crazed that they are cheering the death of Fox News' founder, Roger Ailes and they are so excited that he is dead that they are wishing the same fate for Steve Bannon and Rupert Murdock. I am sure others are on their death list.

When I try to get them to tell me why they have these feelings of murderous fury they say, in effect, isn't it obvious. Two words--Donald and Trump.

When I press, some confess that their rage is connected to the anxiety and fear Trump and his presidency have unleashed.

They are afraid about what will happen to the environment and the Earth (the New York Times on Saturday published a piece about the accelerating melting of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica--it is occurring so rapidly that many scientists are saying that by the end of the century, sea levels will rise by up to six feet, enough to inundate much of New York City and south Florida); they are worried about their jobs (many are professionals who work for or are funded by the rapidly shrinking government); they have deep fears about what their children will be facing (many are mired in tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and living in their parents' basements); and almost all are panicking about their 401(k)s.

Above all, most are feeling unable to do anything about it.

Rage comes largely from feeling powerless.

These are very efficacious people who are used to helping make things happen. They pride themselves on their ability to take on complicated problems and move them toward solution. They have been upwardly mobile and feel that this is because they have earned their way and deserve to be part of the professional and managerial classes.

Now, as they see things, everything is changing, becoming upended by the barbarians who have seized control. Used to feeling accomplished and even superior, they are now finding themselves being treated disdainfully. Being dismissed. And worse than death, being ignored.

The "deplorables" are in charge. The knowledge my friends have acquired, the history they have participated in shaping is no longer, they feel, valued. And since they cannot figure out what to do, what to think, or how to fight back, rather than dig in for the long haul and devote themselves to a sustained and relentless political and cultural resurgence, when together, they complain, they fulminate.

When I ask them what they think will make a difference, they say joining the "resistance" movement. When I ask what's planned, they say more marches. When I ask when the next one is scheduled, they say they do not know. When I ask how long ago was the last one, they tell me they are not sure. Maybe a month or two.

I tell them I don't think this will get the job done. In the latest polls, last week, 84 percent of Republicans say they think Donald Trump is doing a good job. Considering what he has been up to, we need to figure out why that is. We need to figure out how to push these numbers and, forgive me, figure out ways to reach out to some of them and get them to consider other ways to think about what's going on. About how they are being manipulated and taken advantage of.

In the meantime, some friends say they plan to post more on Facebook.

March 22, 2016--Yes, Yes Trump

A heretical thought--

Shouldn't progressive Democrats hope that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination? Even, where they can, cross over and vote for him in their state's primaries?

Before you pull the plug on this, hear me out. And, as a hint, remember what happened to the GOP in 1964 and thereafter.

First, Trump's winning the nomination would assure Hillary Clinton's election.

Head-to-head she would trounce him. Forget current polls showing him doing decently in the general election. Imagine Clinton and Trump on stage debating. What do you think would happen? That's easy--he'd make a fool of himself, reveal that he is not temperamentally fit to be the Commander in Chief, and remind people the presidency is serious business and that political playtime is over.

As a consequence, Hillary would win at least three-quarters of the Electoral vote.

Then, as we've already seen, Trump is currently leading the pack of three after demolishing 14 other aspirants by self-funding his campaign. This is rendering high-roller donors such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson irrelevant.

Remember Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? All were odds-on favorites, supported by big-buck PAC groups, and all are out of the race. The Kochs and Adelson types may be crazy, but they're not stupid--they know that the party for them is over if Trump continues to do well without their help. Actually, shows disdain for it.

He is a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to Citizens United. This could be the beginning of the end for dark-money interests who for decades have owned conservatives in Congress as well as the White House. This goes back to Dwight Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's time, both of whom were propelled forward and unduly influenced during their presidencies by corporate plutocrats.

Then there is the matter of Fox News.

Since it's launch in 1996, funded by Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdock, current fiancé of Mick Jagger's ex, Jerry Hall, and overseen by GOP spinmeister Roger Ailes. It has been the most powerful and influential of conservative institutions. Perhaps even more so than Rush Limbaugh or the Republican National Committee. What GOP politicians, including presidential aspirants, have not pandered to Fox's so-called reporters and talk-show hosts? No one but Donald Trump who uses them or ignores them on his own terms.

While Trump was getting his political career launched he was as ubiquitous on Fox air as John McCain and Sarah Palin. But as he was propelled into the lead, he began to treat Fox with dismissive contempt. After being effectively taken down by Megyn  Kelly during the first debate, he began a sustained campaign to assassinate her character and professionalism. It's hard to forget his "bleeding from wherever" slander and then how he petulantly decided not to participate, before the Iowa caucuses, in the Fox-hosted debate. And just this week, about another Fox-organized debate, he said "enough." And, knowing that without his showing up the ratings would plummet, Fox canceled it.

Not satisfied, Trump then launched another campaign of criticism directed at Kelly. Some said he was losing control, that he is "obsessed" with her, even that he is "stalking" her.

Who knows. But his not genuflecting at Fox's altar is beginning to affect their numbers. Without Trump-breaking-news-all-the-time, for the first time CNN and MSNBC, both of which are devoting almost full time to covering Trump, are seeing their comparative ratings creep up.

If Fox News is diminished because of Trump, rather than see in his attempts to control the press (which politician or president hasn't attempted to do that?) signs of fascism, maybe we should acknowledge, hate him-love him, that in this case Trump may be contributing to the diminishment of the heretofore all-powerful Murdock-Ailes media axis.

And then there is the 1964 effect. Another reason progressives should consider "using" Trump.

Recall, that was the year Barry Goldwater and his acolytes soundly defeated moderate Republicans Bill Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller for the GOP nomination. This was when Goldwater famously declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater went on to be overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson, winning only six states while securing less than 40 percent of the popular vote. It took until 1980, 16 years, before the Republicans were reconstituted. A lifetime in political history.

Establishment Republicans are so fearful (I almost said freaked-out) about the prospect of a Trump nomination that they are talking about changing the party's nomination rules when they convene this summer in Cleveland or, if that fails, putting forth a third-party candidate such as Rick Perry. Yes, the hapless former governor of Texas. Or if he's not available, maybe they'd run Herman Cain. But not to worry--about him, I'm making that up.

Thus, a Trump nomination would not only assure a Clinton victory and likely enable Democrats to regain control of the Senate (and with that the ability to confirm progressive Supreme Court nominees) but would also dismember the Republican Party such as it is for at least a political generation.

So, my friends . . .

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.