Author, Lecturer, Ethicist

King Solomon and the Magic Coin

What a week! From Senator McConnell's "nuclear option" and the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to Bannon's banishment from the NSC and the missile attack on Shayrot Air force Base in Syria  - not to mention the state visits of Egyptian President Sisi, Jordanian King Abdullah II and Chinese President Xi Jinping - the past 168 hours have been a monumental handful.  I for one am exhausted and quite unable to decide what to write about; call it an overabundance of op-ed riches. And so, taking the coward's way out, this week's piece is based on one of the many ancient parables I've translated and reworked.  There's a great thing about ancient parables; the lessons they teach never go stale . . . they are ever fresh and prescient; prescriptions from the ancient past still imparting essential wisdom.

This one's entitled "King Solomon and the Magic Coin."
 
Solomon, the wisest of all kings, so we are told, had 700 wives and more than 300 concubines. And yet, he only had 3 children: two daughters and a son. At the time this tale takes place, his son Rechavam, was 14 or 15 years of age.  Sadly, so we learn, the boy suffered greatly from what today we moderns would call “depression.”  Solomon, his father, recognized the condition and understood its origin: the boy felt that no matter who he was, what he thought or what he might accomplish in life, he could never be anything like his father.  And this depressed him.

Considering his son’s predicament, Solomon realized that it would not suffice to merely tell the boy: “look, you don’t have to be as smart, as wise, or as beloved as me.  It doesn’t really matter.  I will always consider you special no matter what.”  This, the king realized, could never act as a tonic for his son’s shattered self-image.  What was needed, the king reasoned, was something truly special – something that would permit his son to hold his head up high and feel his uniqueness.  Solomon gave the situation many weeks of serious thought, and finally came up with a plan.  Once he had decided how the situation with his son should best be handled, he set the royal minter upon the task of coming up with a unique gift – a specially engraved two-sided coin made of sapphire and lapis.  When the coin was at last delivered into Solomon’s hand he called for his son.

“My son,” Solomon said to the boy, whose eyes were cast toward the ground, his shoulders bent forward,” I have a gift for you – something that no one  will ever possess.  It is just for you.”

“Thank you father,” the boy responded without much overt enthusiasm.  “What is it?”

“A very special coin that teaches a lesson that no one else in this family truly knows.”  And with that he placed the coin in the boy’s left hand.  Looking at the coin, the boy managed a wan smile, and looking at his father, he asked: “what is the value of this coin?”

“Its value?” King Solomon said, rising from his throne, “why it is absolutely priceless.   Its value, by the way, does not lie in the sapphire and lapis with which the coin is minted, but in the wisdom that is imprinted upon it.  It is a coin that will make you wiser than anyone.”

“Wiser than anyone?” the boy asked, his eyes beginning to show signs of life.  “What does it teach?”

“Hold the coin in your hand, sapphire-side up, and close your fist,” his father commanded.  This the boy did.  “Now,” the king gently said, “you know those feelings you get that make you sense that everything is down, every attempt is doomed to failure, the world is a vicious snake pit, and every time you turn toward the right you should have turned toward the left?"

“Without question,” the boy responded with a derisive laugh.  “That’s my normal state of mind. What in the world can the coin do to help me?”

“When I tell you, open up your fist and read what is etched upon the coin.  It contains a kernel of wisdom that will lift your spirits, straightened your shoulders and give you the ability to deal with the world in a state of joy and gladness.”  The boy looked first at his father in disbelief and then at his closed fist.

“Please, open your hand and read aloud this profound truth,” Solomon said.

Slowly opening his fist, the boy looked at the red side of the coin.  Casting his eyes upon his message, he read aloud the words גם זה יעבור (gahm ze ya-ah-vor) – “this too shall pass.”
 
“You see," Solomon said, ”this side of the coin tells you that everyone has times when every white is black, every up is down, and every good is evil.  The coin teaches that this condition is only temporary.  Do you understand?” he asked.

“Yes father, I do,” the boy answered, beginning to stand just a bit straighter.  “I never for one moment thought that the way I feel could have any ending except death.  Are you sure that this lesson is true?”

“Without question,” his father said.  “Now, once you climb out of your despondency, which I know you shall, everything will start going quite well with you.  In matter of fact, things will start going so very well, that you will actually begin thinking that your previous condition was all a chimera – a figment of your imagination.  You will undoubtedly come to feel that any direction you take will be the proper one, any act you attempt will turn out successfully, and every day will be better than the last.  It is at such a time that you should look at the blue side of the coin.  Now, turn it over and read its secret wisdom out loud.”

Turning the coin over, the boy looked at what was etched on the lapis-side of the coin.  “What does it say?” his father asked.

“Why it says the very same thing גם זה יעבור (gahm ze ya-ah-vor)  -- this too shall pass,” the boy said in astonishment.  “But what does it mean?”

“It means,” Solomon gently said, that in order to get through this life, you must understand the lesson of balance.  Nothing is forever.  No streak of bad luck is infinite.  No time of good fortune lasts forever.  Balance: that is the key.  And believe me, that is a true gem of wisdom that virtually no one else shall ever possess.  I command you to keep this coin upon your person from this day forth.  And even when you have carefully memorized and taken to heart its words and meaning, you must keep it with you.  It shall then serve as a perpetual lesson for you in all times – both the good and the bad.  It will, in short, make life far more livable.”
 
