November 6, 2018--Final Predictions

While people are still voting and before there are any results, to distract myself here are a few predictions and speculations--

The numbers in the Senate will remain the same with the GOP continuing to hold a one-seat majority.

Arizona and Texas will flip from Republican to Democratic with Beto O'Rourke emerging as the brightest new Democrat star. By Thursday, no, by tomorrow he will become the frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination and two years from now will defeat Mike Pence.

Obviously, this means that Donald Trump, for one reason or another, will not serve out his first term. Early next year he will declare Mission Accomplished and turn the keys to the Oval Office over to Pence.

In the House we will see a real "wave election." Still stung for getting 2016 wrong (no one predicted Trump would win, including Trump himself), pollsters and media pundits are being very conservative this time in analyzing the data and making projections. The consensus going in is that the Democrats will eek out just enough flipped seats (they need 23) to take control. I suspect they will do much better, winning close to 50 currently Republican-held seats.

As it should be, this will be the headline. 

Anticipating this, Trump in recent days has been saying he's been concentrating exclusively on the Senate. There are too many seats in the House for him to pay attention to, he said, and thus he won't be surprised if the Democrats take control of the House. "We'll work it out," he has been saying. 

Since he's all about winning, "losing" the House will be what will motivate him to not run in 2020. Better to declare victory than try to deal with losing.

In early January the Democrats, who will control all House committees, will begin a judicious number of investigations. To launch too many will make it look as if there is in fact a witch hunt going on, that the election to Democrats was all about the opportunity to overturn the 2016 election. 

These congressional investigations, where the Dems will have subpoena power, will focus on Trump's finances. Especially his business dealings with the Russians. The Mueller report, which will be submitted within the month, will cover the same ground, and with both dominating the discourse it will make Trump crazier than anything else that might be revealed about him. In a panic he will fire Attorney General Sessions, Rob Rosenstein, and Mueller himself. 

But this will not impede the House's work. The genie is coming out of the bottle and it will lead to Trump's downfall. Giving up the presidency will not stall this momentum much less end the investigations.

Most important, tomorrow's results will be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency and will ultimately lead to his own more personal decline because there is so much corruption and criminality waiting to come to light that even he, as nimble as he has been at surviving (his whole life has been about wiggling out of trouble) will not be able to squirm free. After decades, his luck is finally running out.

This is why people today are voting in record numbers: it is to say to him--"Enough."

Unpacking the polling data later this week we will discover that ten percent of his supporters will have either stayed home, not voted because they can't bare to vote for Democrats, or held their noses and pulled the lever for those who opposed Trump.

Republican survivors in Congress who have been among his enablers will begin to abandon ship. All they care about is having power; and with Trump now a liability, they will cut and run. Even Lindsay Graham will be looking for another macho man to suck up to. 

In addition, there is considerable pent-up schadenfreude that needs to and will be expressed. 

My final prediction is that all will begin to turn out for the best, The system will have been shown to work. That's a very big thing.

February 27, 2018--Trump Unfettered

As much as I am enjoying following along as special counsel Robert Mueller makes Donald Trump and those close to him who not only colluded with the Russians but obstructed justice, as much as I like to see them squirm while their world continues to implode and they are forced to face justice--I like schadenfreude as much as the next fellow--I am beginning to worry about some of the unintended consequences of, one-by-one, Trump's people being indicted or copping pleas.

I do look forward to seeing the Trump boys' comeuppance, Hope Hicks being exposed for the enabler she is, as eager as I am to see Ivanka brought down for taking commercial advantage of her First Daughter status, as much as Jared Kushner likely deserves to be exposed and prosecuted for financial shenanigans, and of course above all how I crave the outing and perhaps impeachment or prosecution of the Godfather of the Trump Crime Family, while impatient for all of this, I am beginning to worry what Trump will be like when he finds himself essentially alone in the White House with Hope and Jared and especially Ivanka gone, as one way or the other they all likely will be.

No matter what Mueller finds, even if the Democrats in November take over the House of Representatives and impeach Trump (40/60), he will not be convicted by the Senate, and since he delusionally is not a quitter (his whole being depends upon viewing himself as winning at everything), he will not take a Nixon and resign and we will be faced with two-and-a-half more years of Trump as president with the nuclear codes not far from his night table. 

