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
Saturday, November 24, 2018
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)
