Will this be a year that will constitute a turning point in our democracy?
Can you feel that something is about to happen? Or is it that this observer, like so many others, so desperately want something to happen that we're looking past the processes with which we wish to bring it about?
The situation is that urgent. This administration represents not only poor, distorted, and irresponsible governance, but the abrogation and abandonment of it--appointments not made, regulations not observed, humanity ignored. Each day, it gets worse. Each day, there is more ground to be made up to restore the United States of America to its former position in the world.
But an event like a presidential election can't, and shouldn't be, undone in a moment or in any particular future single moment. If we respect the rule of law, then we should respect the accumulation of "official" information through legal means (not just the press, which doesn't get everything right all the time, though the most responsible outlets try very hard all the time).
Heaven knows, this has taken long enough. We would like to think that, with all that time and energy expended, that the Mueller report on the machinations, manipulations, lies and horrible illegalities of 45 and his minions will be a devastating compilation of facts, which together add up to mean that this president has to go, and the sooner the better.
Except that all the horror, exasperation and disdain that we have seen and expressed to this point has meant, so far, exactly nothing. Dave Barry's End of the Year Roundup, written for the Washington Post, pokes endless fun at the MSNBC/CNN wags who constantly express their absolute conclusions that whatever has just happened has been, finally, the final straw that will break 45's back and rush him out of office--the thing that happens before it happens except it's not happening. He'll quit, they say. He'll make a deal before it all hits the fan.
But there's no reason to believe he'll do that. He doesn't have to. He doesn't read, he doesn't think beyond his horrible self, and he doesn't listen to his advisors, but he can count. For him, the magic number is 34--the number of Senators who would have to support any impeachment accusations.
The problem we're having, still, is believing that this is all that matters to someone to whom so much else should matter. It's believing that normal, ethical, caring thinking simply doesn't work with 45, because he's incapable of it.
In the early 1950s, a Harvard professor made a study of teenagers in several countries, the U.S. included, to pose questions from which a scale of moral reasoning was derived. He concluded that moral thinking is done in stages, in which someone who gains a certain stage does not return to the earlier stage from which they evolved (though there is overlap). In other words: Their sense of morality only increases--if it does at all, which sometimes it doesn't. The measuring stick of morality at every stage is the degree to which someone else or some higher cause matters, regardless of oneself. The highest level is a 6, which very few people ever achieve at any time: a Gandhi, an MLK or a Mother Teresa. The lowest is a zero, which is nearly unfathomable--that no matter what happens, someone does whatever they wish to do to anyone else, regardless of pain or pleasure, with absolutely no regard to consequences. None.
45 isn't exactly there. He does care about one thing: His own pleasure or pain. That would put him at Level 1. He avoids doing only those things that would not make him feel good right this very minute, or in the long run, like jail. If he happens to do what others would call the "right" thing, it is only because he understands what he has to gain from it--in this case, political support. That is why, for instance, that his claim that he has a bible study in the White House was stated exactly once, and why he hasn't, and doesn't, follow up by going to church (except at his wife's request, and then not to actively participate at a funeral for a presidential colleague). If it's mentioned at some future date, he'll go to church to demonstrate to others that it might matter to him--or, if it doesn't, a staffer can claim that it does; after all, look at the pictures. But don't watch what he says, watch what he does, including doing nothing.
That's what we're dealing with. It's deeply unconscionable for most of us to consider that the rest of us support someone without a conscience. But they do because they are so taken by his personality that they continue to believe that he cares about them. No: He doesn't care about anyone else. Only when they suffer from sufficient discomfort will they turn on him--and the economy will have to get pretty awful for that to happen.
Maybe that will be the real turning point. Meanwhile, we must wait, as discomfiting as that has been and will be. We are about to enter a time of all kinds of adverse tweeting and acceleration of accusations--even more destabilizing than it has been. Keep your eyes on Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Robert Mueller, and the Justice Department. They hold most of the cards. (By the way: Consideration of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law and what they truly mean is operating at a Level 5--near the top of the ladder. That's why they are so challenging to support and maintain, depending upon the situation, but that's a topic for another time.)
But the wild card of power still belongs to 45 as long as he remains in office and remember--it's all about him and what he can get away with. That's a Level 1 practitioner for you.
Waiting smugly with confidence in the final result is inadvisable, for there will be all kinds of legalized pushing back by 45 and his lawyers, and further, deeper attempts to gin-up his all-too-loyal crowds with ad hominem attacks disguised as campaign speeches. If you've been stunned and appalled before, get ready for a new level of disgust.
Instead of panicking, though, let's do something else: Energized waiting. In other words: Organizing. Organize discussions. Go to organized rallies. Keep the awareness going, as distasteful as it is. Keep building the opposition so when it finally gets to the tipping point, 45's applecart will go over quickly, decisively, and finally. On that day, he will no longer matter. We will, though. And so will the Constitution. It will be worth the wait. But it won't happen without the rest of us.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Monday, December 31, 2018
Friday, December 21, 2018
Impeachment Vote--January 4--First Order of Business
It's time.
I understand Nancy Pelosi's urging for us to be patient with the 17 different investigations concerning 45's ethics, taxes, lies and improprieties that will begin as soon as the new Congress is sworn in on January 3. It's a respect for processes.
When the House of Representatives--or a majority of it, which will be Democratic now--has gone through all the facts that it can procure after all the interviews and testimonies, then a discussion of the possibilities of impeaching the president can take place, the thinking goes. When the House has all of that on paper, without a cabal of nervous Republicans gathering around 45 to protect him, then it can pronounce its indictment, which is what impeachment actually is, and send it along to the Senate for trial.
This would be, of course, outside of whatever Robert Mueller has managed to find, which, based on what we already know and which is probably 20 percent of what he's found, is no doubt devastating in its depravity and illegality. But 45 still has time to fire Mueller, which would just be piled upon the dare-you-to-stop-me acts which have characterized his terrible tenure in office so far--and which have only accelerated in recent days.
If Mueller goes, backed by either an acting attorney general whose status, put on hold, may be drawn out by inaction (wait and see), or by a new attorney general who has already expressed his distaste for Mueller's investigations, 45's new and twisted Justice Department will seek to suppress his findings. Beyond what Mueller has already filed with federal judges (which, perhaps, may be devastating enough), that will delay knowledge of the whole story, the biggest possible picture, as long as possible--hopefully, for 45, beyond his re-election campaign.
When you're in trouble, in other words, you play for time. It worked for Bush-43's 2000 Florida election debacle. Bush's lawyers strung out the process, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that while yes, it was a good idea to recount all the votes in the state, the state had three hours to complete it, thus rendering it moot and, by that ruling, declaring Bush the president by 537 of the votes that had been counted originally. That led us into 9-11, the war in Iraq, and the waste that No Child Left Behind created, among other mistakes. I'm sorry he lost his dad recently, but he was the wrong person to be elected president, and the attitudes that he unleashed (among other things and people) have led us directly into the hands of 45.
At least 43 knew how to act in a presidential manner, and understood the built-in safeguards so that the political and international cultures would be preserved. 45 knows and cares nothing about these. He knows, too, that all he does will be sifted through the sieves of media hand-wringing of policy wonks who will over-analyze and dissect moves as if they're part of an overall revolution in American government, or some such nonsense like that--that they are based on bold, decisive principles.
They aren't. Every single thing 45 does is about him, about maintaining support among the loud and obnoxious minority that supports him, and hoping to somehow re-create sufficient voting in 2020 to give him another four years of this disaster. Eventually, most commentators will invite someone onto their shows who will say this--but those comments come at the end of larger discussions that are simply irrelevant, and make 45 all the more dangerous because he thinks they're irrelevant, too.
45 has made a complete mess of our foreign and military policies, using troop deployments as a lollypop for his mind-numbed minions, whether to send soldiers on a fool's errand to the border or to dangerously and irresponsibly withdraw them from Syria, in an immediate and inexplicable abandonment of Kurdish allies. He reportedly did so because Turkish president Erdogan shamed him into thinking that it was more important to respect the wishes of Turkey, a NATO ally that opposes the Kurds, than to maintain the promises made to our own allies on the field of battle. Thus buffeted by no more than one other opinion, 45 is withdrawing the troops, leaving the Kurds exposed to the very ISIS forces that he said had been defeated (but haven't).
If you're from other NATO countries and watching this, can it make you more secure, or less? Are you going to believe 45's promises, or not? Will it mean that you're more likely to make a military buildup, or less? Will that stabilize the region, or not?
He is also withdrawing 5,000 of the 14,000 troops assigned to Afghanistan. If this was such a good idea, why didn't he do it six months or a year ago? It's because it constitutes a campaign promise, which he is determined to accomplish whether or not it has been determined to be an effective move or not. If I promise to do something objectionable and then go ahead and do it, does that make me a better person who considers the objections and hesitates? Does it make me stronger? Does it make me more responsibly thoughtful?
These moves are so awful that his most trusted and respected member of his cabinet, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, got right in his face in the Oval Office yesterday and dropped his resignation letter--unique in that a direct explanation of his disdain for 45's policies were actually noted within it; those who resign from the cabinet just don't do that--in his lap and walked out. Nobody does that with such consummate disrespect--but until now we have never had a president who deserves it.
45 has embarrassed the country in countless ways with his terrible, completely personally-based judgment. He reads nothing, listens to no one, and does what he feels like doing when he feels like doing it. With Mattis' departure, he has one less brake upon his seat-of-the-pants policymaking, in which actual governing is something completely foreign to him because it would mean balancing interests and considering the whole country.
Which brings us to the impending shutdown, now hours away as this is being written. This blatant political stunt, in which he thinks people will forget that he's on videotape taking complete responsibility for it during a meeting with Speaker-Designate Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, so he can successfully blame the Democrats for holding back on the border wall that a majority of Americans don't want, will be used as an attempted torture chamber to squeeze screaming Americans into capitulation. It's no crueler than what he's doing to the children of immigrants at the border--which is an abomination that, ironically, might become more exposed because of this gambit.
It will be the last straw, I believe. Let's not wait any longer. On January 4, the day after smiles, genuine or otherwise, will be exchanged among members of the new House of Representatives, let's get on with the business of accountability. Instead of waiting to accumulate the additional facts that will obviously and inevitably result in impeachment, let's impeach 45 first, and use the investigations, interviews and testimonies as piling onto the clear and obvious facts that have already emerged in preparation for the trial which will continue to expose them. The facts will come out one way or another, but waiting for the several months to "officially" gather all of them up will just allow 45 to sow more chaos and make the United States of America far more vulnerable to diminishment, which is what we're experiencing day by day.
Instead of making America great again--a dubious necessity; we weren't that bad to begin with--he has embarrassed us. The only way a weak person like him can continue to govern us is to make us weaker still: to bring us under his wild, increasingly unleashed control. Let's put the pressure where it belongs--on the Republican Party, which has stood by him mindlessly to this point. Let's accumulate what we already have on him, impeach 45 now and then reveal even more reasons as we go, making Republicans face the country and explain how in creation they can keep backing such a monster, step-by-step.
Normally, I would think that jumping this shark would be difficult to maintain and perhaps even suicidal to the hopes of its success. But this situation is highly unusual. We cannot allow process to hide these gangsters while the clock ticks, allowing everything to eventually morph into an election campaign and become woven into a disgusting quilt, the unraveling of which becomes more difficult as we lean into the new campaigns. They'll do it and they're good at it. Remember: They're the party which has chosen to disrupt the normal processes of electoral succession in Wisconsin and Michigan. To believe that they won't try to do so on the national level without a previous calling-out is naive.
Let me ask you this: Since the investigations will take months to run their course, do you honestly think we have those months at our disposal before 45 does even more damage to our reputation, our rule of law, and our very existence? Do you think that, while these efforts reveal far more awful activities, he won't keep trying to distract us with even more outrageous gestures? Or do you think he's just going to sit there and watch without tweeting preposterous non-facts? The ticking of the clock works both ways.
To those concerned about following the rule of law, which means accumulating facts before passing down an indictment: We already have enough of them to justify impeachment. Compile them and make the Senate move. If the vote fails, there is always time to do it again--but then the House will be on record as pursuing it. The stamp of intent, much like the endless attempts of the ex-Republican-controlled House to repeal Obamacare--will have already been made. Members unsure of the move at the particular time can always vote "present," which will bring it perhaps under the majority necessary to pass the bill of impeachment, but allow them to avoid the specter of having committed one way or another until they believe sufficient evidence has been revealed.
One more thing: Do you think the stock market will remain stable? It's already lost ten percent of its value this month. When investors panic, it's already too late. Let the capitalist-addicted Republicans explain that to their constituents back home.
I'm guessing these conversations are happening already. We need to do this right now. It's time. I call for an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives on January 4. Call your Representative or Representative-To-Be.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
I understand Nancy Pelosi's urging for us to be patient with the 17 different investigations concerning 45's ethics, taxes, lies and improprieties that will begin as soon as the new Congress is sworn in on January 3. It's a respect for processes.
When the House of Representatives--or a majority of it, which will be Democratic now--has gone through all the facts that it can procure after all the interviews and testimonies, then a discussion of the possibilities of impeaching the president can take place, the thinking goes. When the House has all of that on paper, without a cabal of nervous Republicans gathering around 45 to protect him, then it can pronounce its indictment, which is what impeachment actually is, and send it along to the Senate for trial.
This would be, of course, outside of whatever Robert Mueller has managed to find, which, based on what we already know and which is probably 20 percent of what he's found, is no doubt devastating in its depravity and illegality. But 45 still has time to fire Mueller, which would just be piled upon the dare-you-to-stop-me acts which have characterized his terrible tenure in office so far--and which have only accelerated in recent days.
If Mueller goes, backed by either an acting attorney general whose status, put on hold, may be drawn out by inaction (wait and see), or by a new attorney general who has already expressed his distaste for Mueller's investigations, 45's new and twisted Justice Department will seek to suppress his findings. Beyond what Mueller has already filed with federal judges (which, perhaps, may be devastating enough), that will delay knowledge of the whole story, the biggest possible picture, as long as possible--hopefully, for 45, beyond his re-election campaign.
When you're in trouble, in other words, you play for time. It worked for Bush-43's 2000 Florida election debacle. Bush's lawyers strung out the process, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that while yes, it was a good idea to recount all the votes in the state, the state had three hours to complete it, thus rendering it moot and, by that ruling, declaring Bush the president by 537 of the votes that had been counted originally. That led us into 9-11, the war in Iraq, and the waste that No Child Left Behind created, among other mistakes. I'm sorry he lost his dad recently, but he was the wrong person to be elected president, and the attitudes that he unleashed (among other things and people) have led us directly into the hands of 45.
At least 43 knew how to act in a presidential manner, and understood the built-in safeguards so that the political and international cultures would be preserved. 45 knows and cares nothing about these. He knows, too, that all he does will be sifted through the sieves of media hand-wringing of policy wonks who will over-analyze and dissect moves as if they're part of an overall revolution in American government, or some such nonsense like that--that they are based on bold, decisive principles.
They aren't. Every single thing 45 does is about him, about maintaining support among the loud and obnoxious minority that supports him, and hoping to somehow re-create sufficient voting in 2020 to give him another four years of this disaster. Eventually, most commentators will invite someone onto their shows who will say this--but those comments come at the end of larger discussions that are simply irrelevant, and make 45 all the more dangerous because he thinks they're irrelevant, too.
45 has made a complete mess of our foreign and military policies, using troop deployments as a lollypop for his mind-numbed minions, whether to send soldiers on a fool's errand to the border or to dangerously and irresponsibly withdraw them from Syria, in an immediate and inexplicable abandonment of Kurdish allies. He reportedly did so because Turkish president Erdogan shamed him into thinking that it was more important to respect the wishes of Turkey, a NATO ally that opposes the Kurds, than to maintain the promises made to our own allies on the field of battle. Thus buffeted by no more than one other opinion, 45 is withdrawing the troops, leaving the Kurds exposed to the very ISIS forces that he said had been defeated (but haven't).