As fundamentally corrupt and perhaps as felonious as they are, Hope, Jared, and Ivanka may be the only ones who have the access and capacity to have a chance to moderate him, such as moderating Trump can ever be.

With them gone, do we want to see a White House with weaselly Stephen Miller even more empowered, former UN Ambassador John Bolton brought in as head of the National Security Council, and Steve Bannon re-ensconced, this time as Secretary of State?

Whatever small measure of sanity and constraint John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis provide, with the three children exiled, and the hawks more in charge, what would the next two years of Trump's presidency look like? 

War with North Korea? We have a preview of that right now as Trump didn't even give our ally South Korea the courtesy of an additional day or two to close the Olympics before imposing a form of naval blockade on North Korea, virtually an act of war as blockades are.

One more round of indictments of those closest to Trump and . . . 

The one proven thing for presidents to do when cornered, as Trump surely will be, is to start or intensify a war. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon did that in Vietnam, Reagan invaded Grenada, and George HW and George W did the same in Iraq. As a result HW's approval ratings shot up to 90 percent as did his son's.

To make matters even more psychosomatically complicated, it appears that First Lady Melania is weighing in on the Ivanka-Kushner-versus-John Kelly blood feud. She is taking Kelly's side in a deeply Freudian struggle that ultimately is about the jealousy she doubtlessly feels as Trump so clearly prefers the daughter to the spouse.

While Trump leers at and talks smuttily about Ivanka and gets exposed for cavorting with pornstars and Playmates, Melania seethes and then draws upon her Eastern European DNA to come up with an appropriate form of revenge, that among other things includes getting rid of the competition.

Some of this may be over-speculation, but is it wise to deny that this scenario is plausible and if true imperils us?

I would prefer to wake up one morning to find that the Trumps, grifters that they are, overnight moved out of the White House. But since that is inconceivable, I am thinking it's prudent to hope the three kids figure out a way to hang in. At least through November. Maybe even until 2020.

December 13, 2017--Stars Fell On Alabama

Briefly--

Yes, stars fell on Alabama last night.

The big winner was human dignity.

The winners also included, obviously, Doug Jones; African American voters who turned out to give him more votes in percentage terms than they did to Barak Obama; and a goodly percentage of white women who in the privacy of the voting booth said, "Enough." 

Then, there are the rest of us who believe in our "system"--that checks and balances are still functioning in Donald Trump's America.

The losers are many--knee-jerk partisans; talk radio demagogues; bigots, racists, and antisemites; a lot of Republicans who will lose elections in 2018; Donald Trump (his presidency is imploding now on a fast track); and, my schadenfreude favorite, Steve Bannon who is no longer the boy genius. Off to the ash-heap of history for him.

September 25, 2017--Megyn Kelly's Joy

If like me you occasionally enjoy indulging in a little schadenfreude--taking pleasure in the misfortunes of the rich and famous--there is an opportunity awaiting Monday morning at 10 a.m. on network TV when NBC launches "Megyn Kelly Today."

In case you have been living off the grid for the past two years you may not know who she is and why this is sort of a big deal.

She was doing pretty well on Fox News as an anchor and talk show host when her aggressive questioning of Donald Trump in August 2015 during the first Republican primary debate brought her national attention and subsequently propelled her career forward into the media  stratosphere.

She witheringly pressed Trump about his many misogynist comments. Her opening comment to him included--

"You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs, 'dogs, 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'

She added--

"Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees."

His response three days later was to attack Kelly, saying--

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever."

The rest is history--

While a normal candidate would have been disqualified as the result of this, Trump went on to be nominated and elected and Megyn Kelly got Fox and NBC to bid for her on-going services. NBC made an offer she couldn't refuse--a weekly show, "Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly" and now the daily "Megyn Kelly Today."

And of course her deal includes a big payday--at least $20 million a year. Almost as much as Alex Rodriquez earned annually as the New York Yankee's third baseman.

But the ratings of the Sunday show have been, well, a disaster and so there is a lot of pressure on her to deliver a successful morning show.  

And as a result there is this opportunity for some guilty-pleasure schadenfreude.

About the morning show, last week Kelly said--

"I don't feel this is a risky proposition because I know myself and know what I can do. I'm about to launch the show that I was born to do. This is what I was meant to do."

 Let's hope so. Actually, let's hope not.