“Thank you so much father,” the boy said, smiling a broad honest smile for the first time in Solomon’s recollection.  “I cannot think of a better gift or a better lesson.  And now, if you will excuse me, I think I will go out and walk in the sunshine.”

“But it is a cloudy day,” the king said with a trace of humor in his voice.

“Yes, I know,” his son said.  “But for me, the clouds have parted and the sun is shining.  May I go?”

“Certainly, my son.  Enjoy the sunshine.”  The son departed.

And from that day forth, his depression, like the clouds in the heavens, began to part, for he had learned the vital lesson of balance: גם זה יעבור (gahm ze ya-ah-vor) – “this too shall pass.”

And so, pay great heed: this is a lesson not just for Rechavam, the son of Solomon, the son of David.  It is a lesson for each and every one of us for all time.  We may be going through unbelievably difficult times, feeling like Rechavam at his lowest but . . . as the coin teaches, גם זה יעבורgahm ze ya-ah-vor  . . . this too shall pass.

78 days down, 1,382 to go . . .

(אגב: לכל הקוראים היהודים שלי, בבקשה לקבל איחולי חג פסח שמח, בריא וכשר

Copyright© 1999, 2010, 2017 Kurt F. Stone

Who Is Adam Schiff?

(The widely publicized, contentious and almost Kafkaesque issue of Donald Trump, his campaign and administration's relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin has made instant celebrities out of  the House Select Committee on Intelligence's chair and ranking member.  The two men, who both represent California districts are, respectively, Committee Chair Devin Nunes and ranking member Adam Schiff (not to be confused with the fictional D.A. played by the late Steven Hill on TV's "Law & Order"). Nunes was  a member of the Trump transition team who has achieved public recognition - or notoriety - for reporting intelligence to the White House (which he may well have received from the White House) and then the press, without first notifying either his ranking member or anyone else on the committee; Schiff for being the voice of reason and political professionalism. Without question, Nunes is the alpha to Schiff's omega: San Luis Obispo State versus Stanford and Harvard Law; career politician versus prosecutor turned member of the House of Representatives.
 
Personally, I have had the honor of knowing Rep. Schiff and his family for many years.  His parents, Ed and the late Sherrie, were students of mine at Florida Atlantic University.  I presided over Sherrie's unveiling, and have written extensively about their son and his older brother Dan in my book
The Jews of Capitol Hill.  I've even read Adam's and Dan's literary works - which are astoundingly good.

What follows - with a bit of updating - is what I wrote about Rep. Schiff back in 2010.  Adam is a man who should be closely watched, for he has, in my humble opinion, the brains, the understanding and the drive to become a future Secretary of State, Director of the C.I.A., or - dare I say - President of the United States . . ) 
 
When Adam Schiff entered Stanford University in 1978, he was uncertain if his ultimate goal was to become a doctor or a lawyer. As a result, he wound majoring in both pre-med and political science. Upon graduation, he was accepted into both medical school and law school. Although his parents, Ed and Sherri Schiff urged him to become a doctor, their youngest son chose to attend Harvard Law, from which he received his J. D. in 1985. “All of my doctor friends say I made the right decision, and all my lawyer friends say I messed up,” Schiff once noted. “Now that I’m in politics, everyone says I messed up!” Schiff is likely joking, but being one of the Congressional Minyan’s straightest of straight arrows, who can ever know for sure?

Adam Bennett Schiff, the younger of Edward and Sherrill Ann (Glovsky) Schiff’s two sons, was born in Boston on June 22, 1960. His family had been in New England since the turn of the century. On his mother’s side, the earliest folks came from Eastern Europe, originally settling in Laconia, New Hampshire. On his father’s side, Grandpa Schiff, who was born in London (his father being from Vilna), came to America in 1906 and settled in East Boston, where he became a butcher’s assistant. The Glovsky’s, the future congressman’s mother’s family, owned Sherrill’s Music in Boston. Both families had originally been strictly religious. As a result, by the time Ed and Sherrie came into the world, their families were “somewhat rebellious toward Orthodoxy.” Nonetheless, Ed was educated at a Conservative synagogue, and is proud of the fact that as a bar mitzvah, he was able to read tanach – the Hebrew Bible.

Ed Schiff, served in the United States Army just after the conclusion of World War II, then graduated from the University of Alabama. Ed and Sherrie met when a friend of his brought her to a party; they married in 1956 and settled in Framingham, Massachusetts. Two years later, Daniel Mark, the first of their two sons was born. Two years after that, Adam Bennett came along. Ed and Sherri’s was a “mixed marriage” – he was a Democrat and she a Republican. According to the Washington Post, “Schiff credits that background for his own moderate politics.”

While living in Framingham, Ed Schiff provided for his family as a traveling salesman. When Adam was 10 and brother Dan 12, the family moved to Scottsdale, Arizona where they lived long enough for their elder son to become bar mitzvah. In late 1972, the Schiffs picked up and moved once again – this time to Alamo, California, where Ed had purchased a lumber yard. (Alamo, an unincorporated community in Contra Costa County, is located in the “East Bay” region of San Francisco.) Adam became bar mitzvah in nearby La Fayette in 1973.