If you're from other NATO countries and watching this, can it make you more secure, or less? Are you going to believe 45's promises, or not? Will it mean that you're more likely to make a military buildup, or less? Will that stabilize the region, or not?
He is also withdrawing 5,000 of the 14,000 troops assigned to Afghanistan. If this was such a good idea, why didn't he do it six months or a year ago? It's because it constitutes a campaign promise, which he is determined to accomplish whether or not it has been determined to be an effective move or not. If I promise to do something objectionable and then go ahead and do it, does that make me a better person who considers the objections and hesitates? Does it make me stronger? Does it make me more responsibly thoughtful?
These moves are so awful that his most trusted and respected member of his cabinet, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, got right in his face in the Oval Office yesterday and dropped his resignation letter--unique in that a direct explanation of his disdain for 45's policies were actually noted within it; those who resign from the cabinet just don't do that--in his lap and walked out. Nobody does that with such consummate disrespect--but until now we have never had a president who deserves it.
45 has embarrassed the country in countless ways with his terrible, completely personally-based judgment. He reads nothing, listens to no one, and does what he feels like doing when he feels like doing it. With Mattis' departure, he has one less brake upon his seat-of-the-pants policymaking, in which actual governing is something completely foreign to him because it would mean balancing interests and considering the whole country.
Which brings us to the impending shutdown, now hours away as this is being written. This blatant political stunt, in which he thinks people will forget that he's on videotape taking complete responsibility for it during a meeting with Speaker-Designate Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, so he can successfully blame the Democrats for holding back on the border wall that a majority of Americans don't want, will be used as an attempted torture chamber to squeeze screaming Americans into capitulation. It's no crueler than what he's doing to the children of immigrants at the border--which is an abomination that, ironically, might become more exposed because of this gambit.
It will be the last straw, I believe. Let's not wait any longer. On January 4, the day after smiles, genuine or otherwise, will be exchanged among members of the new House of Representatives, let's get on with the business of accountability. Instead of waiting to accumulate the additional facts that will obviously and inevitably result in impeachment, let's impeach 45 first, and use the investigations, interviews and testimonies as piling onto the clear and obvious facts that have already emerged in preparation for the trial which will continue to expose them. The facts will come out one way or another, but waiting for the several months to "officially" gather all of them up will just allow 45 to sow more chaos and make the United States of America far more vulnerable to diminishment, which is what we're experiencing day by day.
Instead of making America great again--a dubious necessity; we weren't that bad to begin with--he has embarrassed us. The only way a weak person like him can continue to govern us is to make us weaker still: to bring us under his wild, increasingly unleashed control. Let's put the pressure where it belongs--on the Republican Party, which has stood by him mindlessly to this point. Let's accumulate what we already have on him, impeach 45 now and then reveal even more reasons as we go, making Republicans face the country and explain how in creation they can keep backing such a monster, step-by-step.
Normally, I would think that jumping this shark would be difficult to maintain and perhaps even suicidal to the hopes of its success. But this situation is highly unusual. We cannot allow process to hide these gangsters while the clock ticks, allowing everything to eventually morph into an election campaign and become woven into a disgusting quilt, the unraveling of which becomes more difficult as we lean into the new campaigns. They'll do it and they're good at it. Remember: They're the party which has chosen to disrupt the normal processes of electoral succession in Wisconsin and Michigan. To believe that they won't try to do so on the national level without a previous calling-out is naive.
Let me ask you this: Since the investigations will take months to run their course, do you honestly think we have those months at our disposal before 45 does even more damage to our reputation, our rule of law, and our very existence? Do you think that, while these efforts reveal far more awful activities, he won't keep trying to distract us with even more outrageous gestures? Or do you think he's just going to sit there and watch without tweeting preposterous non-facts? The ticking of the clock works both ways.
To those concerned about following the rule of law, which means accumulating facts before passing down an indictment: We already have enough of them to justify impeachment. Compile them and make the Senate move. If the vote fails, there is always time to do it again--but then the House will be on record as pursuing it. The stamp of intent, much like the endless attempts of the ex-Republican-controlled House to repeal Obamacare--will have already been made. Members unsure of the move at the particular time can always vote "present," which will bring it perhaps under the majority necessary to pass the bill of impeachment, but allow them to avoid the specter of having committed one way or another until they believe sufficient evidence has been revealed.
One more thing: Do you think the stock market will remain stable? It's already lost ten percent of its value this month. When investors panic, it's already too late. Let the capitalist-addicted Republicans explain that to their constituents back home.
I'm guessing these conversations are happening already. We need to do this right now. It's time. I call for an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives on January 4. Call your Representative or Representative-To-Be.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Pigeon-holing the Ethics of Examining Ethics: The Supreme Court As Safe Haven
Brett Kavanaugh can relax now. He has found his safe haven.
It's the Supreme Court, to which Kavanaugh was appointed by 45 and confirmed only after allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to his college years. Let's be clear here: Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee performed poorly about this tawdry issue, especially ranking member Dianne Feinstein of California. Had she processed Professor Christine Blasey Ford's concerns in a more timely fashion, and made the accusations public while doing so, much of the intervening, crushing, and horribly distracting last-minute drama surrounding the investigation--the official part of which was manipulated into sketchy irrelevance due to time factors arranged by the exasperated, over-the-top furious Republican majority, but for which, considering Democratic dithering, they cannot be held completely responsible (Yes, I know they could have allowed more time for deeper investigation, but the scope was out of their hands, and further delays would have been interpreted as weakness, something even the appearance of which cannot be countenanced by 45, who would have insulted the hell out of them, too)--might have been avoided and allowed to proceed reasonably. In fact, early exposure of the issue may have begun the MeToo outcry far sooner, which might have also been allowed to build momentum for more than the two weeks in which all this came to a head. Who knows: 45 might have even considered getting someone else--except that might easily have been another hyper-conservative with fewer ethics issues.
In hindsight, it now appears to be a desperate measure on the part of Senate Democrats to ward off someone who lied to the same committee upon his appointment to the DC Appellate Circuit, perhaps the most prestigious and the major gateway to Supreme Court consideration, in 2006. There was no question that 2018 Republicans, inured and numbed to 45's constant, non-stop lying about nearly everything else, would be giving Kavanaugh a pass, and accomplish what they have been lusting for for about three decades now: a hyper-conservative majority on the Supreme Court, so they can railroad their major policy bellweathers (i.e. gutting abortion rights, jettisoning gay rights, firming up the status of corporations as people) into immutable law, at least for a generation or two, with all the efficiency of an assembly (or perhaps, disassembly of liberalism) line. Besides, with the earlier appointment of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland, the Obama appointee who had been unprecedentedly stonewalled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings for him, Senate Democrats were spoiling for a fight.
Much of this appears to be orchestrated a little too well, though. Outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy's son reportedly did much business with 45's folks in German banks, and Kennedy apparently had discussions with 45 concerning his retirement before doing so. Those 'coincidences' seemed a little too pat. Nonetheless, it gave even the bumbling 45 an opportunity to line up exactly the candidate he wanted and muscle him through.
But not without a temper tantrum on Kavanaugh's part. Insensed that his nomination might be thwarted, he took the clear advice from 45's people and counterattacked with obnoxiously loud exaggerations and invectives, including the very interesting posit that girls' basketball coaching was the true love of his life and that, because of the accusations, he might never do it again (a claim later found to be as ridiculous as the moment he uttered it). It sounded quite like he would rather do that than be on the high court--in which case, I kept thinking, he did have another, very important job, so no one was contemplating throwing him and his family out onto the street.
Nevertheless, he acted in ways completely unlike the manner in which a Supreme Court candidate should. Was it an indication of how he would conduct himself inside the Court's determination discussions? Would he try to yell at the female members to assert himself? Those questions were suddenly quite relevant. For there Kavanaugh was, completely unglued, throwing insults around the room (and the country, watching with both stubbornness and revulsion) demanding instead of asking that all evidence aside, he be put on the Supreme Court with all of the other relevant and qualifying boxes checked.
On he went, having changed no one's mind about anything. Votes by straddlers seemed to be based on solely political terms, their wet index fingers held up to the breezes. The superficial investigation constituted a firewall by which they could hide behind, claiming that they couldn't rely on rumors and needed to decide the issue based on established facts.
The hubbub wasn't quite finished, though. Chief Justice John Roberts received a complaint from a group of lawyers and other professionals that Kavanaugh had acted so unethically that his very status be reviewed by the Court itself. The Judicial Council of the 10th Appellate Circuit--not Kavanaugh's in DC; this one's seat is in Denver--was given the task of going over some eighty-three accusations, including:
the totality of which smothers the impact of a drunken moment of stupidity that--let's face it--many of us had during our college years (but which doesn't excuse it for a minute).
That set up the final firewall of any consideration of Kavanaugh's eligibility for the high court. That council determined that, because Kavanaugh was now on the Supreme Court, it no longer had the authority to even review his conduct, much less rule upon it. So that was that, and we move on.
Roberts had to know--he had to--that the Council would rule that way. He succeeded, then, in pigeon-holing the ethics of examining Kavanaugh's ethics. In issuing his response, Roberts noted that while federal judges, whose positions are created by Congress, adhere to codes of conduct, it is different with members of the Supreme Court, which is created by the original Constitution. He didn't mean to imply that Supreme Court members are inoculated from ethical behavior--quite the opposite--but that they do so voluntarily. Congress simply isn't allowed to impose standards on Supreme Court justices, he said, because that would violate the separation of powers.
I disagree. Our flexible system allows Congress to make adjustments to the president's powers, doesn't it? Wasn't that what the War Powers Act was about in 1973? Granted, succeeding presidents have disputed the constitutionality of the act, but the Supreme Court hasn't thrown it out yet, and we're going on forty-six years now. If Congress can do that to one branch of government, what prevents it from acting reasonably toward the other?
Besides, the Constitution itself says that justices will serve "during good behavior." The specifics of that aren't and never have been spelled out, but the violation of which constitute grounds for impeachment and removal (done four times in our history). Would it be so harmful for Congress to create guidelines for those grounds? Might it be appropriate to clarify actions that are grounded in law and not nearly as much in politics (though politics are unavoidable)? Would that necessarily throw the balance of power too greatly into the lap of Congress?
Granted, it may cause a challenge in the very Supreme Court that Congress would seek to regulate, and the ethics of that would be perpetually unavoidable and debatable. Perhaps it is time to investigate these possibilities, though. While we prefer to believe that the Supreme Court adheres to a higher standard, lacking guidelines to those standards do not and will not insure that the standards be met. Rather that, than an already controversial and narrowly-approved Supreme Court justice be allowed to use the Court itself as a safe haven by which to escape accountability for actions that mar and have the effect of compromising--perhaps not in his mind but in our minds, regardless of his protestations to the contrary--his very membership. If the courts do not believe they can or even should police themselves, the simple logic not of the separation of powers, but of checks and balances, demands that someone do so. Remember: This appointment is for life.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
It's the Supreme Court, to which Kavanaugh was appointed by 45 and confirmed only after allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to his college years. Let's be clear here: Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee performed poorly about this tawdry issue, especially ranking member Dianne Feinstein of California. Had she processed Professor Christine Blasey Ford's concerns in a more timely fashion, and made the accusations public while doing so, much of the intervening, crushing, and horribly distracting last-minute drama surrounding the investigation--the official part of which was manipulated into sketchy irrelevance due to time factors arranged by the exasperated, over-the-top furious Republican majority, but for which, considering Democratic dithering, they cannot be held completely responsible (Yes, I know they could have allowed more time for deeper investigation, but the scope was out of their hands, and further delays would have been interpreted as weakness, something even the appearance of which cannot be countenanced by 45, who would have insulted the hell out of them, too)--might have been avoided and allowed to proceed reasonably. In fact, early exposure of the issue may have begun the MeToo outcry far sooner, which might have also been allowed to build momentum for more than the two weeks in which all this came to a head. Who knows: 45 might have even considered getting someone else--except that might easily have been another hyper-conservative with fewer ethics issues.
In hindsight, it now appears to be a desperate measure on the part of Senate Democrats to ward off someone who lied to the same committee upon his appointment to the DC Appellate Circuit, perhaps the most prestigious and the major gateway to Supreme Court consideration, in 2006. There was no question that 2018 Republicans, inured and numbed to 45's constant, non-stop lying about nearly everything else, would be giving Kavanaugh a pass, and accomplish what they have been lusting for for about three decades now: a hyper-conservative majority on the Supreme Court, so they can railroad their major policy bellweathers (i.e. gutting abortion rights, jettisoning gay rights, firming up the status of corporations as people) into immutable law, at least for a generation or two, with all the efficiency of an assembly (or perhaps, disassembly of liberalism) line. Besides, with the earlier appointment of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland, the Obama appointee who had been unprecedentedly stonewalled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings for him, Senate Democrats were spoiling for a fight.
Much of this appears to be orchestrated a little too well, though. Outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy's son reportedly did much business with 45's folks in German banks, and Kennedy apparently had discussions with 45 concerning his retirement before doing so. Those 'coincidences' seemed a little too pat. Nonetheless, it gave even the bumbling 45 an opportunity to line up exactly the candidate he wanted and muscle him through.
But not without a temper tantrum on Kavanaugh's part. Insensed that his nomination might be thwarted, he took the clear advice from 45's people and counterattacked with obnoxiously loud exaggerations and invectives, including the very interesting posit that girls' basketball coaching was the true love of his life and that, because of the accusations, he might never do it again (a claim later found to be as ridiculous as the moment he uttered it). It sounded quite like he would rather do that than be on the high court--in which case, I kept thinking, he did have another, very important job, so no one was contemplating throwing him and his family out onto the street.
Nevertheless, he acted in ways completely unlike the manner in which a Supreme Court candidate should. Was it an indication of how he would conduct himself inside the Court's determination discussions? Would he try to yell at the female members to assert himself? Those questions were suddenly quite relevant. For there Kavanaugh was, completely unglued, throwing insults around the room (and the country, watching with both stubbornness and revulsion) demanding instead of asking that all evidence aside, he be put on the Supreme Court with all of the other relevant and qualifying boxes checked.
On he went, having changed no one's mind about anything. Votes by straddlers seemed to be based on solely political terms, their wet index fingers held up to the breezes. The superficial investigation constituted a firewall by which they could hide behind, claiming that they couldn't rely on rumors and needed to decide the issue based on established facts.
The hubbub wasn't quite finished, though. Chief Justice John Roberts received a complaint from a group of lawyers and other professionals that Kavanaugh had acted so unethically that his very status be reviewed by the Court itself. The Judicial Council of the 10th Appellate Circuit--not Kavanaugh's in DC; this one's seat is in Denver--was given the task of going over some eighty-three accusations, including:
- making false statements during his confirmation hearings;
- displaying a lack of judicial temperament;
- making inappropriate partisan statements; and
- treating members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with disrespect,
the totality of which smothers the impact of a drunken moment of stupidity that--let's face it--many of us had during our college years (but which doesn't excuse it for a minute).
That set up the final firewall of any consideration of Kavanaugh's eligibility for the high court. That council determined that, because Kavanaugh was now on the Supreme Court, it no longer had the authority to even review his conduct, much less rule upon it. So that was that, and we move on.