In an interview with the New York Times she said much more. I will share some of it as an appetizer in anticipation of the new show itself--

Though her show on Fox had good ratings, she said-- 

It wasn't bringing me joy anymore. You're going to see the Megyn we know. For me, it truly is all about pursuing more joy. That's the reason we are here . . . . This is my dream job because I am a person who is searching. And always have been. I am searching for my joy and more love and more wellness. Always have been. Finally, my job is going to align with my soul, with my heart, with my reason for being."

Oprah couldn't have said it better.

In the interview with the Times, Megan Kelly said "joy," "joyful," and "joyous" nine times. I will restrain myself from sharing the full list because I am writing this Sunday evening before dinner and don't want to further spoil my appetite.

September 26, 2016--Debate Preview

When I saw that the cable news networks were planning to begin their debate coverage today at 4:00 p.m., five hours before the actual debate commences, I wondered out loud to Rona why they would be doing something this seemingly ridiculous, "How much is there to talk about?"

"Easy," Rona said, "They are expecting at least 100 million to tune in--an all time record, nearly half of the country's adult population--and that means big-bucks ratings. These are Super Bowl numbers and it's all because of him."

"So it's all about ratings and money?"

"What else is new. Some companies are actually making special TV commercials, including the Mexican beer Tecate, which will make fun of Donald's wall."

"Amazing, though not really. But as always with these kinds of mega-political events--the State of the Union or the Inaugural address--the media folks spend hours in advance speculating about what will be said. In the case of the debate, I'm sure they'll talk endlessly about who will get under their opponent's skin first and who will make the biggest blunder. Like poor Gerry Ford who stepped in it when he said in 1976 that the Eastern European countries are free and not captive Soviet nations."

"When he did that, the moderator, I think he was from the New York Times, was so stunned that he said, 'I'm sorry, what?'"

"So," I said, "here's my preview."

"Spare me," Rona said, but did not leave the room.

"First of all, can it be true that 100 million will watch? How could that be since at most a few thousand voters are genuinely undecided. Do you think at this point there are more than that who haven't made up their minds? In spite of what most polls report about them. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and none of his supporters would as a result vote for Hillary."

"If he did, considering what's going on in the country, his numbers would probably go up."

"This then means," I persisted, "that almost everyone who'll watch will be doing so for entertainment reasons. Since both candidates are thin-skinned, there's a good chance that there will be fireworks and the real possibility that someone will say something politically calamitous. It doesn't get to be more fun or high stakes than that. Better than House of Cards. More like Veep."

"I think that not since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 will a first debate be so decisive. Yesterday morning the Washington Post poll had Clinton and Trump in a statistical dead heat. So tonight could be even more conclusive than what happens on Election Day."

"I assume you mean that after tonight the results will in effect be determined."

"That could be. So millions with their minds already made up can say they were 'there' when the tide turned decisively in one direction or another."

"But getting back to the entertainment issue. Did you see that Trump invited Bill Clinton's former mistress, Jennifer Flowers to be his guest and sit in the front row? Maybe just a few seats away from Bill himself?"

"She tweeted that she plans to be there."

"How about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?"

Getting into the theatrics of the debate, Rona said, "To retaliate Hillary could invite all of Trump's former wives and girlfriends."

"Between Bill and Donald that could fill up the entire first row."

"If Flowers or any of the others show up, do you think the moderator, Lester Holt, will ask about that? It would take great restraint on his part not to do so since he's a newbie to presidential debate moderation and could probably benefit from the notoriety like Megyn Kelly did."

"Or will the NBC folks put Jennifer on camera? How about a split screen of her with Bill?"

"Anticipating that alone," Rona said, "would keep me watching for the full 90 minutes."

"Really?" I said, "I thought you might not want to watch at all. You've been so consistent in feeling disgusted with the whole process."

"But it's perversely brilliant," Rona said. "I hate it but I get it. Our politics has been morphing into an ongoing reality TV show. Obviously, with Trump propelled into public consciousness from that world. So it's not unexpected that he would have Jennifer Flowers there. Jerry Springer would if he were staging it. As for sure so would the Kardashians."