As mentioned above, Adam Schiff majored in both pre-med and political science during his four years at Stanford. Upon graduating, he decided to opt for law because, “He thought it would provide a better launching pad for a political career.” Upon graduating from Harvard Law in 1985, Schiff moved back to California, where he spent a year clerking for a federal judge. In 1987 he joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, where he spent the next six years making a name for himself as a criminal prosecutor. During his tenure, he achieved a perfect conviction record. In his most notable case, Schiff prosecuted the first FBI agent ever to be indicted for espionage. At one point the U.S. Attorney’s Office sent him to Prague where he helped the Czechs reform their criminal justice system. When Tom Umberg, a colleague in the U.S. Attorney’s office was elected to the California Assembly, he became Schiff’s inspiration for getting into politics. “I wanted to deal with the root causes of the problems I was dealing with as a U.S. attorney,” he later said. Schiff’s years and experience as a federal criminal prosecutor came into play when, as a four-term member of the House, he was named to the House Appropriations Committee, a post which traditionally requires the representative to give up all other committee assignments. Uniquely, Schiff was permitted to remain on the House Judiciary Committee, where he served on subcommittee s dealing with Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. During his nine terms in the House, Schiff has also served on several other prestigious, high profile committees: Appropriations, the House Select Committee on Benghazi and, as of 2009,  the committee for which he has become a daily presence on the news: the House Select Committee on Intelligence.  For the past several years, he has been that committee's ranking member.

In 1993, 8-term California Assemblyman Pat Nolan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering, and was sentenced to 25 months in federal prison. Nolan (1950- ), who had been elected Assembly Minority Leader in 1984, was one of 14 public officials convicted as part of an FBI sting operation called “Shrimp Scam. As a result of his conviction, Nolan resigned his seat, thus necessitating a special election. (After serving his time, Nolan became active in former Watergate figure Charles Colsen’s “Prison Fellowship Ministries.” He went on to become a Commissioner of the federal government’s National Rape Elimination Commission, described as a “bipartisan panel aimed at curbing rape in prison.” In 2008 Nolan’s friends and partisans urged President George W. Bush to issue him a pardon before leaving office. Nolan was not pardoned.)

Adam Schiff decided to enter the special election for Nolan’s Assembly seat despite the fact that the 43rd District (and its various predecessors) was highly conservative and had rarely sent a Democrat to Sacramento. Schiff and six other candidates ran in that election, which was won by James A. Rogan, a local prosecutor who at age 33 had been appointed by Governor George “Duke” Deukmajian to be judge of the Glendale Municipal Court. Schiff finished with 26% of the vote to Rogan’s 54%. The Los Angeles Times noted that “Rogan’s strong showing surprised most political observers who expected him to finish first but not with a majority of the vote.”

Six months later, Schiff ran against the now-incumbent James Rogan in a rematch. This time, Schiff, raising and spending $300,000 to Rogan’s $468,000, though once again losing, bettered his share of the vote: 53.7%-42.9%. Rogan, who was quickly becoming recognized as a rising star in the state party, was elected Majority Leader of the California State Assembly in his freshman term.

Two years later, Schiff was back at it. This time, he ran for the 21st state Senate seat of Newton R. Russell, who was barred by term limits from seeking reelection. The 21st District, which served the Arroyo Seco region of metropolitan Los Angeles, included many of Los Angeles’ most historic neighborhoods, as well as many of the metro area’s businesses, including many movie studios. Its three primary cities were Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. Winning the Democratic primary with ease, Adam Schiff faced Republican Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland in the November general election. Boland was not that well known to voters in the 21st District.

Raising more than $3.2 million between them, the race hinged largely on Schiff’s assertion that Boland – who was term limited out of her Assembly seat – had merely moved from the San Fernando Valley to Glendale in order to “continue her efforts on behalf of the Valley – the kind of advoca[cy] the incorporated cities don’t need.” For her part, Boland attempted to paint Schiff as a “tax-and-spent liberal.” The Boland campaign began using a phone bank, making calls to voters in the district attacking Schiff for what his record would be if elected to the Senate. One such call backfired: it came in to the Schiff household. At the time, the candidate’s mother was visiting. As Adam tells the story, "My mother was incredulous that someone could really be doing this. She thought it was me. She said, ‘Adam is this you?'” When the nonplussed caller said no, Mrs. Schiff hit back with, "Well, that's my son you're talking about!" Sherrill Schiff would go on to become her son’s “secret campaign weapon,”   For years she walked precincts, ringing bells and knocking on doors for her son’s campaigns. In 2006, Congressman Schiff told The Hill, “To this day, I’ll be riding in a parade, and I’ll get someone hollering, ‘Hey, I haven’t gotten a call from your mom lately!”

Schiff wound up defeating Boland by the not insignificant margin of 51.8%-44.1%. At age 33, Adam Schiff had become the youngest member of the California state Senate. Schiff served one four-year term in the Senate. In his first two years (1996-1998) he authored “dozens of measures that Governor Pete Wilson signed into law.” These included “landmark school textbook legislation.” He went on to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Juvenile Justice and the Joint Committee on the Arts. He also passed the first significant patients’ “Bill of Rights” in California.