Roberts had to know--he had to--that the Council would rule that way. He succeeded, then, in pigeon-holing the ethics of examining Kavanaugh's ethics. In issuing his response, Roberts noted that while federal judges, whose positions are created by Congress, adhere to codes of conduct, it is different with members of the Supreme Court, which is created by the original Constitution. He didn't mean to imply that Supreme Court members are inoculated from ethical behavior--quite the opposite--but that they do so voluntarily. Congress simply isn't allowed to impose standards on Supreme Court justices, he said, because that would violate the separation of powers.
I disagree. Our flexible system allows Congress to make adjustments to the president's powers, doesn't it? Wasn't that what the War Powers Act was about in 1973? Granted, succeeding presidents have disputed the constitutionality of the act, but the Supreme Court hasn't thrown it out yet, and we're going on forty-six years now. If Congress can do that to one branch of government, what prevents it from acting reasonably toward the other?
Besides, the Constitution itself says that justices will serve "during good behavior." The specifics of that aren't and never have been spelled out, but the violation of which constitute grounds for impeachment and removal (done four times in our history). Would it be so harmful for Congress to create guidelines for those grounds? Might it be appropriate to clarify actions that are grounded in law and not nearly as much in politics (though politics are unavoidable)? Would that necessarily throw the balance of power too greatly into the lap of Congress?
Granted, it may cause a challenge in the very Supreme Court that Congress would seek to regulate, and the ethics of that would be perpetually unavoidable and debatable. Perhaps it is time to investigate these possibilities, though. While we prefer to believe that the Supreme Court adheres to a higher standard, lacking guidelines to those standards do not and will not insure that the standards be met. Rather that, than an already controversial and narrowly-approved Supreme Court justice be allowed to use the Court itself as a safe haven by which to escape accountability for actions that mar and have the effect of compromising--perhaps not in his mind but in our minds, regardless of his protestations to the contrary--his very membership. If the courts do not believe they can or even should police themselves, the simple logic not of the separation of powers, but of checks and balances, demands that someone do so. Remember: This appointment is for life.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
The One Who Smiles His Way In
My 94-year-old mother watches the Milwaukee Brewers with near religious devotion. Her mind's still great, so she could certainly discuss the team with knowledge and memory as sound as anyone's.
But it would be absurd to ask Mom to pinch-hit for the pitchers during the playoffs. She's not quite suited to do that anymore, if she ever was.
That's about like Scott Walker being considered for 45's cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. Sure, he could discuss public lands and national parks, but to run them? That's a head-scratcher. Two questions would make an effective interview: First, do you think science should be utilized to explain climate change; and second, do you think public lands should be sold off to the highest bidder?
If the first answer is no and the second yes, Walker should be off and running. Oh, and he lies quite often, too. That should seal the deal.
The picture taken with 45 the other day is demonstrative. I've rarely seen Walker with a smile that wide. It looks almost genuine. After all, he's accomplished in defeat what he couldn't in victory: a way into the tent in Washington.
I'm quite surprised that Walker hasn't been tapped to replace the enormously incompetent Betsy DuVos as Secretary of Education, what with his infamous stand against Wisconsin's teachers unions with the notorious Act 10, passed in 2011, which made a mockery of collective bargaining rights and eliminated district contracts; his draining of more than $800 million from public education coffers; and cutting a quarter-billion from one of the nation's great university systems to help pay for a pro basketball arena in Milwaukee. But DuVos' stand against Title IX and her disdain for seeing that minority students avoid the lion's share of disciplinary referrals finally might have struck the right note with 45, who has no time for such complications. Blind squirrels do find an acorn or two before winter hits.
Note that this isn't the first time that a Republican Wisconsin governor vaulted from his position into a cabinet post. In 2001, Tommy Thompson, the imperial, four-term poobah who toyed with running for president himself before a couple of bad stumbles deep-sixed his momentum, was asked to join the cabinet of the ever-so-smarmy, election-stealing George W. Bush, who now almost looks good next to the ridiculous 45. He jumped at the chance, believing that he would be Secretary of Transportation, for which he thought he would be far more qualified. But Bush handed that to Norman Mineta--a Democrat, for heaven's sake--and gave Thompson the post at Health and Human Services. He apparently protested and was made to look quite silly for it.
If appointed, Walker would do no such thing. He would keep that dung-eating grin all the way into the first new cabinet meeting, at which he, too, would sing the praises of his new boss with enormous gratitude. He would echo those who believe 45 who can do no wrong though nobody can tell us what he has done right or well or even appropriately (especially the latter).
Thompson did well enough at HHS, but it buried the remainder of his career. He returned to Wisconsin in 2012 to run for the Senate against Tammy Baldwin, who won handily. Walker, who watched that from the governor's mansion, will not allow that kind of crumbling to happen. If nothing else, Walker is the consummate opportunist.
In that, he equals the Mar-A-Lago minion who's been nominated as ambassador to South Africa, and the Faux News analyst who will hold down the now-token position at the U.N. But he has much better chops as a former governor and a reputation as an ersatz choir boy who know his lines and creates the smiling image of hail-fellow-well-met while he destroys you behind closed doors.
Wisconsin Republicans are good at that. There's the grinning Paul Ryan, who helped ruin chances for all but the top 1% of earners nationally with a tax plan that will have us paying off a debt for decades. His sycophancy will be considered infamous in later analyses of how the country went off the deep end. He says he's finished with public office. Don't believe that for a minute.
Then there's Robin Vos, speaker of the state assembly, also considered something of a smiling assassin. He went out of his way to tell Democrats that he didn't think of them as evil, as they thought he was for piloting the bills which undermine democracy in the state by stripping powers away from incoming governor Tony Evers and attorney general Josh Kaul. To which I would reply, if I were there:
But it would be absurd to ask Mom to pinch-hit for the pitchers during the playoffs. She's not quite suited to do that anymore, if she ever was.
That's about like Scott Walker being considered for 45's cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. Sure, he could discuss public lands and national parks, but to run them? That's a head-scratcher. Two questions would make an effective interview: First, do you think science should be utilized to explain climate change; and second, do you think public lands should be sold off to the highest bidder?
If the first answer is no and the second yes, Walker should be off and running. Oh, and he lies quite often, too. That should seal the deal.
The picture taken with 45 the other day is demonstrative. I've rarely seen Walker with a smile that wide. It looks almost genuine. After all, he's accomplished in defeat what he couldn't in victory: a way into the tent in Washington.
I'm quite surprised that Walker hasn't been tapped to replace the enormously incompetent Betsy DuVos as Secretary of Education, what with his infamous stand against Wisconsin's teachers unions with the notorious Act 10, passed in 2011, which made a mockery of collective bargaining rights and eliminated district contracts; his draining of more than $800 million from public education coffers; and cutting a quarter-billion from one of the nation's great university systems to help pay for a pro basketball arena in Milwaukee. But DuVos' stand against Title IX and her disdain for seeing that minority students avoid the lion's share of disciplinary referrals finally might have struck the right note with 45, who has no time for such complications. Blind squirrels do find an acorn or two before winter hits.
Note that this isn't the first time that a Republican Wisconsin governor vaulted from his position into a cabinet post. In 2001, Tommy Thompson, the imperial, four-term poobah who toyed with running for president himself before a couple of bad stumbles deep-sixed his momentum, was asked to join the cabinet of the ever-so-smarmy, election-stealing George W. Bush, who now almost looks good next to the ridiculous 45. He jumped at the chance, believing that he would be Secretary of Transportation, for which he thought he would be far more qualified. But Bush handed that to Norman Mineta--a Democrat, for heaven's sake--and gave Thompson the post at Health and Human Services. He apparently protested and was made to look quite silly for it.
If appointed, Walker would do no such thing. He would keep that dung-eating grin all the way into the first new cabinet meeting, at which he, too, would sing the praises of his new boss with enormous gratitude. He would echo those who believe 45 who can do no wrong though nobody can tell us what he has done right or well or even appropriately (especially the latter).
Thompson did well enough at HHS, but it buried the remainder of his career. He returned to Wisconsin in 2012 to run for the Senate against Tammy Baldwin, who won handily. Walker, who watched that from the governor's mansion, will not allow that kind of crumbling to happen. If nothing else, Walker is the consummate opportunist.
In that, he equals the Mar-A-Lago minion who's been nominated as ambassador to South Africa, and the Faux News analyst who will hold down the now-token position at the U.N. But he has much better chops as a former governor and a reputation as an ersatz choir boy who know his lines and creates the smiling image of hail-fellow-well-met while he destroys you behind closed doors.
Wisconsin Republicans are good at that. There's the grinning Paul Ryan, who helped ruin chances for all but the top 1% of earners nationally with a tax plan that will have us paying off a debt for decades. His sycophancy will be considered infamous in later analyses of how the country went off the deep end. He says he's finished with public office. Don't believe that for a minute.
Then there's Robin Vos, speaker of the state assembly, also considered something of a smiling assassin. He went out of his way to tell Democrats that he didn't think of them as evil, as they thought he was for piloting the bills which undermine democracy in the state by stripping powers away from incoming governor Tony Evers and attorney general Josh Kaul. To which I would reply, if I were there:
- You're lying, because if you weren't then why are you performing this awful subterfuge;
- You must be really scared, since your gerrymandering, which obliterates the meaning of the two-party system in Wisconsin, apparently wasn't enough guarantee of control;
- Well, then deal with it, but you can't because others of your ilk can no longer feel the need to play nice; and/or
- Since you're rumored to be planning to run for governor yourself, thanks for the transparency.
The ultimate killer with kindness, though, is Walker. He calmly, with matter-of-fact style, guides people down the primrose path, as if injustice was the way everybody was thinking, anyhow. It isn't the meanness and anger and grouchiness with which 45 deals with everything--ever hear him laugh?--that deceives; actually, we know that cruelty and lies are coming whenever he's nearby. It's Walker's guile and disingenuousness, hidden behind what looks to be an easy-going, I'm-your-next-door-neighbor pose.
If Walker gets to Washington, he'll utilize that to gain higher status; believe that like you believe your own name. Never is the devil more present, it says elsewhere, than when he appears to be an angel of light.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
If Walker gets to Washington, he'll utilize that to gain higher status; believe that like you believe your own name. Never is the devil more present, it says elsewhere, than when he appears to be an angel of light.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
She Stoops to Conquer--and the Constitution Is Restored (For Now)
No law, no constitution, exists in a vacuum. It takes awareness and responsibility to make things work.
Someone's been trying to bully our way of life into unrecognizable history. As long as he had support from a majority of Congress, he had the best chance of doing so. He lost that support, but the opposition must re-declare its determination to set things right, to get things back into rough balance, which is where democracy works best. Otherwise, it's all for naught.
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi did so. She dealt with the wooly, dizzy, clueless, bully-mongering 45 with disdain and backbone. He tried to undermine her position as Speaker-Designate by stating, not without cause, that her actual installment as Speaker wasn't a done deal yet. But she deflected that attempt to diminish her by saying that the Democrats would now be in control of the House of Representatives, and that was the main point--which, of course, it is (and may have, in fact, solidified her re-selection as Speaker).
At that moment, the Constitution was being restored. This president can't get away with single-handedly humiliating those standing in his way any longer through tweets and carefully arranged rallies of sycophants. Power exists only in its utilization, and Pelosi reminded 45 that his wall didn't have the votes (Though he denied that, except if that was true, why hasn't the outgoing Speaker, Paul Ryan, hold a vote on it?). He threatened to shut down the government if the Democrats wouldn't cooperate--thus putting himself into a corner that he will probably try to ease himself out of (as he has before, when he realized his bluster was only mindless posturing). And if he tries to follow through, his party will suffer the consequences. Again.
Two things have become evident:
Someone's been trying to bully our way of life into unrecognizable history. As long as he had support from a majority of Congress, he had the best chance of doing so. He lost that support, but the opposition must re-declare its determination to set things right, to get things back into rough balance, which is where democracy works best. Otherwise, it's all for naught.
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi did so. She dealt with the wooly, dizzy, clueless, bully-mongering 45 with disdain and backbone. He tried to undermine her position as Speaker-Designate by stating, not without cause, that her actual installment as Speaker wasn't a done deal yet. But she deflected that attempt to diminish her by saying that the Democrats would now be in control of the House of Representatives, and that was the main point--which, of course, it is (and may have, in fact, solidified her re-selection as Speaker).
At that moment, the Constitution was being restored. This president can't get away with single-handedly humiliating those standing in his way any longer through tweets and carefully arranged rallies of sycophants. Power exists only in its utilization, and Pelosi reminded 45 that his wall didn't have the votes (Though he denied that, except if that was true, why hasn't the outgoing Speaker, Paul Ryan, hold a vote on it?). He threatened to shut down the government if the Democrats wouldn't cooperate--thus putting himself into a corner that he will probably try to ease himself out of (as he has before, when he realized his bluster was only mindless posturing). And if he tries to follow through, his party will suffer the consequences. Again.
Two things have become evident:
- First, a woman has stooped to conquer a bumbling male president by simply showing up and reminding him that his control has been significantly reduced; and
- Second, the fact that it is a woman will catapult female candidates (including those for president) forward in ways we cannot exactly determine--but will bring a woman to the White House for the first time far faster than any other event could have done. (And it could be a Republican; watch Nikki Haley very carefully. Like Sarah Palin, she's an ex-governor; unlike Palin, she has brains and savvy.)
Hillary Clinton deserved to be president on her chops and background, but she didn't realize that one of the major hurdles she needed to leap was standing right behind her on the debate stage, stalking her and succeeding in reducing her effectiveness by appearing to be the alpha male. She admitted in her follow-up book What Happened that she didn't know what to do about it.
Nancy Pelosi did. Granted, already having been in the Oval Office with 45 prepared her for whatever shock factor she might be walking into yesterday, and that experience undoubtedly gave her ballast for pushing back at him. But alpha males tend not to easily adjust to females who stand up to them, and she walked away by reducing him to a shell of a man trying to be a man through his main prop--the wall he now realizes he can't have, in addition to the power that has receded, whether he understands it or not.
When she did so (and insulted him right back in later comments), she restored what the Constitution is supposed to mean: a balancing of power by checking the irresponsible use of it. Whether this means that a compromise is coming on border security is anybody's guess, as well as whether 45 would be so reckless as to attempt an actual government shutdown. He may yell and scream and throw papers, but what is left of his staff may yet manage his childishness and avoid yet another debacle. It's happened before, and Bob Woodward's Fear documents some of those instances.
We are still in a time of relative instability, because 45 is still there in the worst possible place he can be, and Robert Mueller's report continues to seep out of his office, one awful fact at a time, one indictment at a time. 45 may go back out on the campaign trail, stirring up the thoughtless, chanting masses who will always believe, whether based on twisted religion or not, that he has been put there supernaturally to save our society from bad people who are no worse than them. Meanwhile, legal processes slowly grind on and the rule of law, too, is restored. That reckoning now draws near.
Nancy Pelosi has renewed what the Constitution means by standing up to a reckless, horribly irresponsible, corrupt president with power that will be wielded properly and responsibly. It will have to be maintained in 2020 as well, but now people see (hopefully!) that involvement (a.k.a. voting) beats standing and watching.
For now, it will have to do. But something shifted yesterday, and a whole lot of people feel a whole lot better. Hope isn't just a thought; it is a product and result of action. We have proven it to ourselves. Again. For now.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, December 7, 2018
A Direct Line to Banality: A Synagogue and a Statehouse
A shooting in a synagogue and the ambushing of one political party in spoiling what would otherwise be the well-deserved benefits of regaining elected offices. They sound like two unrelated phenomena.
They aren't. The same mentalities jolt through both. The difference is that they are now becoming everyday, happenstance, banal--again, through the cold-blooded thinking that so deeply belongs to 45. Others of his party are copying it, operating within implied permission that they may do so. This wasn't happening before. It's happening now.