"The full apotheosis of this debasement of our political culture--not that even with the Founders it's been that high (Jefferson and Adams, for example, and Hamilton and Burr among others went at it in hurtful personal, even deadly ways)--the full flowering of politics as schadenfreudian fun--forgive the pun--would be if Trump somehow managed to get elected. I suspect that a majority of the voting population might very well be ready for that. Just as Oprah helped pave the way for Obama, Springer and his spawn may wind up doing the same thing for Trump."

Signaling that she had had enough, Rona sighed, "Save us. Please."

"Amen," I said.

"But I admit it--I'll be watching."

March 9, 2016--Fear and Self-Loathing

For some time I have been trying to understand why, as the rhetoric descends in Republican primary debates--led by Donald Trump but recently further debased by others, especially by the increasingly-desperate Marco Rubio (he started the "small-hands" business)--why Trump thus far has not significantly lost support. He may yet get derailed, but after yesterday's primary victories, he is still the odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination.

Many attribute his thus-far success to his ability to tune into and exploit the frustrations, anger, zeitgeist, and fear of his followers. They may not always want to publicly reveal they are supporting him, but those who do or contemplate doing so, are among America's most alienated citizens.

This includes many who one would think are secure and are objectively doing well. The anger and fear run that deep.

But what about the vile behavior and scarcely-veiled bigotry and racism? Why isn't everyone repelled by that, not wanting to be associated with it? Some are secret Trump supporters but others are proud to wear his Make-America-Great-Again caps and t-shirts.

Trump may also be tapping into deeper personal forces, including self-loathing.

Here's how that might be working--

His followers believe that many aspects of the partly-true, partly mythological American Way of Life have declined to the point where we may be on a fatal national trajectory.

To them America is past the declining stage and on to the falling phase.

We used to be able to take for granted that the opportunity structure was available to anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules. We used to be able to believe that American know-how was unsurpassed and that this was reflected in our world class educational and health care systems, our governments, our seemingly-limitless resources, manufacturing might, our vaunted freedoms, inventiveness, cultural leadership, and just plain gumption.

And, vastly underestimated, we used to win wars, not lose them while snagged in various quagmires of our own making.

Not unrelated, wherever Trump supporters look, they see America no longer considered to be the world leader. More the opposite, with us mocked and scorned by those who used to give us at least grudging respect.

Many Americans see crumbling infrastructure, growing inequality, a rigged economic system, craven politicians, water they can't drink, and believe that so many from plumbers to teachers to government workers to religious and corporate leaders to police and to cultural and manufactured products are incompetent, fraudulent, or debased.

And though few are willing to confess that they are a part of the problems they see in the world or willing to assume any personal responsibility that they are no better than those they criticize or hold in contempt, instead, they look for ways to dissemble and rationalize in order to help enable themselves to guiltlessly reap the benefits of personal corruption. Down deep, those who feel their own hypocrisy attempt to persuade themselves that they are not part of or contributing to this ugly reality.

But down a cut deeper, they are unable to beat down the self-loathing that is a significant consequence of living in this truth-denying, duplicitous way.

One manifestation of that self-loathing is to degrade themselves through their own coarse behavior and indulgence in guilty pleasures while at the same time seeking surrogates to confirm that they in fact willingly contribute to the problems and, the most seemingly-contradictory part, are no better than those they condemn.

We see this manifest in the worst of our entertainments, from various forms of addiction to pornography to the way people represent themselves in youth culture and the public arena.

With schadenfreude out of control--the pleasure taken by the downfall of others--it is not far from that to Donald Trump.

He is the guiltiest of perverse pleasures and comforts his most tortured supporters. In him they have found their doppelgänger--he externalizes their darkest emotions--and this grants them permission to justify being all too much like him.

In this way, he serves as their external id.

That is powerful social-psychological stuff. A case of national, psychic dislocation and clinical depression.

May 21, 2014--Local News

I'm a TV news snob.

I have my issues with the so-called network news as well as the way national and international news is reported on CNN and other cable outlets (for their sensationalist and entertainment audience-building agenda); but I am particularly snobbish when it comes to local news.

We watch too much TV while in Florida and occasionally check in with local news reporting, particularly when there is the threat of bad weather. We otherwise tend to actively ignore it, tune it out, because we know what we will see--mainly people of color being arrested or shot down while robbing convenience stores. We know this is dog-whistle stuff--how the "news" reminds us about how "these" people behave in our midst.