Meanwhile, James Rogan was serving in Congress, having been narrowly elected in November 1996 to replace the retiring, 12-term Carlos Moorhead. In his first Congressional race, Rogan defeated Democrat Doug Kahn by the not overwhelming margin of 50.2%-43.2%. As a member of the House, Rogan served on the Judiciary Committee, where he became one of 13 House managers in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, State Senator Schiff was paying keen attention to 27th District voters, and their representative. He came to the conclusion that the third time could be a charm; that he could defeat Jim Rogan. After his narrow victory over Doug Kahn in 1996, Rogan managed only a 51%-46% victory against longtime (1988-1995) Screen Actors Guild president Barry A. Gordon. Schiff correctly surmised that Rogan’s relatively close margin of victory was due in large part to his high-profile role in the Clinton impeachment. (Barry Gordon, the candidate Rogan defeated is best known for playing Jason Robard’s sardonic nephew “Nick” in the 1965 film “A Thousand Clowns” and social worker “Charlie Harrison” on the TV series “Fish.”) Looking at the election results, and not wishing to run for a second four-year term to the state Senate, Schiff decided to make Rogan a target. Schiff’s polling showed that a clear majority of voters in the 27th District were in disagreement with the Clinton impeachment.

Up until 1992, the 27th, a relatively affluent district, had consistently voted for Republicans. But it also voted for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and was picking up a lot of new Hispanic residents – residents who tended to vote Democratic. This did not bode well for Rogan who, in 1999 was given a rating of “A+” by the Christian Coalition and was an advocate of the teaching of creationism in public schools. On many occasions Rogan had stated that to his way of thinking, “evolutionary theory lacks empirical evidence.”

The 2000 Schiff-Rogan rematch became the most expensive House race in American history: more than $11 million. Entertainment mogul – and Clinton friend – David Geffen vowed to raise a minimum of $1 million to defeat Rogan, which he did. As much as Schiff was banking on the voters’ negative response to Rogan’s role in the Clinton impeachment, the election did have other issues. The candidates disagreed on a whole host of issues from health care, abortion and gun control to taxes, trade and evolution. Rogan depicted Schiff as a tax-and-spend liberal who would “run through the Treasury, spending everything he can.” The “Traditional Values Coalition” printed up flyers proclaiming that Schiff was a “Champion for the homosexual agenda," and accused him of voting for one bill in the state Senate that “requires California public schools to teach children that homosexuality is a normal and positive lifestyle,” and another that “provides money to send children on ‘tolerance’ field trips to homosexual organizations . . . promot[ing] homosexuality at the public expense.”

For his part, Schiff scored Rogan for calling abortion a “Holocaust” for the African-American community and saying that the KKK “couldn’t do a better job on committing genocide on African Americans.” As noted in The Almanac of American Politics, “They also battled for the support of more than 67,000 local Armenians.”
  
California’s 27th District was the home of America’s largest Armenian population. Rogan had been the lead sponsor of a House resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide from 1915 to 1923 by Ottoman Turks. Despite being promised a floor vote on his resolution shortly before the election, then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert reneged “after phone calls from Clinton and his foreign policy appointees.” For his part, Schiff had cosponsored a state Senate resolution declaring “a day of remembrance of Armenian genocide,” and secured $400,000 in taxpayer money to produce “a documentary about Armenian issues.” Moreover, Schiff learned enough Armenian to be able to deliver a whole speech in the language – one syllable at a time – and to conclude each speech with Կեցցե Հայաստան (pronounced "Getzyeh Hayasthan!") – “Long Live Armenia!” His continued support for legislation recognizing the fact of Armenian genocide became the focus of a 2006 BBC-produced documentary film entitled “Screamers.”

Despite being outspent by nearly $7 million, Schiff nonetheless emerged victorious by the surprisingly large margin of 53%-44%. Adam Schiff was correct: the third time is a charm.

Since entering the House in January 2001, Adam Schiff has been busier than just about anyone in his freshmen class. First, he was elected by his colleagues to be their freshman class president. He joined the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, and co-founded several House groups: “Freshmen for Reform,” meant to build support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation; and “The Democratic Study Group on National Security.” Schiff co-founded this group in 2003, along with classmate Steve Israel and Georgia Representative David Scott. Its purpose is to explore “. . . the necessary components of a smart national security strategy against evolving threats.” The group holds “regular meetings for the Democratic Caucus” and brings in “renowned speakers on a wide range of national security issues such as terrorism, military transformation, Iraq, homeland security, non-proliferation, Iran, Korea, the United Nations, and missile defense.” In 2006, Schiff co-founded the Congressional Caucus for Freedom of the Press. This “bipartisan, bicameral group” has as its aim “To advance press freedom around the world by creating a forum to combat and condemn media censorship and the persecution of journalists around the world.”

Originally given seats on International Relations (where he was assigned to its subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia) and Judiciary, Schiff, as mentioned above, was moved on to House Appropriations at the beginning of the 110th Congress. Adam Schiff has been regularly and easily reelected 8 times. He is one of those incumbents who can likely keep his seat virtually as long as he chooses. Just how long he will choose to remain in the House is anyone's guess.  With his newfound national visibility as ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, he may find new doors opening to him in the future.