But it's the same thing, though not as violent of course, as the assassin who wandered into that synagogue and opened fire: The bad things in our world are their fault. They must be stopped. We are the ones who need to stop it because we can. We do what we have to do and God will stand as the judge of our actions. The ends justify the means--just this one time.
Yes, I know. Nobody's voiced the idea of infusing religion into the Wisconsin legislature's current debacle, in which the Republicans, still in control of the assembly and senate, will be removing the powers they have given outgoing and defeated governor Scott Walker and keep incoming and winning governor-elect Tony Evers from getting them. In doing so, they officially pronounce that they are against peaceful, relenting transitions of government; against what the people of Wisconsin said they wanted; and against anything less than a complete seizure of power.
It's not governing they care about in the least. It's power and its maintenance. Democracy functions best when the losers relent and live on until the next election. The Republicans won't. They can't. It's now foreign to them.
Robin Vos, Wisconsin assembly speaker, sounded the vapid and pointless attempt at normalizing the ambush. First, he said that after all, the liberals (Gasp! What a smear!) would seize control--implying that that would mean the destruction of life as we knew it in this state--and where he was from, people didn't want the Democrats to take control. He also said that governor-elect Evers was being manipulated by the teachers' unions, implying that the real state of Wisconsin needed to be protected from them.
He knows as well as anyone that:
He, and all of us, also know that this power grab is unprecedented, which brings the last quick retort from Republicans to its knees: The idea that the Democrats would have done the same thing. Wisconsin has been a state since 1848. If Democrats would have wanted to, they would have done it by now as well. There's nothing so brilliant in this underhanded, conniving bushwhacking that needed deep plotting.
The Republicans in the state legislature, though, have assured us of one thing: When given the chance, the Democrats will respond in kind. Whenever that happens--and it won't happen soon--the Republicans will whine that they had to do it back then when things were really bad, so they should be given a one-off and the Democrats, well, you know: We expect that from them. They'll act like victims. They always do.
Does this demonization sound a bit familiar? Does this exceptionalism kind of get under your skin? Know anybody else who does this incessantly?
Scott Fitzgerald, majority leader of the state senate, has been quoted as saying that the Republicans don't trust the Democrats. Oh, really? And this will replace that loss of trust--how? This will restore confidence in government--how? And this will inspire more people to get out and vote--how?
Within that last question is the not-so-hidden agenda: Discourage voting, even beyond the excessively strangling voting requirements that Republicans have foisted on this state, without which Walker would surely have lost by more. Deal with it as a necessary evil, as another means to an end.
When an assassin walks into a synagogue and opens fire, he discourages participation, too, in something else decent to which he objected. He's alive and will stand trial; he has pled not guilty. Wait and see his sneering. It will be self-justifying. It will ignore basic concepts of right and wrong. It will declare himself as the sole arbiter of justice and, by doing so, encourage others to do the same. He will lust after the opportunity to take the stand and declare his moral rectitude in slaughtering defenseless people as old as 97.
He will, in his mind, stand above the law. Somewhere in there, he will invoke God. His God. The right God. Can't everybody see? The laws aren't good enough. They aren't sufficient to make things right. Once in a while, you just have to take things into your own hands. Otherwise, things will get out of control.
The result? Common courtesy, basic human respect, the understanding of the give-and-take of a society like ours come to a screeching halt. It doesn't happen all at once. It happens with the banality of repetition, like mass shootings, until we become so numb and overwhelmed by it that it settles into a bottomless acceptability, seeing the wanton forces arrayed against the resistance of it as impossibly suffused. The NRA is weakened at the moment, but its damage lives on. So will the consequences of this power grab. If this continues, things really will get out of control.
The Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature have taken one giant step toward that reality. It's happening in Michigan as well. North Carolina went first, but the courts overturned that attempt. No one knows if that band-aid on a gushing wound of propriety might work this time. But they have declared themselves to be the sole arbiters of justice, not the people of the state who want to put the brakes on their utter contempt for the kind of democracy that doesn't feel good right here and now--a partial repudiation of what they would call limited government: limited to themselves and their power-mad enclave.
There are no limits to the awful effects of this assault, though--unless a response unequalled in our history takes place. We are at that moment.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
They aren't. The same mentalities jolt through both. The difference is that they are now becoming everyday, happenstance, banal--again, through the cold-blooded thinking that so deeply belongs to 45. Others of his party are copying it, operating within implied permission that they may do so. This wasn't happening before. It's happening now.
But it's the same thing, though not as violent of course, as the assassin who wandered into that synagogue and opened fire: The bad things in our world are their fault. They must be stopped. We are the ones who need to stop it because we can. We do what we have to do and God will stand as the judge of our actions. The ends justify the means--just this one time.
Yes, I know. Nobody's voiced the idea of infusing religion into the Wisconsin legislature's current debacle, in which the Republicans, still in control of the assembly and senate, will be removing the powers they have given outgoing and defeated governor Scott Walker and keep incoming and winning governor-elect Tony Evers from getting them. In doing so, they officially pronounce that they are against peaceful, relenting transitions of government; against what the people of Wisconsin said they wanted; and against anything less than a complete seizure of power.
It's not governing they care about in the least. It's power and its maintenance. Democracy functions best when the losers relent and live on until the next election. The Republicans won't. They can't. It's now foreign to them.
Robin Vos, Wisconsin assembly speaker, sounded the vapid and pointless attempt at normalizing the ambush. First, he said that after all, the liberals (Gasp! What a smear!) would seize control--implying that that would mean the destruction of life as we knew it in this state--and where he was from, people didn't want the Democrats to take control. He also said that governor-elect Evers was being manipulated by the teachers' unions, implying that the real state of Wisconsin needed to be protected from them.
He knows as well as anyone that:
- first, elections are the will of the people and Tony Evers won that election and the respect for that win was legally earned;
- second, Wisconsin is a bit larger than his assembly district, one of 99, however gerrymandered by those of his own ilk (this election proving once again the undemocratic, power-grabbing nature of Republican gerrymandering, since that party retains a strong 63-36 advantage in the assembly despite being outvoted by some 200,000 in total); and
- third, having been a very gleeful participant in the passage of Act 10 in 2011, the law that gutted collective bargaining for only a select few unions in the state--including those same teachers' unions--the influence of those unions on the electoral process has only diminished since. (And, if Evers was supported by them, what of it? Vos and the Republicans have long ago succumbed to the very deep pockets of the Wisconsin Manufacturers' Association and that country club of business lobbying, the American Legislative Exchange Council. The last I saw, neither had the corner on justice or ethics--except for themselves.)
He, and all of us, also know that this power grab is unprecedented, which brings the last quick retort from Republicans to its knees: The idea that the Democrats would have done the same thing. Wisconsin has been a state since 1848. If Democrats would have wanted to, they would have done it by now as well. There's nothing so brilliant in this underhanded, conniving bushwhacking that needed deep plotting.
The Republicans in the state legislature, though, have assured us of one thing: When given the chance, the Democrats will respond in kind. Whenever that happens--and it won't happen soon--the Republicans will whine that they had to do it back then when things were really bad, so they should be given a one-off and the Democrats, well, you know: We expect that from them. They'll act like victims. They always do.
Does this demonization sound a bit familiar? Does this exceptionalism kind of get under your skin? Know anybody else who does this incessantly?
Scott Fitzgerald, majority leader of the state senate, has been quoted as saying that the Republicans don't trust the Democrats. Oh, really? And this will replace that loss of trust--how? This will restore confidence in government--how? And this will inspire more people to get out and vote--how?
Within that last question is the not-so-hidden agenda: Discourage voting, even beyond the excessively strangling voting requirements that Republicans have foisted on this state, without which Walker would surely have lost by more. Deal with it as a necessary evil, as another means to an end.
When an assassin walks into a synagogue and opens fire, he discourages participation, too, in something else decent to which he objected. He's alive and will stand trial; he has pled not guilty. Wait and see his sneering. It will be self-justifying. It will ignore basic concepts of right and wrong. It will declare himself as the sole arbiter of justice and, by doing so, encourage others to do the same. He will lust after the opportunity to take the stand and declare his moral rectitude in slaughtering defenseless people as old as 97.
He will, in his mind, stand above the law. Somewhere in there, he will invoke God. His God. The right God. Can't everybody see? The laws aren't good enough. They aren't sufficient to make things right. Once in a while, you just have to take things into your own hands. Otherwise, things will get out of control.
The result? Common courtesy, basic human respect, the understanding of the give-and-take of a society like ours come to a screeching halt. It doesn't happen all at once. It happens with the banality of repetition, like mass shootings, until we become so numb and overwhelmed by it that it settles into a bottomless acceptability, seeing the wanton forces arrayed against the resistance of it as impossibly suffused. The NRA is weakened at the moment, but its damage lives on. So will the consequences of this power grab. If this continues, things really will get out of control.
The Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature have taken one giant step toward that reality. It's happening in Michigan as well. North Carolina went first, but the courts overturned that attempt. No one knows if that band-aid on a gushing wound of propriety might work this time. But they have declared themselves to be the sole arbiters of justice, not the people of the state who want to put the brakes on their utter contempt for the kind of democracy that doesn't feel good right here and now--a partial repudiation of what they would call limited government: limited to themselves and their power-mad enclave.
There are no limits to the awful effects of this assault, though--unless a response unequalled in our history takes place. We are at that moment.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Knight and 45: Two Peas in A Pod, Two Replaceable Icons of the Past
The other night, ESPN, as part of its series "30-for-30" (excellent sports journalism, by the way) created a show called "The Last Days of Knight," depicting the events leading to the departure of head men's basketball coach Bob Knight from Indiana University.
It was not pleasant. Knight went kicking and screaming, but that's part of the way he coached, too. About the game of basketball, his expertise and strategizing always will be among the best that the college game has ever had to offer (Reveal: I learned the intricacies of his motion offense and man-to-man defense and taught it with intensity, which pleased some and distressed others. I didn't like some of the results interpersonally, but I'm not sure that in a competitive sport one can do otherwise. That has always been the give-and-take of coaching.). But his handling of personalities to fit his style of attacking opponents, and making the mastery of the game as the goal, led to moments of genuine abuse.
Because of Knight's reputation and overbearing, intimidating presence which warned people away from getting on his bad side, much of what others would regard as unacceptable behavior was washed over--especially since, during his career at Indiana, the Hoosiers won three national championships and were nearly always in the conversation during other campaigns. His powerful voice, usually filled with expletives, was always bracing in support, obnoxious and offensive in opposition. His physical presence intimidated, and if it didn't, he intimidated by throwing chairs and grabbing people.
He was a forerunner of 45: He took pride in his polarization. Hate me if you want, but I'll beat you in the end. Winning is the only point, after all. I was not surprised whatsoever that Knight came out in support of 45's candidacy.
Like about 35-40 percent of the country at present, Indiana University overlooked and even held its nose about Knight's antics because he kept winning. It remained powerfully loyal--until film led it unmistakably to question his tactics.
Up until then, it was one person's word against the other. Knight, like 45, used exaggeration and deflecting (usually about the greater good of either teaching young men about life or his overall success) to ride out controversies until they subsided. But like 45, too, they just kept coming. Journalists who looked the other way were forced to confront the evidence that had just too much weight.
Much of the journalism concerning 45, and more of the commentary, still comprises speculation: If this, then that will be inevitable. It has built nearly from the time of his inauguration. The lies and hucksterist exaggerations began then with the size of the inaugural crowd, nothing remotely close to that of President Obama's first inauguration (of which I was a part). With one and then another revelation of misdoing and misappropriation of funds and cover-ups and skulduggery, we have come to expect emotionally strong but factually empty efforts to counteract the fact-findings.
Like 45, Knight spent much of his final days at Indiana condemning the press and trying to make it look like a bunch of hacks. Slowly, the press circled around him with facts, which included the way he looked in defending himself--inadequate, more vapid with each day, and self-centered. Like 45, it became all about him.
Unlike 45, though, once the higher-ups at Indiana understood the real situation, its actions were quick and decisive, without appellate delay or red tape. Knight's departure was not the end of him: He went on to a moderately successful stay at Texas Tech, and a turn in the broadcast booth. The game of basketball went on: some of Knight's disciples, most notably Mike Kryszewski at Duke, continued runs of tremendous success by using some of his tactics but rarely his style. Within one or two seasons, Knight was a flawed icon of the past.
45's money has bought, and will continue to buy, him time and an all-out effort to smudge and fog every and all violations of norms and laws so that he hopes people will, inevitably, wear out and let him be. But the mid-term elections have given his opponents renewed energy and hope, and now nothing will deter them from getting to the bottom line of his wrongdoings and inappropriateness. The press has continually knifed through his fog, too, and their written and visual records cannot now be erased.
His process of removal may come from two paths, and neither may ultimately succeed. But it will be attempted now, of that one can be sure. Those forces have now gathered and he must stand accountable.
Then what will happen? In all likelihood, 45 will (If he doesn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which may mean he may have to pardon himself, which it says here will result in a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting it, a discussion of which will be done in this space whether it develops as an option or not) develop, or try to develop, that media empire he keeps discussing that the government itself should have. He will flood it with his own propaganda and try to claim that that's just what the major media outlets have been doing all along. (What he'll do against or with Fox will be all that more interesting.). Lacking that, he'll try to buy up everything he possibly can so that his children will take over the major portion of his grifting (having done a considerable amount themselves) and expand it. Unlike Knight, 45's awful influence may just be starting.
If he doesn't commit a major mistake and ruin much of this country first. There's plenty of time for that, if only in resisting removal by whatever constitutional avenues that will be invoked. Knight called upon his public, but after a while, it faded. 45's public may make removal very, very ugly.
Regardless, like Bob Knight, 45 cannot help himself. With every attempt to cover tracks, he reveals more. His lights, too, are fading. His voice, too, is becoming less and less relevant. Like Knight, he will soon become a tragic icon of the past, just one more replaceable person who believed he was the opposite.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
It was not pleasant. Knight went kicking and screaming, but that's part of the way he coached, too. About the game of basketball, his expertise and strategizing always will be among the best that the college game has ever had to offer (Reveal: I learned the intricacies of his motion offense and man-to-man defense and taught it with intensity, which pleased some and distressed others. I didn't like some of the results interpersonally, but I'm not sure that in a competitive sport one can do otherwise. That has always been the give-and-take of coaching.). But his handling of personalities to fit his style of attacking opponents, and making the mastery of the game as the goal, led to moments of genuine abuse.
Because of Knight's reputation and overbearing, intimidating presence which warned people away from getting on his bad side, much of what others would regard as unacceptable behavior was washed over--especially since, during his career at Indiana, the Hoosiers won three national championships and were nearly always in the conversation during other campaigns. His powerful voice, usually filled with expletives, was always bracing in support, obnoxious and offensive in opposition. His physical presence intimidated, and if it didn't, he intimidated by throwing chairs and grabbing people.
He was a forerunner of 45: He took pride in his polarization. Hate me if you want, but I'll beat you in the end. Winning is the only point, after all. I was not surprised whatsoever that Knight came out in support of 45's candidacy.
Like about 35-40 percent of the country at present, Indiana University overlooked and even held its nose about Knight's antics because he kept winning. It remained powerfully loyal--until film led it unmistakably to question his tactics.
Up until then, it was one person's word against the other. Knight, like 45, used exaggeration and deflecting (usually about the greater good of either teaching young men about life or his overall success) to ride out controversies until they subsided. But like 45, too, they just kept coming. Journalists who looked the other way were forced to confront the evidence that had just too much weight.
Much of the journalism concerning 45, and more of the commentary, still comprises speculation: If this, then that will be inevitable. It has built nearly from the time of his inauguration. The lies and hucksterist exaggerations began then with the size of the inaugural crowd, nothing remotely close to that of President Obama's first inauguration (of which I was a part). With one and then another revelation of misdoing and misappropriation of funds and cover-ups and skulduggery, we have come to expect emotionally strong but factually empty efforts to counteract the fact-findings.