Occasionally an ultra-rich guy after a polo match runs someone over in his Bentley and that gets covered. There is a strain of schadenfreude that permeates our culture that likes to see the rich and famous come crashing down. Justin Bieber comes currently to mind as does Alec Baldwin.

But mainly on Florida local news we see houses disappearing into sinkholes, Burmese pythons infiltrating the Everglades, fatal car crashes, and of course endless robberies, more and more caught by surveillance cameras. Mainly black guys in hoodies beating up South-Asian shopkeepers. Best, every once in awhile, the person behind the counter has a hidden baseball bat or gun which he uses to pound on the perpetrator or pump a couple of shots into him.

When we watch Florida local news, we gloatingly say, "Wait 'til we get to New York. At least there on the news they cover art exhibits and what's playing on Broadway."

Not so much.

The other day on the local CBS station the lead stories included a video of a taxi jumping the curb and mowing down shoppers on the Upper Eastside; pictures of a SUV crashing through the plate-glass window and all the way into a Nassau County pet store; an iPhone video of someone falling off a subway platform just as a train was about to pull into the station; and then more surveillance-camera images of an Asian grandfather being stalked by an African-American thug before being slammed to the ground and stomped on, dying from that a day or two later.

"I guess we'll have to look in the Times to see what's on Broadway," I said, trying to muster a little self-depricating humor.

But then WCBS turned to its version of national news, again it was wall-to-wall bad news--the tragic wildfires burning their way across San Diego County in California and the discovery of a second case of the Mers virus in the U.S. Wouldn't you know it, in Orlando, Florida.

December 31, 2013--Schadenfreude

There is a new book, The Joys of Pain, about the seemingly all-too-dark side of human nature that takes pleasure in the misfortunes of others. About schadenfreude, literally from the German, "harm-joy."

The author, Richard Smith, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky, whose previous book was an anthology about the corrosive Deadly Sin of envy, a close relative of harm-joy, has been studying social emotions for years.

Smith contends that in order to locate ourselves in the social pecking order, to determine our status, we, first, have to create things that denote status. Among others qualities these include possessions, fame, political and social power, appearance, health, talent, physical strength, and intelligence.

He sees this ranking phenomenon characteristic of all peoples from all eras--from the one-percenters with their gilded lives to indigenous people living in traditional ways. He sees this hierarchical tendency also among other species--monkeys and dogs, for example, who compare themselves to their peers. We are all familiar with Alpha Male behavior.

In such a ranked system, since we are unequally endowed and not comparably successful, in order to see oneself rising in relative status, it is, Smith argues, biologically essential and adaptive to see others declining; failing; falling into disfavor; and, often perversely more satisfying, facing tragic circumstances.

He writes that when envy causes pain, schadenfreude serves as a palliative.

What is less clear from Smith is why we are endowed with the capacity to take so much enjoyment from the misfortunes of others. Perhaps in the struggle for species survival this guilty-joy is particularly motivating and thus helps one adapt to threatening circumstances.

Also missing from Smith's work is a thorough look at the reciprocal side of the schadenfreudian story--the seemingly equal human propensity to elevate others, including those with whom one is in potential status competition and who at some future time we may have the opportunity to take pleasure in seeing decline or overthrown.

We in the West place the wealthy, the already powerful, the gifted, the skillful on pedestals of our own inventing. Our cult of celebrity offers opportunities on both sides of the status equation--we elevate entertainment and sports figures way beyond their gifts, accomplishments, and importance and then take particular pleasure when a Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Alex Rodriquez, and Tiger Woods transgress and experience their delicious comeuppance.

By raising some beyond what they are intrinsically worth we take vicarious pleasure in being fellow members with them of the human race--we see something of ourselves reflected in them--and then when watching them fall take even more pleasure as we find our own status affirmed and secured by their plunging from grace.

But not all those we elevate inevitably come crashing down. As, sorry, herd animals we require leaders to help assure our survival; and thus this propensity in itself has its adaptive side. So, for us to thrive, we need some we raise up to fall and others to remain in place to help lead us through life's existential perils.

Further, something Smith also ignores, is the evidence that we like and perhaps require redemption stories.

Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton, after falling and then displaying public humiliation, suffering, and contrition, have made remarkable comebacks. We took pleasure watching them struggle when they were down but now, perhaps even more, enjoy--empathetically and vicariously--seeing them resurrected.

This too means there is hope for all of us.