During his years on Capitol Hill, Adam Schiff has been one of the main Democrats trying to “remake the party’s image on national security issues.” At the same time, he has moved steadily from the political center toward the more moderate-to-liberal wing of the Democratic Party. As an example, upon taking his seat in the House in 2001, Schiff was one of but 28 Democrats who voted in favor of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.  Two years later, he voted against the next round of cuts, saying it was “fiscally irresponsible” to enact additional cuts at a time when the nation was at war and “racking up large annual deficits.” He then went on to oppose both the 2004 corporate tax package and the 2005 tax cut extensions. In 2001 he sided with the Bush Administration nearly 40 percent of the time; by 2003 his support for Bush had fallen to 16 percent. He initially voted in favor of the Patriot Act and for the use of force in Iraq, though, as noted in The Almanac of American Politics (2008), “He later criticized intelligence gathering,” and, along with then-Representative (now Senator) Jeff Flake (R-AZ), “filed a bill to revise domestic surveillance procedures.”   In a June 2005 article entitled “Congressman is Gaining a Name in Foreign Affairs,” Los Angeles Times staff writer Johanna Neuman noted that Schiff was “carving out a position as a leader of a centrist Democratic national security bloc.”

Among Schiff’s signature successes have been passage of a bill making “identity theft” a crime; fostering the use of “DNA analysis in criminal investigations and . . . expand[ing] the national DNA database”; and promoting early childhood education. In both 2003 and 2004 he successfully organized opposition to proposed cutbacks in Head Start, saying that the GOP-backed legislation would “close the door of the Head Start program to tens of thousands of deserving children and their families.”

Adam Schiff is married to San Diegan Eve Sanderson. Their first child, Alexa Marion, was born in 1998. When “Adam and Eve” were about to become parents to a son in July 2002, they had what writers for The Almanac of American Politics called their “biblical moment;” namely, what to name him. Helpful well wishers suggested either “Cain” or “Abel.” Instead, they named him Elijah Harris.

In 1986, then-attorney Adam Schiff joined “Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles.” When asked how he would feel about having an African American “little brother,” he said he would be fine. He was then given three applications to look over. He chose 7-year old David McMillan because of an answer he gave to the question asking for “three wishes.” The youngster’s first wish was for a big brother. The second was for a puppy. The third answer – the one that cinched it for Adam Schiff – was for “a beautiful world.” “It was pretty amazing,” Schiff recalled years later; “for a [seven year old] to use one of his wishes for something so intangible.” Adam and David have been together ever since as big brother/little brother. David wound up graduating from both Yale and from film school at University of Southern California. Adam attended his graduation from Yale, and David was one of Adam’s groomsmen when he and Eve married. David went on to become a writer for the television show “Judging Amy.” Schiff, who is on the board of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America sponsored and passed a Congressional resolution recognizing the second century of the organization that brought the two together.   Adam Schiff is a triathlete who also runs marathons.  In 2010, he was the only member of Congress to participate in the inaugural Washington, D.C. Triathlon.  In 2014 became the first Member of Congress to participate in the AIDS/Life Cycle, a seven-day charity bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to raise awareness and funding to fight HIV and AIDS.
  
Adam Schiff is a man with a future; he'd better stay in good shape, for he is likely going to continue standing at the epicenter of what is already turning out to be the most chilling and sordid scandal in all American political history.

I bet that by now, President Trump and those closest to him wish that Adam Schiff had chosen to go to medical school . . .

71 days down, 1,389 to go . . .

Copyright© 2010, 2017, Kurt F. Stone
 

The Right to Bear Arts

Now that #45 and the Republican-led House have failed to deliver on their sacred oath to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care act, they can turn their politically weakened attention to other matters such as tax reform, immigration and infrastructure, the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for a seat on the Supreme Court, and, one of the heaviest of all lifts, the 2018 budget. Last week's essay, The Codification of Cruelty, portrayed this blueprint with fairly broad brushstrokes.  This week, let's engage in a serious bit of pointillism, honing in on an ultra microscopic subatomic speck of that budget: funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which in turn funds both the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

In fiscal year 2017, public funding for NEA and NEH amounted to $145 million a piece; CPB $445 million in public funding.  Combined, these three organizations received a grand total of $735 million in public subsidies which, in a budget of $4 trillion amounts to a Lilliputian-sized .00018%.  Or, considered by another metric, a $4 trillion budget means we are spending $456,621,004.00 every hour on the hour, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a  year (there are 8,760 hours in a year).  The $753,000,000 allocated for NEA, NEH and CPB take up just a little over 90 minutes worth of those 8,760 hours. By a final metric, and, to put this into even greater perspective, the combined cost to every single taxpayer in America for NEA, NEH, and CPB is a mere $1.43 a year.
  
Oh the humanity!
  
For many years conservatives and deficit hawks have argued that federal funding for the arts, humanities and broadcasting is, in the words of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson "welfare for rich liberal elites."  They have derided the funded art as being obscene, the news coverage as dangerously one-sided (liberal-to-radical) and the non-news programming appealing only to a minor handful of elitist urbanites. Well I'm here to tell 'ya that I know a lot of non-wealthy, non liberal, non-elite folks who love NPR's A Prairie  Home Companion, Car Talk and Ask Me Another, as well as All Things Considered, Morning Edition and Story Corps.  Then too, there are tons of regular working-class folks who tune in to their local PBS station to watch Austin City Limits, Antiques Road Show, and This Old House as well as Washington Week in Review, PBS News Hour, Masterpiece Theatre and my personal silly favorites, Keeping Up Appearances, Fawlty Towers and the incomparably hilarious Are You Being Served?  And of course, where-oh-where would at least two generations of children be without Sesame Street?