Like 45, Knight spent much of his final days at Indiana condemning the press and trying to make it look like a bunch of hacks. Slowly, the press circled around him with facts, which included the way he looked in defending himself--inadequate, more vapid with each day, and self-centered. Like 45, it became all about him.
Unlike 45, though, once the higher-ups at Indiana understood the real situation, its actions were quick and decisive, without appellate delay or red tape. Knight's departure was not the end of him: He went on to a moderately successful stay at Texas Tech, and a turn in the broadcast booth. The game of basketball went on: some of Knight's disciples, most notably Mike Kryszewski at Duke, continued runs of tremendous success by using some of his tactics but rarely his style. Within one or two seasons, Knight was a flawed icon of the past.
45's money has bought, and will continue to buy, him time and an all-out effort to smudge and fog every and all violations of norms and laws so that he hopes people will, inevitably, wear out and let him be. But the mid-term elections have given his opponents renewed energy and hope, and now nothing will deter them from getting to the bottom line of his wrongdoings and inappropriateness. The press has continually knifed through his fog, too, and their written and visual records cannot now be erased.
His process of removal may come from two paths, and neither may ultimately succeed. But it will be attempted now, of that one can be sure. Those forces have now gathered and he must stand accountable.
Then what will happen? In all likelihood, 45 will (If he doesn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which may mean he may have to pardon himself, which it says here will result in a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting it, a discussion of which will be done in this space whether it develops as an option or not) develop, or try to develop, that media empire he keeps discussing that the government itself should have. He will flood it with his own propaganda and try to claim that that's just what the major media outlets have been doing all along. (What he'll do against or with Fox will be all that more interesting.). Lacking that, he'll try to buy up everything he possibly can so that his children will take over the major portion of his grifting (having done a considerable amount themselves) and expand it. Unlike Knight, 45's awful influence may just be starting.
If he doesn't commit a major mistake and ruin much of this country first. There's plenty of time for that, if only in resisting removal by whatever constitutional avenues that will be invoked. Knight called upon his public, but after a while, it faded. 45's public may make removal very, very ugly.
Regardless, like Bob Knight, 45 cannot help himself. With every attempt to cover tracks, he reveals more. His lights, too, are fading. His voice, too, is becoming less and less relevant. Like Knight, he will soon become a tragic icon of the past, just one more replaceable person who believed he was the opposite.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Thanksgiving, Washington's Way
The Pilgrims and Native Americans in their vicinity started Thanksgiving, it is said, but it's George Washington who declared it the national observance that it now is. He also tried hard to make it something other than what it has become.
As the first President, Washington declared the first 'official' Thanksgiving for the fourth Thursday in November, 1789, according to Ron Chernow's thorough and absorbing biography of our country's first father. Washington declared that 'Almighty God' "should be thanked for the abundant blessings bestowed on the American people, including victory in the war against England, creation of the Constitution, establishment of the new government, and the 'tranquility, union, and plenty' that the country now enjoyed," Chernow said.
Chernow also added that Washington provided "beer and food to those jailed for debt....He gave scores of charitable contributions preferring anonymity, though he sometimes made exception on public holidays to set an example for the citizenry."
So Thanksgiving was supposed to be a celebration of giving rather than of gorging, forbearance rather than football. Good old George wanted it to be an example of distribution, not hoarding for self-consumption. It didn't really matter who was supposed to have done it, just that it was done and that wealth and prosperity were shared.
Once again, we have lost a sense of history and with it, a sense of proper meaning. If all this makes you feel something like a, uh, turkey, welcome to the club.
I have no idea whether that went through the mind of President Barack Obama when he walked into a food kitchen unannounced on Thursday and offered to help serve Thanksgiving dinners to the destitute, but he did. On the other hand, 45 was asked what he was most thankful for, and he replied, "myself. I'm pretty amazing."
Oh, yes. We are all amazed. Daily.
But I'm with George. We should be thankful for the creation of the Constitution, because it's that document and the observance that most of us, in power and out, put into its limitations, that is stopping our present president from indulging his craven madness to a completely destructive extent.
So far.
We are rife to have that showdown, and it will happen soon enough. Can the Constitution survive the politics that threaten to tear it to shreds--with the same kind of intensity with which the original document was almost dismissed with what would have been disastrous consequences? Or will we recall enough of our posterity to restore it to better health?
Washington understood his importance to the nation and his already strong influence over others. Rather using it to manipulate, he was careful not to interject himself into the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, other than to run the meeting as its chosen President. He thought better than to be divisive. He understood that, as the nation's first icon, the conventioneers would naturally go along with whatever he wanted--simply because he wanted it.
He had had that moment a few years before that. Members of the army had approached him, the victor in one of the greatest military upsets in history, and offered him complete support if he would become something like the emperor of the new country. It was all there for him--the power that he could have lusted for, to recreate the new country in his own image, perhaps forever.
It had to be tempting. All during the war, Washington had to deal with a hesitant, self-centered Congress that had little money and little ability to get it from states, nee colonies, that quibbled about lending their own people to a greater cause. He watched his men suffer the degradation of Valley Forge, more defeats than victories, and more than once dangled at the edge of disaster before some edgy fate, or his talent in slipping away, saved him and Continental Army. What need did the country have of clueless politicians who operated by not rules but guidelines they were free to ignore on a whim?
He refused the offer. It was exactly for that reason--to prevent the re-occurrence of a dictatorship--that the war had been fought and freedom had been won, he explained. It was his humility, not his ego, that would drive the creation of the republic and the establishment of the presidency as an admirable, transcendent position.
I want someone to present such a situation to 45 to see what he'd say. Any takers? Let's get Lesley Stahl back in there: "We'd like to ask you one more thing, sir."
And watch him squirm, because he wants exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent: a free hand to use the military for whatever itch he needs to scratch. The recent joke of the deployment of National Guardsmen to the southern border, plus the outrageous permission granted for them to use weapons against defenseless migrants, is a perfect demonstration of that.
Granted, in 1794 Washington rode at the head of the militias of four states--Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey--to exert federal authority against feisty Pennsylvania farmers who had refused to pay taxes on whiskeys made from their grain: the famous Whiskey Rebellion. But Washington also offered the farmers amnesty to avoid bloodshed and pardoned some. Amnesty for immigrants within the U.S. is considered by most Republicans as unthinkable--a major roadblock to compromising our way out of the quicksand of immigration reform. And a president who would approve of putting kids into tents for months, rather than reuniting them with their parents, has no time for amnesty.
One desperately needs power to legitimize himself; the other had plenty of power but saw a way to avoid its use to get the results that were needed--not for himself, but for the country. Our ability to notice the difference would make Washington thankful. It should make us thankful, too, that we have an example that would make us proud.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
As the first President, Washington declared the first 'official' Thanksgiving for the fourth Thursday in November, 1789, according to Ron Chernow's thorough and absorbing biography of our country's first father. Washington declared that 'Almighty God' "should be thanked for the abundant blessings bestowed on the American people, including victory in the war against England, creation of the Constitution, establishment of the new government, and the 'tranquility, union, and plenty' that the country now enjoyed," Chernow said.
Chernow also added that Washington provided "beer and food to those jailed for debt....He gave scores of charitable contributions preferring anonymity, though he sometimes made exception on public holidays to set an example for the citizenry."
So Thanksgiving was supposed to be a celebration of giving rather than of gorging, forbearance rather than football. Good old George wanted it to be an example of distribution, not hoarding for self-consumption. It didn't really matter who was supposed to have done it, just that it was done and that wealth and prosperity were shared.
Once again, we have lost a sense of history and with it, a sense of proper meaning. If all this makes you feel something like a, uh, turkey, welcome to the club.
I have no idea whether that went through the mind of President Barack Obama when he walked into a food kitchen unannounced on Thursday and offered to help serve Thanksgiving dinners to the destitute, but he did. On the other hand, 45 was asked what he was most thankful for, and he replied, "myself. I'm pretty amazing."
Oh, yes. We are all amazed. Daily.
But I'm with George. We should be thankful for the creation of the Constitution, because it's that document and the observance that most of us, in power and out, put into its limitations, that is stopping our present president from indulging his craven madness to a completely destructive extent.
So far.
We are rife to have that showdown, and it will happen soon enough. Can the Constitution survive the politics that threaten to tear it to shreds--with the same kind of intensity with which the original document was almost dismissed with what would have been disastrous consequences? Or will we recall enough of our posterity to restore it to better health?
Washington understood his importance to the nation and his already strong influence over others. Rather using it to manipulate, he was careful not to interject himself into the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, other than to run the meeting as its chosen President. He thought better than to be divisive. He understood that, as the nation's first icon, the conventioneers would naturally go along with whatever he wanted--simply because he wanted it.
He had had that moment a few years before that. Members of the army had approached him, the victor in one of the greatest military upsets in history, and offered him complete support if he would become something like the emperor of the new country. It was all there for him--the power that he could have lusted for, to recreate the new country in his own image, perhaps forever.
It had to be tempting. All during the war, Washington had to deal with a hesitant, self-centered Congress that had little money and little ability to get it from states, nee colonies, that quibbled about lending their own people to a greater cause. He watched his men suffer the degradation of Valley Forge, more defeats than victories, and more than once dangled at the edge of disaster before some edgy fate, or his talent in slipping away, saved him and Continental Army. What need did the country have of clueless politicians who operated by not rules but guidelines they were free to ignore on a whim?
He refused the offer. It was exactly for that reason--to prevent the re-occurrence of a dictatorship--that the war had been fought and freedom had been won, he explained. It was his humility, not his ego, that would drive the creation of the republic and the establishment of the presidency as an admirable, transcendent position.
I want someone to present such a situation to 45 to see what he'd say. Any takers? Let's get Lesley Stahl back in there: "We'd like to ask you one more thing, sir."
And watch him squirm, because he wants exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent: a free hand to use the military for whatever itch he needs to scratch. The recent joke of the deployment of National Guardsmen to the southern border, plus the outrageous permission granted for them to use weapons against defenseless migrants, is a perfect demonstration of that.
Granted, in 1794 Washington rode at the head of the militias of four states--Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey--to exert federal authority against feisty Pennsylvania farmers who had refused to pay taxes on whiskeys made from their grain: the famous Whiskey Rebellion. But Washington also offered the farmers amnesty to avoid bloodshed and pardoned some. Amnesty for immigrants within the U.S. is considered by most Republicans as unthinkable--a major roadblock to compromising our way out of the quicksand of immigration reform. And a president who would approve of putting kids into tents for months, rather than reuniting them with their parents, has no time for amnesty.
One desperately needs power to legitimize himself; the other had plenty of power but saw a way to avoid its use to get the results that were needed--not for himself, but for the country. Our ability to notice the difference would make Washington thankful. It should make us thankful, too, that we have an example that would make us proud.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
William McRaven for President
There are plenty of pretenders to run for president in 2020: Plenty of good ones, too, within the Democratic Party. I won't pretend (no pun intended) to name them all; some will feint and fall away, while others might in fact lurch at the prize. There's still time to do either. I count more than 20. None of them would be bad.
There's one person, though, who would be absolutely perfect, considering:
There's one person, though, who would be absolutely perfect, considering:
- The unstable times in which we live;
- The enormity of the despicable, but intimidating--and unfortunately mesmerizing too far to many--person we apologetically have in the position at the moment;
- The kind of reputation that the position begs for--the exact opposite of Agent Orange;
- The diminishment of our international standing, which continues by the day; and
- Especially, the kind of character that we all cry out for--now that we have seen what 45's utter lack of character has done to all of us.
That person is William McRaven.
McRaven, former Navy SEAL, spear-headed the Special Operations plan called Neptune Spear, which rolled the dice in no small way to take out Osama bin Laden in May, 2011. President Obama, who ordered the preparation and attack, called the situation a 55-45 chance. It worked.
In a Time magazine article in 2012, McRaven called Obama "the smartest man in any room." McRaven also served under President George W. Bush and speaks well of him. (Which takes more character than I have.)
He has an unquestioned meritorious service record. Besides the bin Laden mission, he has a Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit and a Bronze Star among his collection of awards. Above that, he's a SEAL. He's tougher than tough. Anyone who's aware of SEAL training knows that these people are those who you would follow into any battle, anywhere, for any reason.
A campaign for president would, and does, test anyone's mettle and resilience, sometimes beyond the breaking point. Let me ask: Does anyone else out there, as good as they are, look like they could handle it better than he could?
He has already been sullied by 45, who stupidly smeared him with an accusation of unnecessary delay in going after bin Laden--as if he was responsible, somehow, for that big-picture planning. He has entered the fray in his defense of former CIA Director John Brennan, who had his security clearance removed in another display of 45's inability or unwillingness (pick one: it doesn't matter) to discern service from politics. McRaven dared 45 to do the same to him. I almost hope he does.
"Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President," McRaven wrote in an open letter to 45 in the Washington Post. "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage, and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."
Let me put that last statement in italics: You have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage, and, worst of all, divided us as a nation. That simple statement quite completely summarizes the damage 45 has done. It would make one hell of a campaign slogan.
Yes, he was, apparently, on Hillary Clinton's short list for running mate in 2016. That must mean that first, once again, she has excellent political judgment; and second, he must at least lean toward Democratic thinking. 45 would immediately try to fuse him with her, endlessly, in every attack.
McRaven could answer that beyond what he already has: that he has served two other presidents who at least had some decent values and moral judgment (though 43's incursion into Iraq was a terrible mistake, based I believe on personal revenge because Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his father, Bush 41). He could simply add that, had Clinton offered him the vice-presidency, he would not have been ready to take it right then and there--but subsequent events have proven that he needs, once again, to step up and serve his country.
Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't, like 45 ridiculously says about Saudi King Mohammad bin Salmon's involvement in the Khashoggi murder, CIA evidence untrusted (and which undermines it, of course). This would have plausible deniability, unless it can be proven that he discussed it with friends back then.
Except I don't think McRaven would hide behind that; he would step up and tell the truth. That would get his campaign off to an extremely effective start and immediately distinguish him from his predecessor. Yes, I thought about it, but I had a great job at UT and I was determined to finish it. Now that I've done that, I can consider other things.
Not only that, but McRaven must be a fan of public education. After all, he has just served four years as chancellor of the University of Texas System. He might have some innovations to be made in public education's advancement. At the very least, he would be a staunch defender and positive promoter of it, another way to set himself apart from 45's embarrassing (dis)appointment of Betsy DuVos as Secretary of Education. It would also be a signal that he'll shore up not only that position but the other Cabinet spots to insure competence, for heaven's sake, instead of having, in several notable cases (try, for starters, that aforementioned one, EPA, HHS, and Energy), the intentionally misplaced, incompetent and/or undermining people that are presently there.
McRaven's record as an administrator is significant in that it wasn't controversial. He handled issues wisely. He avoided the kinds of lurid, sensational headlines that Texas is known for. That, in itself, is a signal that he would be the one to calmly utilize his powers as president appropriately and not overreach, as 45 does daily.
Not only that, but let's talk electoral politics for a moment: He's from Texas. Texas, which very nearly bumped Ted Cruz, and which, if he chooses to run again, might just put Beto O'Rourke into the Senate instead of John Cornyn, another remnant of the Republican (very) old guard who needs to retire. One may ride the coattails of the other--and 35 electoral votes fall to the Democrats, who never expected it. Along with what appears to be the re-awakening of the Rust Belt, that would be far more than needed to put him over the top and make Florida irrelevant.