NPR has long been home to some of the very best - and most moderately-paid - journalists on the planet.  And when I say "journalists," I mean it.  For the Nina Totenbergs, Elearnor Beardsleys, Tamara Keiths, Mara Liassons and Sylvia Pogiollis are not "infotainers"; they are unbiased reporters and correspondents stationed all over the globe covering daily events and fast-paced breaking news in ways that would make Cronkite, Lehrer, Russert, Murrow and Sevareid glow with pride.

Precisely what percentage of the NPR and PBS operating budgets are provided by the federal government is unknown - precisely because it varies depending upon the source.  While Fox News claims the percentage to be greater than 25%, NPR insists that no more than 9% of their operating funds come from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting.  Whatever the true figures are, the overwhelming majority of funding comes from corporations, foundations and the public at large.  Nonetheless, for the feds try to eliminate all funding for NEA, NEH and CPB (which ultimately affects both PBS and NPR) it is wrong, short-sighted and distinctly un-American.

How so?

During the Great Depression, FDR's New Deal provided funding for the arts.  Its "National Theater Project" was the godparent of tens of dozens of new plays, hundreds of new theater companies and tens of thousands of performances for people of all ages and races.  (The poster above advertising "Man Eats Hat" was created under auspices of this program.  This delightful farce was created and directed by the then 21-year old Orson Welles, and starred Welles and the as yet unknown Joseph Cotton.  Another program, the Public Works of Arts Program put artists and muralists, painters and sculptors to work creating works of art.  In the first four months of 1934 a;one, the PWAP hired artists who in turn produced 15,663 paintings, murals, prints, crafts and sculptures for government building around the county.  Today, many can be seen in museums or adorning the walls of Depression-era post offices, train stations or now crumbling civic edifices.  (At left is but one of the thousands of paintings, Baseball at Night, by Russian-born Morris Kantor (1896-1974), many of whose works can be found at the Smithsonian. 

My good friend Carlos Pagan, a brilliant producer of PBS programming reminds me that art - whether it be broadcast, performance or multi-media - is part of what makes America a great nation.  Without it, we are diminished; our aesthetic selves malnourished and unchallenged.  We simply cannot let CPB, NEA, NEH and NPR go without funding.  Oh, they will continue to exist, but quite possibly as shadows of their former selves.  For #45 and his minions to defund these vital and valuable resources is to proclaim that as Americans, we have, no right to bear arts . . . only arms. (Here, I must fess up.   This catchy slogan is not mine; I borrowed it from my friends at the Creative Coalition.)  Nonetheless, it is true: a government that goes out of its way to defund art, creativity and clear thinking is not worthy of approbation or respect.

In the days since the American Health Care Act was pulled from consideration, many fingers have been pointed among Republicans as to who was chiefly to blame for its failure . . . just as many Democrats have stood up and crowed over their victory.  What has been lost in all this is the real reason why the AHCA failed: because We the People banded together and said NO!  The same power exists for We the People to make sure #45 and his Congress know we want - nay, demand - that we have a right to bear arts.

For all those who agree, my friend Carlos Pagan and I urge you to log on to Protect My Public Media and sign their petition.  It's because of us that the ACA is still the law of the land.  And it will likewise be because of us that public media - that which reports and challenges, entertains and educates - will continue being funded - at least in part - by our tax dollars.

In the words of Henri Matisse, "Creativity takes courage."

We all have the right to bear arts. 

64 days gone, 1396 days to go . . .

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

The Codification of Cruelty

There is an old Hollywood legend . . . perhaps apocryphal, perhaps not and known to virtually every Hollywood Brat (including yours truly) - that Groucho Marx was denied membership in the all-Jewish Hillcrest Country Club because he was simply too crude, too lewd to fit in amongst the likes of the more staid Louis Mayer and Irving Thalberg (MGM),  Jack Warner (Warner Bros.), Harry Cohen (Columbia) and Al Jolson.  After having been turned away at least three times - so the legend goes - Marx was finally granted membership - which he summarily turned down, saying, in typical "Marxist" fashion,  "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."  In truth, Marx eventually did become a member of Hillcrest, and, true to form, spent many a day  "punishing"  his fellow club mates by being . . . well, Groucho Marx: lewd, crude and downright rude. Groucho made a career - both in reel and real life - of essentially "punishing" and being "cruel" to all those who supported him.  This was Hollywood's version of perverse "Marxist" lunacy.
  
In a strange sense, we are experiencing perverse - though decidedly non-"Marxist" lunacy once again with #45.  "What in the hell are you talking about?" I can hear you ask. Well,  in looking over #45's first budget blueprint - with all it's overwhelming cuts (and $54 billion increase in defense spending) - we find that, like Groucho of old,  those whom this Randian budget would seem to be punishing the most are precisely those who supported and believed in him the most - his so-called "loyal base."  Taking a brief gander at some of what's in this budget blueprint, we find it:
 

  • Making draconian cuts to programs which help feed the poor and elderly (notably "Meals-on-Wheels");  
  • Axing funds for after-school programs (known as the 21st Century Community Learning);
  • Granting a $1 billion increase in a "fund portability program" (otherwise known as "school vouchers");  
  • Severely cutting funds for job training and medical research;
  • Cutting funding for the EPA by 31%, State Department (29%) Department of Agriculture  (21%), Labor Department (21%) and HUD (12%);
  • Completely eliminating funding for, among others, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation.

Those this proposed budget would hurt the most are #45's loyal base, such as:

  • Coal miners in Appalachia for whom there is not a cent devoted to bringing back jobs;
  • Un - and underemployed blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states for whom there will be no job training programs;
  • Rural Americans who will see their local airports disappear, thus necessitating traveling hours in order to catch a plane;
  • Low- and lower-middle income Americans from Maine to Arizona who will no longer have any form of health insurance;
  • People who live in states vulnerable to coastal flooding (FL., LA., and TX), because funds for flooding projects have all but dried up;
  • In opposing federal subsidies for wind energy, the budget will cost small towns and rural areas clean energy job opportunities.
  • Despite pledging $500 million to combat opioid addiction - which affects small town and rural America disproportionately - #45's concomitant American Healthcare Act (AHCA) will make it next to impossible for those falling victim to this scourge of being covered by health insurance.

 
And on and on and on . . .

Despite White House budget chief Mike Mulvaney's assertion that this budget really, truly displays "great compassion for taxpayers," it would appear that what #45 and his colleagues have presented is, in fact, a document which if passed in its present incarnation, would serve to codify cruelty. For it is a highly ideological document which gives the richest of the rich even greater tax cuts, lines the pockets of defense contractors with tens of billions of dollars and places unimaginable stumbling blocks in the path of those who, strangled with feverish anger against politicians and "politics as usual," bought into the promise that a billionaire reality show host best understood their plight, and would make their world - their America - his first priority.
 
How much actual input did #45 have on this budget blueprint?  Although one cannot be certain, it is likely the answer is "precious little."  For the man who now sits in the Oval Office (when he is not lounging about Mar-a-Lago) is not what one could call a detail kind of guy.  Rather, as with his hotels, golf courses, vodka, suits, ties, bottled water and even toilet paper, he merely puts his brand on the product and then either collects the royalty checks or files for bankruptcy.  His personal and business history shows that frequently, he leaves those who dug the trenches and performed the grunt work (precisely those who made him the man he is today) holding the bag.   I doubt few of them voted for him in 2016.
 
In a truly sad repeat, it would appear that once again, #45 is set to stick it to the very people - his ardent base - who made him POTUS.  It's almost as if Groucho - who, by the way, was a lifelong ARDENT liberal Democrat - has come back to inhabit the soul of #45, making sure that those who granted him membership in the most exclusive of all clubs, will live to regret it.
  
Except in Groucho's case, it was all good clean fun.  Hillcrest is still alive,  still prosperous (oil was discovered on the golf course in the early 1950s), and its members still regaling one another with their hilarious recollection of Marxist lunacy.

58 days down, 1,402 to go . . .

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

You Break It You Buy It

The Affordable Care Act - better known as Obamacare -  was originally, in part, the brainchild of the conservative Heritage Foundation. That flawed, though game-changing legislation was passed without the support of a single Congressional Republican . . . despite the fact that included among its original cosponsors were Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. That bill, by the way, came in at just about 2,700 pages, and took more than two decades to come to fruition.  Now 2,700 pages sounds like an awful lot - until you start looking at some of the other legislation Congress routinely deals with. That said, the Affordable Care Act was larger than most bills to begin with, but considering the scope of healthcare reform, that was quite understandable.

From almost the moment of its birth, Obamacare became both an epithet and a vile symbol of all that was diabolic and treasonous among Democrats. To Republicans, Obamacare became the Wolfsbane they hoped and prayed would destroy the werewolves of the left.  History records that during the Obama years, the Republican-controlled House - and eventually Senate - voted no fewer than 5 dozen times to eliminate it, all the while scaring the pants off a segment of the American public with talk of  "death panels," "socialized medicine," and "government making decisions about your health." During the 2016 election, the alliterative "Repeal and Replace" became a rallying cry - despite the fact that no one, including Donald Trump - had the slightest idea what the replacement would look like.  Just that it would be better.  And just last week, the so-called "American Health Care Act" - coming in at a sleek 67 pages - was unveiled.  Within 24 hours, Freedom Caucus members started calling it "Obamacare Lite," "RINO Care," and "D.O.A," while a handful of Republican heavyweights said they would not vote for it.  Turns out, what took Democrats 20 years and 2,700 pages, took Republicans a couple of weeks and less than 6 dozen pages . . .  of which nearly 10% took up the question of what to do about a Medicaid recipient who receives a lump sum or large payment from winning the lottery. (Answer: they are to be kicked off of Medicaid.)  Imagine that: 10% of the American Health Care Act took up an issue that affects at most about 100 people a year!

Although the AHCA does keep many aspects of the ACA (children being able to remain on their parents' policy until age 26; no penalty for preexisting conditions; no lifetime caps), it relies heavily on tax credits and ultimately would take upwards of $400 billion away from state Medicaid programs in the first  10 years.  No wonder both the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association have come out against the plan.  Sure, with lots of people no longer having insurance, hospitals and doctors will see fewer and fewer patients, which means a drop in income.  Then again, hospitals and physicians take an oath to "first, do no harm'; fewer insured Americans means fewer healthy Americans and far more Americans using emergency rooms as their only source of healthcare. Additionally, hospitals employ lots and lots of people; the smaller the town, the higher the percentage of those gainfully employed.  In other words, with fewer and fewer dollars going into Medicaid on a state-by-state basis, the fewer employed.  And do remember, the American Hospital Association and AMA have ginormous lobbying operations on Capitol Hill that are going to do everything in their power to see that AHCA never sees the light of day.