His support for press freedom has already been documented. He would never, ever call the press "the enemy of the people." And he would call out Agent Orange for his spectacularly despicable shambling on Khashoggi's murder, noting (hopefully) that, with that mentality, all have a price on our heads--it's just a matter of how much.
His military background would assure moderates or fence-sitters that, despite 45's attempts at further smearing, funding and support of the military would continue at an acceptable level. He's an admiral, for heaven's sake. Expect him to be a peacenik?
But his judgment about what to say about it would be measured and moderate, the way presidents are supposed to do things. It's not 'politically correct.' It's decent. It's respectful. 45 isn't.
Need discipline? McRaven is a walking, talking, living example of it. 45 has absolutely none. Take a good look at him, if you would (and it's never been easy for me): corpulent, slovenly, pathetic. The comparison is stark.
I think, too, that Hillary Clinton, as well as some other Democratic would-be's, might step aside and let this big dog eat. If there's a single person around whom the country could rally to bring us out of this horrible cesspool created by the single worst person who could possibly be in the single most important position in the world, it's Bill McRaven.
The more I write this, the more I like it. I wish I could take him to lunch--which I'd offer as my treat, but, ethically, he'd probably insist on going Dutch. Regardless, I'd say this: Admiral, it's time. Your country needs you as never before. It's a lot to ask, but somebody has to save us from further damage by this monster. I urge you to think about it. You have about six months.
And then I'd go door-to-door for this man, wherever he sent me. I'd say, to paraphrase him: Let's start the day, America, by making the bed. Let's start there. We can do it. Let's not overlook anything. We can do a do-over if we do it now. But we can't wait for disaster. The ship of state is foundering; I know you can see it. We need to replace the mad captain, who makes Queeg look rational. We must do it now.
He's not perfect for the job, but no one is. It's too difficult to do. But he's as close as anyone could be at this pivotal moment. He's a perfect combination of character, a military background, and an educated individual who could stare down an incompetent, nihilistic braggart who wrecks whatever he touches.
I cast my line out to sea. William McRaven for President.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Saturday, November 17, 2018
She Needs to Be There
The longer people stay in a political position, the more people can take shots at them.
Nancy Pelosi knows this. She accepts this as part of the acquired baggage.
But it's exactly because of this that she not only deserves to be Speaker of the House again, she is sorely needed in that position.
I'll use a single word to justify it: Obamacare. She was the major shepherd who drove that controversial legislation through the House in 2010. It has withstood all criticism. It has withstood not only universal Republican passive aggression against it then, but it has withstood all Republican attempts to defeat it since--including more than 50 attempts to scuttle it in the House while she couldn't lead it. It has withstood withering attacks from a clueless, cruel president who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't care.
It has stood not only the test of time, it has stood against all that could possibly be organized against it. So has she. She still stands there, an effective spokeswoman for an otherwise rudderless party.
She has been demonized as much, if not more, than the other significant, nationally-based woman who couldn't survive the otherwise unconscionable (except they had to have a conscience to have considered the depravity of it) bashing and vilification of her: Hillary Clinton.
But that was different, in a way. Clinton, as qualified to be president as she was (and still is), spun her political quilt in no small way on the loom of her husband's success. She might have done the rest herself, of course, but that distinguishes her from Pelosi, who has risen through the ranks all by herself.
She got a lift from rubbing elbows with nobody. She's smart, she's wily, and she wasn't born yesterday. Her House seat remains sacrosanct: She pulled 84% of the vote earlier this month. Remember Eric Cantor, House majority leader? He got clobbered by someone two years ago--Dave Brat, who lost to a Democratic female the other day. Remember Tom Foley? He got ousted as Speaker because he lost in Washington State. So, too, with Tom Daschle, who lost his Senate majority leader position due to defeat in South Dakota.
Not Pelosi. And yet, the newbies in the House, many of them women, want change across the board. They are not satisfied with simply being the change itself; they want something else to represent it and unleash it for all it's worth. They believe that taking on this awful person who is our president will take a different approach.
I'm not surprised. New, younger members of any organization come to it with fresh eyes--fresh, and inexperienced. They have not seen what insiders see. It is exactly why term limits would threaten, not strengthen, the House: A sense of institutional history and continuation would eventually disappear. Congresspeople, like those legislators in states in which term limits have been locked in, would approach passing bills with a sense of urgency that ignores or by-passes the greater concern of future effects. We've had far too much of that.
Campaign rhetoric be damned: The country needs insiders in Washington as badly as it needs fresh faces. As fired up as the newbies are, they will need some hand-holding and encouragement, because things are never quite what they seem in a building in which the vital conversations always happen behind closed doors. "Step in here, please; we'll be right with you....No calls for the next twenty minutes, okay?"
Having lobbied in Washington and several state legislatures off-and-on for a number of years and been behind a different set of closed doors for briefings that have raised many an eyebrow, I can tell you that within the fierce competitiveness for power in the places where it counts the most, the dynamics of the legislative process churn endlessly, in kaleidoscopic, sometimes split-second whirlwinds of interaction. To simply keep up with it all is, in itself, an acquired and vital skill that cannot be mastered quickly.
It is also addictively fascinating and politically, it's like walking a razor blade. The more you get it, the more you believe you need it and you'd be right: You have to have it to retain and expand any sense of efficacy. But you also have to stick around to enjoy the delicious torture of it.
As urgent as the new moment is--and there is no denying that--Democrats need someone who knows the institution, knows people who run the committees better than most, and knows what to hear from people who never really say what they mean: the very essence of politics, which has as much to do with what is not said as it does about what is.
Am I pining for the same-old, same-old? Not at all. What the new members represent is first and foremost, a bit closer to the way the country now looks to the rest of us, which cannot be a bad thing; and second, energy and enthusiasm to stand up to the disgusting corruption and bungling with which we have been skewered for nearly two years now. More experienced Democrats, now at the heads of committees, will lead that charge. To have listened to their interviews, they are more than ready for it.
Our ridiculous president will do his best to vilify, label and attack whomever is at the helm of the speakership. Nancy Pelosi appears to be too ripe for the expected onslaught. But again, do not sell this outrageous man short. He would do the same to any substitute that the Democrats might elect in Pelosi's stead. Could he or she withstand it?
This ongoing showdown is perhaps the stage upon which 45 will make his last political stand--for either vilification, validation, or the wiles of destruction. His ultimate defeat will depend upon one thing for which his status is now exposed, due to his own clueless clumsiness: His relevance. Such a question was raised for Bill Clinton after his first mid-term defeat, but Speaker Newt Gingrich engaged in overreach to bring him down and paid dearly for it.
I don't see Pelosi doing the same. I see her far more measured and tactical, resisting the temptation to grab too much power too soon. That would reflect the wisdom she has acquired, though it might infuriate some within her own caucus. Instead of being brought down, she may in fact be the vehicle that will finally toss 45 into the ditch.
Truly, there will be attempts to bully and intimidate with and without tweets. She knows that's coming. I think he thinks that her gender will imply weakness. He'll be wrong this time. The shock factor that inevitably served as a blockage to prevent Hillary Clinton from effectively counteracting his crudeness is gone now. The same-old, same-old will be coming from him, not her, and more and more of us will grow very tired of it.
We cannot depend on Robert Mueller to deliver salvation. He has found what he has found, and the issue of impeachment may or may not rest on it. What Democrats should (and here it says must) do is attempt to legislate and investigate, set the agenda for the discussions and ensure the insults, and render 45 to be the pointless slug that he actually is, out of touch with what the country really wants. If impeachment emerges as an option, it will do so itself, such that it becomes so necessary that all other noise will be muted--even in a more radicalized, right-wing Republican House caucus without the sycophantic Paul Ryan as placeholder.
The slow revelation of 45's uselessness could have its intended effects in 2020, and by then there would be little he could do about it. He might hide behind Mitch McConnell for a while, but those campaigns are coming up, too, and the Senate Republicans up for re-election will be confronted with the same problems as a few Democrats did in red-leaning states.
But that hopeful scenario can't happen without a steadying, skillful influence at the helm of the new cornerstone of at least moderation, if not outright progressivism, that has been so badly needed in Washington. We need someone who can mediate where it can be done, and take stands where it must be done. That person is Nancy Pelosi. Let us hope that the conversations now going on will direct new House Democratic members to seeing the greater wisdom of that choice. It's still our country, and it's still at stake.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Nancy Pelosi knows this. She accepts this as part of the acquired baggage.
But it's exactly because of this that she not only deserves to be Speaker of the House again, she is sorely needed in that position.
I'll use a single word to justify it: Obamacare. She was the major shepherd who drove that controversial legislation through the House in 2010. It has withstood all criticism. It has withstood not only universal Republican passive aggression against it then, but it has withstood all Republican attempts to defeat it since--including more than 50 attempts to scuttle it in the House while she couldn't lead it. It has withstood withering attacks from a clueless, cruel president who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't care.
It has stood not only the test of time, it has stood against all that could possibly be organized against it. So has she. She still stands there, an effective spokeswoman for an otherwise rudderless party.
She has been demonized as much, if not more, than the other significant, nationally-based woman who couldn't survive the otherwise unconscionable (except they had to have a conscience to have considered the depravity of it) bashing and vilification of her: Hillary Clinton.
But that was different, in a way. Clinton, as qualified to be president as she was (and still is), spun her political quilt in no small way on the loom of her husband's success. She might have done the rest herself, of course, but that distinguishes her from Pelosi, who has risen through the ranks all by herself.
She got a lift from rubbing elbows with nobody. She's smart, she's wily, and she wasn't born yesterday. Her House seat remains sacrosanct: She pulled 84% of the vote earlier this month. Remember Eric Cantor, House majority leader? He got clobbered by someone two years ago--Dave Brat, who lost to a Democratic female the other day. Remember Tom Foley? He got ousted as Speaker because he lost in Washington State. So, too, with Tom Daschle, who lost his Senate majority leader position due to defeat in South Dakota.
Not Pelosi. And yet, the newbies in the House, many of them women, want change across the board. They are not satisfied with simply being the change itself; they want something else to represent it and unleash it for all it's worth. They believe that taking on this awful person who is our president will take a different approach.
I'm not surprised. New, younger members of any organization come to it with fresh eyes--fresh, and inexperienced. They have not seen what insiders see. It is exactly why term limits would threaten, not strengthen, the House: A sense of institutional history and continuation would eventually disappear. Congresspeople, like those legislators in states in which term limits have been locked in, would approach passing bills with a sense of urgency that ignores or by-passes the greater concern of future effects. We've had far too much of that.
Campaign rhetoric be damned: The country needs insiders in Washington as badly as it needs fresh faces. As fired up as the newbies are, they will need some hand-holding and encouragement, because things are never quite what they seem in a building in which the vital conversations always happen behind closed doors. "Step in here, please; we'll be right with you....No calls for the next twenty minutes, okay?"
Having lobbied in Washington and several state legislatures off-and-on for a number of years and been behind a different set of closed doors for briefings that have raised many an eyebrow, I can tell you that within the fierce competitiveness for power in the places where it counts the most, the dynamics of the legislative process churn endlessly, in kaleidoscopic, sometimes split-second whirlwinds of interaction. To simply keep up with it all is, in itself, an acquired and vital skill that cannot be mastered quickly.
It is also addictively fascinating and politically, it's like walking a razor blade. The more you get it, the more you believe you need it and you'd be right: You have to have it to retain and expand any sense of efficacy. But you also have to stick around to enjoy the delicious torture of it.
As urgent as the new moment is--and there is no denying that--Democrats need someone who knows the institution, knows people who run the committees better than most, and knows what to hear from people who never really say what they mean: the very essence of politics, which has as much to do with what is not said as it does about what is.
Am I pining for the same-old, same-old? Not at all. What the new members represent is first and foremost, a bit closer to the way the country now looks to the rest of us, which cannot be a bad thing; and second, energy and enthusiasm to stand up to the disgusting corruption and bungling with which we have been skewered for nearly two years now. More experienced Democrats, now at the heads of committees, will lead that charge. To have listened to their interviews, they are more than ready for it.
Our ridiculous president will do his best to vilify, label and attack whomever is at the helm of the speakership. Nancy Pelosi appears to be too ripe for the expected onslaught. But again, do not sell this outrageous man short. He would do the same to any substitute that the Democrats might elect in Pelosi's stead. Could he or she withstand it?
This ongoing showdown is perhaps the stage upon which 45 will make his last political stand--for either vilification, validation, or the wiles of destruction. His ultimate defeat will depend upon one thing for which his status is now exposed, due to his own clueless clumsiness: His relevance. Such a question was raised for Bill Clinton after his first mid-term defeat, but Speaker Newt Gingrich engaged in overreach to bring him down and paid dearly for it.
I don't see Pelosi doing the same. I see her far more measured and tactical, resisting the temptation to grab too much power too soon. That would reflect the wisdom she has acquired, though it might infuriate some within her own caucus. Instead of being brought down, she may in fact be the vehicle that will finally toss 45 into the ditch.
Truly, there will be attempts to bully and intimidate with and without tweets. She knows that's coming. I think he thinks that her gender will imply weakness. He'll be wrong this time. The shock factor that inevitably served as a blockage to prevent Hillary Clinton from effectively counteracting his crudeness is gone now. The same-old, same-old will be coming from him, not her, and more and more of us will grow very tired of it.
We cannot depend on Robert Mueller to deliver salvation. He has found what he has found, and the issue of impeachment may or may not rest on it. What Democrats should (and here it says must) do is attempt to legislate and investigate, set the agenda for the discussions and ensure the insults, and render 45 to be the pointless slug that he actually is, out of touch with what the country really wants. If impeachment emerges as an option, it will do so itself, such that it becomes so necessary that all other noise will be muted--even in a more radicalized, right-wing Republican House caucus without the sycophantic Paul Ryan as placeholder.
The slow revelation of 45's uselessness could have its intended effects in 2020, and by then there would be little he could do about it. He might hide behind Mitch McConnell for a while, but those campaigns are coming up, too, and the Senate Republicans up for re-election will be confronted with the same problems as a few Democrats did in red-leaning states.
But that hopeful scenario can't happen without a steadying, skillful influence at the helm of the new cornerstone of at least moderation, if not outright progressivism, that has been so badly needed in Washington. We need someone who can mediate where it can be done, and take stands where it must be done. That person is Nancy Pelosi. Let us hope that the conversations now going on will direct new House Democratic members to seeing the greater wisdom of that choice. It's still our country, and it's still at stake.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, November 16, 2018
We're Trying to Figure It All Out
That free-range right of all rights, free expression, has been getting quite a workout lately.
By 'a workout', I mean the proliferation of people wanting and needing to say something unique, profound, or just spewing anger on the internet. I suppose that would include Yours Truly and this blog.
It is not so simple as all that, though, as many have now discovered. Curse me if you wish, but even more relevant than the phrase "Black Lives Matter (which they do, in the sense in which that phrase is generally meant--don't get me wrong)" is this phrase: Words Matter. It's a phrase that's beginning to emerge with regularity. It is a bottom-line statement that is always correct, politically or otherwise.
Words matter because they trigger images in the most, and what can be the best (or worst) part of what makes us human: The mind. Utterances are also acts by people who may or may not intend to have whatever effects their words may have on others, which include other, non-verbal acts of friendliness and compassion, vindictiveness and hate, like and dislike. Words, which are deeds unto themselves, lead to more deeds, and those deeds--which include responses to someone's words--almost never happen in a vacuum.
All of which should be a caution to first, watch what one says; second, be ready for a response; and third, choose words carefully. What people think of you is directly attributable to what you say and do, because what you say is what you do and it is an important part of who you are. And yet, we live and must live in a society in which the decisions of those who do not watch their words must be tolerated to the maximum extent possible--which is being tested now as we interact in a nation divided.
Going off on Facebook or other social media causes surprise by the intensity of the responses that are fair game, once the initial comment is made. It shouldn't. I'm too aware of this, having written a newspaper column for 18 years back in the '80s and '90s, when electronic gab was limited to very few techies. Many of my writings were given well-appreciated compliments within what was then a fairly small universe of readers, but a few others brought me up short because I hadn't considered something.
People read things that are written, even from people who don't think of themselves as public commentators as much as they think of their snarkiness as a quick, throwaway comment. They do, though. They think about it. Then they act.
Like Mickey Mouse in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," too many have bathed themselves to the point of overabsorption upon this medium as carte blanche to get stuff off their minds, believing that first, those reading it completely agree (in their narrowness, they keep saying to themselves, "Of course. Who wouldn't?"); and second, their audience would never be so enormous as to make much difference in the greater scheme of things. Like confronting all those brooms in the basement cellar that they had no idea were there, they find themselves overwhelmed by efforts to remove the damage.
This is true even of those who are intentionally outrageous in what they say and do, just to get a reaction. People don't forget, and they now have far easier access to whatever has been said and done. Just turn on your laptop, google something, have at it and reel in shock and dismay if you don't share the outrage, or delight and appreciation if you do.
Does this mean that we should be more repressive about incendiary comments? There's the rub. Repression of expression backfires. It brings more of it. We can wait for it to die off due to a general lack of application, which normally works--but these are not normal times.
Much of this is being played out on college campuses. On the one hand, they are the few places where the laboratory of expression and its effects can be played out, the solution to which seems to allow it to function despite discomfort (and, being populated with young adults without the benefit of sufficient perspective, are greatly challenged to provide tolerance). On the other, they are self-sustaining bubbles in which the reality of discomfiting exchanges can't possibly be experienced and successfully handled, the solution to which seems to be a closer monitoring of vitriol to prevent unnecessary disruption of the educational process--which is what students want most of all.
We remain stuck. We're still trying to figure it all out. Applying a single standard, especially with the cacophony of viewpoints out there, seems folly. But so is to be inclined to keep fake or genuine information from seeing the light of day, since to suppress the former will, in terms of human error and emotionalism, also result in the suppression of the latter. "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying," wrote Thomas Jefferson, who had no love for the press, to Judge John Tyler in 1804, "and which we trust in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be to leave open to him all the avenues to truth."
Perhaps with deep breath and eyes rolled, we should still remain devoted to that concept. Wading through the onslaught of attention-seekers is work, but so is democracy. Jefferson knew that, too.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
By 'a workout', I mean the proliferation of people wanting and needing to say something unique, profound, or just spewing anger on the internet. I suppose that would include Yours Truly and this blog.
It is not so simple as all that, though, as many have now discovered. Curse me if you wish, but even more relevant than the phrase "Black Lives Matter (which they do, in the sense in which that phrase is generally meant--don't get me wrong)" is this phrase: Words Matter. It's a phrase that's beginning to emerge with regularity. It is a bottom-line statement that is always correct, politically or otherwise.
Words matter because they trigger images in the most, and what can be the best (or worst) part of what makes us human: The mind. Utterances are also acts by people who may or may not intend to have whatever effects their words may have on others, which include other, non-verbal acts of friendliness and compassion, vindictiveness and hate, like and dislike. Words, which are deeds unto themselves, lead to more deeds, and those deeds--which include responses to someone's words--almost never happen in a vacuum.
All of which should be a caution to first, watch what one says; second, be ready for a response; and third, choose words carefully. What people think of you is directly attributable to what you say and do, because what you say is what you do and it is an important part of who you are. And yet, we live and must live in a society in which the decisions of those who do not watch their words must be tolerated to the maximum extent possible--which is being tested now as we interact in a nation divided.
Going off on Facebook or other social media causes surprise by the intensity of the responses that are fair game, once the initial comment is made. It shouldn't. I'm too aware of this, having written a newspaper column for 18 years back in the '80s and '90s, when electronic gab was limited to very few techies. Many of my writings were given well-appreciated compliments within what was then a fairly small universe of readers, but a few others brought me up short because I hadn't considered something.
People read things that are written, even from people who don't think of themselves as public commentators as much as they think of their snarkiness as a quick, throwaway comment. They do, though. They think about it. Then they act.
Like Mickey Mouse in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," too many have bathed themselves to the point of overabsorption upon this medium as carte blanche to get stuff off their minds, believing that first, those reading it completely agree (in their narrowness, they keep saying to themselves, "Of course. Who wouldn't?"); and second, their audience would never be so enormous as to make much difference in the greater scheme of things. Like confronting all those brooms in the basement cellar that they had no idea were there, they find themselves overwhelmed by efforts to remove the damage.
This is true even of those who are intentionally outrageous in what they say and do, just to get a reaction. People don't forget, and they now have far easier access to whatever has been said and done. Just turn on your laptop, google something, have at it and reel in shock and dismay if you don't share the outrage, or delight and appreciation if you do.
Does this mean that we should be more repressive about incendiary comments? There's the rub. Repression of expression backfires. It brings more of it. We can wait for it to die off due to a general lack of application, which normally works--but these are not normal times.
Much of this is being played out on college campuses. On the one hand, they are the few places where the laboratory of expression and its effects can be played out, the solution to which seems to allow it to function despite discomfort (and, being populated with young adults without the benefit of sufficient perspective, are greatly challenged to provide tolerance). On the other, they are self-sustaining bubbles in which the reality of discomfiting exchanges can't possibly be experienced and successfully handled, the solution to which seems to be a closer monitoring of vitriol to prevent unnecessary disruption of the educational process--which is what students want most of all.
We remain stuck. We're still trying to figure it all out. Applying a single standard, especially with the cacophony of viewpoints out there, seems folly. But so is to be inclined to keep fake or genuine information from seeing the light of day, since to suppress the former will, in terms of human error and emotionalism, also result in the suppression of the latter. "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying," wrote Thomas Jefferson, who had no love for the press, to Judge John Tyler in 1804, "and which we trust in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be to leave open to him all the avenues to truth."
Perhaps with deep breath and eyes rolled, we should still remain devoted to that concept. Wading through the onslaught of attention-seekers is work, but so is democracy. Jefferson knew that, too.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Sunday, November 11, 2018
What I Would Change about Veterans Day
Honoring those who have served our country, as we do today as we always have, in the military has always been an idea that has advanced with general acquiescence. I mean, who can object? They put themselves on the line for what we believe to be our freedoms (or someone else's, the difference being in the pudding). Nothing can be greater than that.
It has touched my family in no small way. My father and four uncles served in World War II. One uncle had to kill a German hand-to-hand. He did not comment on it for more than thirty years.
One's life was saved when a buddy relieved him in his communications unit on Guadalcanal when he saw that he was exhausted and needed a break, then was picked off by a sniper. He married, had a family, and lived well into his 90s.
One was on burial patrol in the South Pacific, putting stinking bodies in the ground, and died of cirrhosis of the liver in 1969. Think of the nightmares.
I now have a nephew who's a tank commander in the Minnesota National Guard. Is he safe? Consider this: The mayor of North Ogden, Utah, was a Guard member. He did several hitches in Afghanistan. Last week, he was killed by a traitor who turned on him. He left a wife and seven kids. My nephew wants to be a Ranger.
Beyond that, Steven W. Castner, Wisconsin National Guard, was killed by an IED in Iraq in 2006. He graduated from Cedarburg High School, where I taught for a while with his mother. He had already served four years in the Air Force, and re-upped. He knew what he was doing.
I salute all of them today, the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I: those who made it back home and those who did not. But I find nothing sacred in it. Somber, yes; sobering, of course. But not sacred.
To be sacred about this means that we consider war service to be, on its own, sacred--as sacred as we call other things, such as religion. It would not be absurd to contend that in this society, the two have been joined, perhaps fused together. Some of the pretentious pronunciations on this day of remembrance will reiterate that.
That would be wrong. Both sides of World War I invoked supernatural assistance: the German motto was Gott mit uns--God with us. Guess that didn't work out for them. It had to fail for someone, because the way wars are won are not with prayer, but with resources and technology and people power and resolve to absorb death and destruction a day longer than someone else.
We turn to Lincoln, again, to set that straight, as he did in his Second Inaugural, commenting on how both sides of the Civil War did the same thing: Both read the same bible and pray to the same God and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange for any men to ask a just God's assistance by taking his bread from the sweat of other people's faces, but let us judge not so we are not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered: that of neither have been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes.
So one thing I would change, if I could, about Veterans Day is that religion not be invoked, and that God's name would not be mentioned in any speeches and reflected in any implicit or explicit imagery, by politicians or anyone else for that matter. For in fact, it's blasphemous to do so if God is connected with mass slaughter. Isn't it? I mean, shouldn't it be so?
Whatever the Bible says about the nobility of giving up one's life for one's friends can be just as easily reflected in the other side's intent, regardless of whatever religion be utilized as justification for starting and continuing the killing of other human beings. Unquestionably, all writing by war participants makes this point: That nothing else really matters except one's comrades. The larger issues of war, including any pretense of morality, disappear under lethal fire. The only point becomes getting back home. If you doubt this, try All Quiet on the Western Front, written about World War I by someone on the side that didn't win.
On the Western Front--that maelstrom of death and disease and rats that lasted four years and the terrain-borne scars of which have lasted literally until the present day--soldiers on both sides sang "Silent Night" together during a cease-fire on Christmas Eve. They observed the presence of the supernatural. Then they went on blowing each other to bits, entering that supernatural far before their appointed times should have been.
Another thing I'd change is the insistence that Veterans Day be the subject of whatever sales that businesses want to kick-start as part of the Christmas season. To me, it's craven to link this day of reflection with making money off of it, like that of the Madison Avenue-created days of Mother's and Father's Days and other ersatz celebrations. It pulls today down to the level of the dollar sign.
The only reason that grilling out isn't also done in mass practice is that, by this time, it's too darn cold outside. We have enough desecration taking place on Memorial Day the way it is. And the connection of military culture with our sports culture is deep and, I'm afraid, permanent. The phraseology and insistence of networks to loop in soldiers and sailors to connect with the general public, including flyovers, during games is well-established--but inappropriate, the same way that praying for victory in the Super Bowl is.
I'm no peacenik. Sometimes wars are necessary. But the increasingly informal and casual way in which celebrations connected with wars are made lead us too far into matter-of-fact thinking on the waging of wars themselves. That devalues those who we call upon to fight and die, as well as the purposes for which they have done so. We file it under "glory" when we should be far more somber and evaluative, filing it under "sad duty" instead.
Maybe if we thought more seriously about this day, the blowing of "Taps" might actually happen one last time, for the last person to die in the last war. At the very least, not nearly as many and not nearly as often.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
It has touched my family in no small way. My father and four uncles served in World War II. One uncle had to kill a German hand-to-hand. He did not comment on it for more than thirty years.
One's life was saved when a buddy relieved him in his communications unit on Guadalcanal when he saw that he was exhausted and needed a break, then was picked off by a sniper. He married, had a family, and lived well into his 90s.
One was on burial patrol in the South Pacific, putting stinking bodies in the ground, and died of cirrhosis of the liver in 1969. Think of the nightmares.
I now have a nephew who's a tank commander in the Minnesota National Guard. Is he safe? Consider this: The mayor of North Ogden, Utah, was a Guard member. He did several hitches in Afghanistan. Last week, he was killed by a traitor who turned on him. He left a wife and seven kids. My nephew wants to be a Ranger.
Beyond that, Steven W. Castner, Wisconsin National Guard, was killed by an IED in Iraq in 2006. He graduated from Cedarburg High School, where I taught for a while with his mother. He had already served four years in the Air Force, and re-upped. He knew what he was doing.
I salute all of them today, the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I: those who made it back home and those who did not. But I find nothing sacred in it. Somber, yes; sobering, of course. But not sacred.
To be sacred about this means that we consider war service to be, on its own, sacred--as sacred as we call other things, such as religion. It would not be absurd to contend that in this society, the two have been joined, perhaps fused together. Some of the pretentious pronunciations on this day of remembrance will reiterate that.
That would be wrong. Both sides of World War I invoked supernatural assistance: the German motto was Gott mit uns--God with us. Guess that didn't work out for them. It had to fail for someone, because the way wars are won are not with prayer, but with resources and technology and people power and resolve to absorb death and destruction a day longer than someone else.
We turn to Lincoln, again, to set that straight, as he did in his Second Inaugural, commenting on how both sides of the Civil War did the same thing: Both read the same bible and pray to the same God and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange for any men to ask a just God's assistance by taking his bread from the sweat of other people's faces, but let us judge not so we are not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered: that of neither have been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes.
So one thing I would change, if I could, about Veterans Day is that religion not be invoked, and that God's name would not be mentioned in any speeches and reflected in any implicit or explicit imagery, by politicians or anyone else for that matter. For in fact, it's blasphemous to do so if God is connected with mass slaughter. Isn't it? I mean, shouldn't it be so?
Whatever the Bible says about the nobility of giving up one's life for one's friends can be just as easily reflected in the other side's intent, regardless of whatever religion be utilized as justification for starting and continuing the killing of other human beings. Unquestionably, all writing by war participants makes this point: That nothing else really matters except one's comrades. The larger issues of war, including any pretense of morality, disappear under lethal fire. The only point becomes getting back home. If you doubt this, try All Quiet on the Western Front, written about World War I by someone on the side that didn't win.
On the Western Front--that maelstrom of death and disease and rats that lasted four years and the terrain-borne scars of which have lasted literally until the present day--soldiers on both sides sang "Silent Night" together during a cease-fire on Christmas Eve. They observed the presence of the supernatural. Then they went on blowing each other to bits, entering that supernatural far before their appointed times should have been.
Another thing I'd change is the insistence that Veterans Day be the subject of whatever sales that businesses want to kick-start as part of the Christmas season. To me, it's craven to link this day of reflection with making money off of it, like that of the Madison Avenue-created days of Mother's and Father's Days and other ersatz celebrations. It pulls today down to the level of the dollar sign.
The only reason that grilling out isn't also done in mass practice is that, by this time, it's too darn cold outside. We have enough desecration taking place on Memorial Day the way it is. And the connection of military culture with our sports culture is deep and, I'm afraid, permanent. The phraseology and insistence of networks to loop in soldiers and sailors to connect with the general public, including flyovers, during games is well-established--but inappropriate, the same way that praying for victory in the Super Bowl is.
I'm no peacenik. Sometimes wars are necessary. But the increasingly informal and casual way in which celebrations connected with wars are made lead us too far into matter-of-fact thinking on the waging of wars themselves. That devalues those who we call upon to fight and die, as well as the purposes for which they have done so. We file it under "glory" when we should be far more somber and evaluative, filing it under "sad duty" instead.
Maybe if we thought more seriously about this day, the blowing of "Taps" might actually happen one last time, for the last person to die in the last war. At the very least, not nearly as many and not nearly as often.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Here She Is Again
Just two days after the game-changing mid-term elections, I heard from a familiar name: Hillary Clinton.
It had been some weeks since I had seen anything from her Forward Together PAC. Suddenly, there she was again.
There's a reason. MSNBC's election coverage made a very big deal about the fact that the Democrats swamped the Republicans in Congressional races in districts that Clinton won in 2016. In no small way, anyone could take those victories altogether as a validation of her tragically doomed candidacy. After all, whatever coalitions that have formed have not only held up, they've strengthened themselves.
Besides, the Rust Belt Democrats showed up Tuesday night:
It had been some weeks since I had seen anything from her Forward Together PAC. Suddenly, there she was again.
There's a reason. MSNBC's election coverage made a very big deal about the fact that the Democrats swamped the Republicans in Congressional races in districts that Clinton won in 2016. In no small way, anyone could take those victories altogether as a validation of her tragically doomed candidacy. After all, whatever coalitions that have formed have not only held up, they've strengthened themselves.
Besides, the Rust Belt Democrats showed up Tuesday night:
- Minnesota: Both U.S. Senate spots and the governor's race, all three holds.
- Wisconsin: The U.S. Senate and governor's races, and flipping the governor's spot.
- Michigan: Ditto Wisconsin.
- Pennsylvania: Winning the Senate and governor's races, both holds.
- Illinois: Flipping the governor.
- Iowa: Winning 3 of 4 House races.
- Ohio: Holding the U.S. Senate seat, and winning two state supreme court races.
The Rust Belt is, ostensibly, where Clinton's benign neglect cost her the White House. It's quite transparent, then, that she might be thinking about running a make-it-right campaign in 2020. Besides, she's been quoted as saying that she'd like to be president. She hadn't said those words, at least not publicly, since her defeat.
So, with things far more woke than two years ago, she's clearly thinking about starting up her engine again. But there are new barriers:
- Many more potential candidates. These include women who have utilized the intervening time to distinguish themselves: names like Klochubar, Harris, Warren and Gillibrand, who have gained valuable political experience on a national stage. The field, potentially at least, has grown to about 20, and there are good male candidates as well. Nobody's going to stand aside any longer.
- She's damaged goods. Not many have come back from close defeats to gain the big prize: Nixon has, and to a lesser extent, Johnson, Kennedy and Reagan, too. It isn't unheard of. Neither is the smart money favoring it. She could be the comeback Clinton, mirroring her husband. Or she could be Adlai Stevenson.
- Her demonization, like it or not, would be like riding a bike for you-know-who. 45 still can't get over her, and the Democrats might be very well advised to help him do that by not honoring any Clinton effort to get back into the fight. No, the whole thing wasn't fair, and neither was swiftboating for Kerry, but there it was. Yes, the Electoral College is a ridiculous way to elect a president. But it's there, probably forever, since it would take a constitutional amendment to remove it, or a constitutional run-around sufficiently complex (needing state legislatures to get onboard) to probably keep it from becoming moot by 2020. The Rust Belt looks winnable again, but it does for any other Democrat as well.
- There's the image thing. Her we-got-this attitude of ultra-entitlement did not wash well, to say the least. In fact, it may have been the one thing that allowed 45 to seep through the back door. She would need to keep the white pantsuits in the closet, get out dungarees and denim tops, and get with the folks much more than before. Selling that might take some heavy lifting.
- What about Bill? Her husband has become The Overlooked, Available Prom Date. Nobody begged him to get back out on the road. It might have been Father Time, or MeToo 2.0, from which he got caught in the backwash. Nevertheless, the old-and-tired-of-them specter looms large.
What would be left for her? For one, advising the women running, and being the quiet force behind the scenes, so as to prevent attachment or labeling that would blur genuine candidacies, policy dovetailing notwithstanding. She could also be an important foreign policy advisor for someone's candidacy; that experience might be extremely vital in new messaging that would potentially make a Democratic nominee look very wise and professional next to 45's horrible lurchings with international leaders. That may very well push the woman president over the top--what sweet irony that would be--but it won't, and can't, be her.
If the successes of the mid-terms can be replicated in the Big Game of 2020, first and foremost, the Democrats have to come back out with the same force with which they forged the successes of Tuesday night--because the Republicans, emotionally addicted as they are, are likely to do so, too. A new Clinton candidacy, indeed a nomination, might easily cause enough eye-rolling to negate the effects of the GOTV efforts that has at least brought us to this point, precarious as it still is but at least a counterforce to the awfulness that we've had to endure.
The tragedy of Hillary Clinton is still there for all to see. But her legacy is also strong, if tarnished. A line can be drawn between Susan B. Anthony to Ida Wells to Jeanette Rankin to Frances Perkins to Margaret Chase Smith to Shirley Chisholm to Barbara Jordan to Geraldine Ferraro to Janet Reno to Nancy Pelosi to Madeline Albright to Condoleeza Rice, directly to her. That she came tantalizingly close to the much desired, ultimate ceiling, being held back by a Series of Unfortunate Events, will be the stuff of many books, films, and ruminations in the yet-to-come history of the republic. Her contribution to it cannot be denied (though Texas's Board of Education, in a pique of smallness, turned back references to her in its history books--a glitch that will be repaired, it says here). As we drift toward the future, it will grow exponentially.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
The Non-Job of the Un-President
He wants you to look away again.
He wants you to keep from thinking about one basic question: Doesn't he have a job to do? Wouldn't it keep him pretty busy?
Too busy to do nationwide campaigning for people in his party to the extent that he has? Any of you over 40--do you recall when a sitting president has had time to do such wide-open campaigning for mid-terms?
I don't. And that's because 45 doesn't think of himself as actually having a job. He thinks of himself as being a mouthpiece and having others take care of the messy part--governing--so he can perpetuate his power.
The only way he thinks he can do that is to do what he thinks he does best--vilify other people, lie, exaggerate, and gain cheers from the semi- and falsely informed on the stump, where he can actually see those who admire him. They fuel his every step, and without it, he is the embodiment of an empty shell.
There is nothing on his desk, not even the controversial matters which presidents are supposed to decide upon because they are the essence of what a president's supposed to do--make decisions and take responsibility, the latter of which is completely foreign to him. White House assistants shield him from them, if Bob Woodward's depiction is correct, out of fear that he will do something genuinely catastrophic that can't be called back. He reads nearly nothing. He doesn't think he has to, because he believes that everything he has always thought about reality is correct.
And that's why--and I've not heard anyone say this yet, amazingly, at least not in these words--he has no idea of what he's talking about, even when he's trying to say what's true. None. Zero. He lives in a world gone by, one he wishes had ever been so. And yet, millions hang on his every word. They are his plaything, and that's just the way he wants it. He can say anything to them, and has, and they will eat it up.
He says he tries to tell the truth. He tries. He can't help but lie, in other words. He works his best at altering reality because he is reality in non-real form.
I keep coming back to a line from the movie "Back to the Future": This is nuts.
He is the un-president. He claims the constitutional power to undo everything Obama did through executive orders; to insult anyone he wishes; to make people afraid of something; and to play golf while he waits for something else he feels like doing, as long as it doesn't make him uncomfortable. If it does, he yells at someone and blames someone else, so they provide non-cover for his non-mistakes.
This madness has two more years to go, at least. Today, as we vote, we can arrest some of it by putting a Democratic majority back into the House of Representatives, to provide something of a barrier against legislative nonsense (and to commence badly-needed investigations, far more open than those of Robert Mueller, wherever he is).
That is the hope. Things will not, cannot, get better, though, until we are done with this monster. We now prepare for that.
Two more years and we cannot look away. In fact, we'd better not. Our capacity for outrage had better not be exhausted.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
He wants you to keep from thinking about one basic question: Doesn't he have a job to do? Wouldn't it keep him pretty busy?
Too busy to do nationwide campaigning for people in his party to the extent that he has? Any of you over 40--do you recall when a sitting president has had time to do such wide-open campaigning for mid-terms?
I don't. And that's because 45 doesn't think of himself as actually having a job. He thinks of himself as being a mouthpiece and having others take care of the messy part--governing--so he can perpetuate his power.
The only way he thinks he can do that is to do what he thinks he does best--vilify other people, lie, exaggerate, and gain cheers from the semi- and falsely informed on the stump, where he can actually see those who admire him. They fuel his every step, and without it, he is the embodiment of an empty shell.
There is nothing on his desk, not even the controversial matters which presidents are supposed to decide upon because they are the essence of what a president's supposed to do--make decisions and take responsibility, the latter of which is completely foreign to him. White House assistants shield him from them, if Bob Woodward's depiction is correct, out of fear that he will do something genuinely catastrophic that can't be called back. He reads nearly nothing. He doesn't think he has to, because he believes that everything he has always thought about reality is correct.
And that's why--and I've not heard anyone say this yet, amazingly, at least not in these words--he has no idea of what he's talking about, even when he's trying to say what's true. None. Zero. He lives in a world gone by, one he wishes had ever been so. And yet, millions hang on his every word. They are his plaything, and that's just the way he wants it. He can say anything to them, and has, and they will eat it up.
He says he tries to tell the truth. He tries. He can't help but lie, in other words. He works his best at altering reality because he is reality in non-real form.
I keep coming back to a line from the movie "Back to the Future": This is nuts.
He is the un-president. He claims the constitutional power to undo everything Obama did through executive orders; to insult anyone he wishes; to make people afraid of something; and to play golf while he waits for something else he feels like doing, as long as it doesn't make him uncomfortable. If it does, he yells at someone and blames someone else, so they provide non-cover for his non-mistakes.
This madness has two more years to go, at least. Today, as we vote, we can arrest some of it by putting a Democratic majority back into the House of Representatives, to provide something of a barrier against legislative nonsense (and to commence badly-needed investigations, far more open than those of Robert Mueller, wherever he is).
That is the hope. Things will not, cannot, get better, though, until we are done with this monster. We now prepare for that.
Two more years and we cannot look away. In fact, we'd better not. Our capacity for outrage had better not be exhausted.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Friday, November 2, 2018
Correct: Do Not Patronize A Demagogue
MSNBC has very recently said it will no longer provide live coverage of 45's public speeches. It's the smartest thing anybody could do if resistance is the point.
It also serves the public in the best possible way. For 45 means to do nothing more and nothing less than upset and disturb people with methodology that is not only not helpful, but causes severe damage to our public discourse.
We don't know this yet--and I think someone should ask--but it's also possible that recent acts of intense violence, resulting in deaths of others, may have been caused by taking the bait of his racist, misogynist, hate-mongering, denigrating rhetoric and fulfilling what someone thought he implied by it. He said it himself: He inspires rage by both sides. He doesn't need to, but he does it anyway.
Even if he does it unwittingly--which is difficult to believe at this point, since it's been criticized and challenged so often--it's poor policy and horribly divisive. Presidents aren't supposed to be doing that; they're supposed to be finding ways to bring us together. He insists that the mainstream media must go first, which merely has always meant that it needs to print or broadcast only that which he prefers. That wouldn't be unity. That would be capitulation.
Which brings us back to the main point. What he prefers, first and foremost, is for the nation to tune into his falsehoods-on-the-stump collections of gaslighting, exaggerations, pronouncements of supposition and speculation having the weight of truth, and outright lies. He thus knows that, at least in theory, everyone is focusing on him, and this ultimate narcissist cannot possibly have better moments for himself--which has always been all that matters to him.
He wants, desperately needs, an audience. The mainstream media, that which he has consistently called "the enemy of the people," is in fact his best friend exactly because it delivers an audience, regardless of the level of its support (which may easily be zero). He's so wonderful to the naive masses that back him that they can't get enough of him, and so awful that the rest of us can't look away. At that moment, he has us right where he wants us.
Which puts the mainstream media in an inexorable trap. His position, however cheaply won by coming into the back door through an Electoral College majority supporting a popular minority, demands coverage of absolutely everything he says and does. He only says he hates what they do because he doesn't like the results, which, too, are there for all to see.
But he loves all this: Loves the fawning, loves the special treatment, loves the dependency, loves the fact that no reporter, not even Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes," will continue to ask him uncomfortable questions, drilling down deep enough to get him to contradict all he has said or make him look like the fool he is, because of respect for his office--for which he himself has none. Loves it so much that--wait and see--he will devise methods to continue the endless attention, or at least try to, when the Constitution demands he leaves office. He will either:
It also serves the public in the best possible way. For 45 means to do nothing more and nothing less than upset and disturb people with methodology that is not only not helpful, but causes severe damage to our public discourse.
We don't know this yet--and I think someone should ask--but it's also possible that recent acts of intense violence, resulting in deaths of others, may have been caused by taking the bait of his racist, misogynist, hate-mongering, denigrating rhetoric and fulfilling what someone thought he implied by it. He said it himself: He inspires rage by both sides. He doesn't need to, but he does it anyway.
Even if he does it unwittingly--which is difficult to believe at this point, since it's been criticized and challenged so often--it's poor policy and horribly divisive. Presidents aren't supposed to be doing that; they're supposed to be finding ways to bring us together. He insists that the mainstream media must go first, which merely has always meant that it needs to print or broadcast only that which he prefers. That wouldn't be unity. That would be capitulation.
Which brings us back to the main point. What he prefers, first and foremost, is for the nation to tune into his falsehoods-on-the-stump collections of gaslighting, exaggerations, pronouncements of supposition and speculation having the weight of truth, and outright lies. He thus knows that, at least in theory, everyone is focusing on him, and this ultimate narcissist cannot possibly have better moments for himself--which has always been all that matters to him.
He wants, desperately needs, an audience. The mainstream media, that which he has consistently called "the enemy of the people," is in fact his best friend exactly because it delivers an audience, regardless of the level of its support (which may easily be zero). He's so wonderful to the naive masses that back him that they can't get enough of him, and so awful that the rest of us can't look away. At that moment, he has us right where he wants us.
Which puts the mainstream media in an inexorable trap. His position, however cheaply won by coming into the back door through an Electoral College majority supporting a popular minority, demands coverage of absolutely everything he says and does. He only says he hates what they do because he doesn't like the results, which, too, are there for all to see.
But he loves all this: Loves the fawning, loves the special treatment, loves the dependency, loves the fact that no reporter, not even Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes," will continue to ask him uncomfortable questions, drilling down deep enough to get him to contradict all he has said or make him look like the fool he is, because of respect for his office--for which he himself has none. Loves it so much that--wait and see--he will devise methods to continue the endless attention, or at least try to, when the Constitution demands he leaves office. He will either:
- If he wins two terms: Spend much of his second term making a genuine effort to end the 22nd Amendment (which is exactly the reason he'd like to think he can get rid of the 14th--because if he can do it to that one, he can do it to the other--believe me, he's thought of this because ultimate, perpetual power is the only real thing on his plate);
- If he doesn't, make a genuine effort to discredit the voting process--just like he did in 2016 when he claimed that the election was already fixed; or
- Either way, as it was rumored during the 2016 campaign when the pools mistakenly predicted a crushing defeat, he will start his own television network (which could easily go the way of his university, wine, steaks, et al, but in the meantime continue to insult many people unnecessarily).
So the one thing he cannot stand, cannot deal with, is if no one pays any attention to him. This doesn't mean not to discuss his awful pronunciations and policies, his incompetence, his dysfunctional administration, his innate cruelty and bullying tactics; these should be constantly covered. Even to play clips of the worst parts of his speeches, a few seconds at a time, makes some sense as to mannerisms and effects of statements. But don't give him what he really wants--the nation to be peeking inside his tent revivals, live and unedited, upclose and personal. Fox News will continue to do it because that's what its viewership (a.k.a. 45's true believers) will demand.
But for everybody else: Never mind. Don't indulge his baiting. And for personal interviews, I would ask this question: What are you getting out of them? Are you getting a true insider view of this terrible man? Or are you getting more subterfuge, more shuffling, more falsehoods, more evidence of his basic instability? (He tries to tell the truth? Really?)
Should the press continue his press conferences? Sure, it should. It demonstrates him at his most unhinged, because he insists on being unplugged. We need an occasional reminder of that--and, if the mainstream press insists on not covering his speeches live, it will be the only way he can appear, life and unedited, on screen. He can't help himself, and won't be able to. He'll have more of them.
Otherwise, let's have the major networks, CNN, and the rest, take MSNBC's lead and shut down all live speech coverage. It's enough to have this monster in this position. He only causes damage. He no longer deserves the attention.
Patronizing a demagogue just leaves us with more of it. No need to be afraid that we don't know enough about him. We know plenty, and not one bit of it is any good.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