The use of tax credits and health savings accounts is something near and dear to the hearts of most Republicans.  It assumes, of course, that individuals and/or families making, say $16,000, $25,000 or $40,000 actually have dollars they can put into these accounts or will benefit from being able to write a certain amount off on their federal tax bill.  It is often in these kinds of debates that we find out just how far out of touch legislators can be:

Take House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz as an example.  A couple of days ago, Chaffetz (R-Utah) said the Republicans' new healthcare proposal will offer Americans at all income levels the opportunity to afford health insurance.  Said Chaffetz: “Well, we're getting rid of the individual mandate. We're getting rid of those things that people said that they don't want. And you know what? Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice, and so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves." Mr. Chairman: while iPhones do cost a couple of hundred dollars, that's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to paying for health insurance.  And giving people a $2,000-$3,000 tax credit won't come close to doing what the ACA did for poorer, younger and older Americans who now are insured.

Then there was Speaker Ryan's complaint that "The fatal conceit of Obamacare" is that young and healthy people are subsidizing care for sick people. Well, yeah . . . that's the way insurance works.  Think about automobile insurance - which is mandatory: the vast majority of those insured never need use their policies, because they don't get into accidents.  Their unspent premiums are used to pay the bills of those folks who do get into accidents.  Mr. Speaker: you really should take a 101 course in insurance.

How's about Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) who, during a committee discussion with Democratic Representative Mike Doyle, laid out some of his problems with the Affordable Care Act, including the requirement that health-insurance plans cover certain basic health benefits like hospital and doctor visits. “What mandate in the Obamacare bill does he take issue with?” Doyle asked Shimkus. To which Shimkus replied, “What about men having to purchase prenatal care?” As the room started to buzz, Shimkus added, “I’m just … is that not correct? And should they?” Tell me Rep. Shimkus: do you think women should help fund men's prostate exams or ability to purchase Viagra?

And of course, virtually no one engaged in the healthcare debate - whether on Capitol Hill, the White House or K Street - are without first-class health insurance . . .

Even without a cost estimate from the  Congressional Budget Office (which President Trump and Congressional Republicans have preemptively rejected as being biased), it seems clear that the AHCA will lead to millions of Americans losing their insurance coverage  - especially older people living in rural America . . . a huge chunk of whom are devout "Trumpeters." Makes one wonder how all these folks are  going to react when they wake up to discover that once again,  they're uninsured and must, once again, resort of emergency room care.  I don't think they're going to jump up and wave "Trump: Make America Great Again!" signs.

Many of us remember going into toy stores as kids and seeing an ominous sign which read "You break it you buy it."  Well, the same goes for healthcare, President Trump. Those of us on the opposite side of the political aisle are going to make sure that people get used to hashtagging this proposal #TrumpCare.  In that way, when (God forbid) you dismantle Obamacare, you will have to take complete ownership of its disastrous, heartless  replacement. And that won't be good for you, for Republican governors (many of whom have already come out against it) and for Republican members of Congress . . . all of whom have gotten a taste of what it's like to face angry, angry constituents out there in the American heartland.  
You may well want to heed the words of Texas Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) President Trump. For just the other day, in announcing his decision to withhold support for t he AHCA, Senator Cotton said, "Do not walk the plank and vote for a bill that cannot pass the Senate and then have to face the consequences of that vote. If they vote for this bill, they're going to put the House majority at risk next year."

You break it you buy it; you buy it you own it!

51 days down, 1,409 to go . . .

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

Honest Bullsh*t

In his remarkable 1864 novella Notes From the Underground, Feodor Dostoevsky, a writer not particularly known for humor or irony, puts into the mouth of his narrator a most memorably whimsical statement: "Twice two makes four seems to me simply a piece of insolence. Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with arms akimbo barring your path and spitting. I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." To my way of thinking, Dostoevsky has, within a mere 61 words, given us the first - and perhaps best - example of what we shall call "honest bullsh*t."  Yes, I know, honest bullsh*t does come across as a first-rate oxymoron - a marriage of opposites.  And yet, considering the time and temperament of the age in which we live, it does carry a certain je ne sais quoi - an almost illusive, indefinable quality.By now, it is an almost toxic truism that many public people and sources - from our current POTUS and his advisors to alternative truth purveyors and peddlers of hate are  rarely on speaking terms with the truth.  But referring to all of them as perpetual or pathological liars misses the mark by several important degrees. Donald Trump is not a liar; Breitbart News does not lie; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not liars.  Rather, they are world-class b.s. artists - horses of a different and vastly more more pernicious color. 


So what is the difference between a lie and bullsh*t - or between a liar and a bullsh*tter?  Fascinatingly, the best answer comes neither from a late-night TV pundit nor a standup satirist.  Rather, it comes from the pen of Henry G. Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Princeton University, who, in 1986, published an essay entitled On Bullshit in the prestigious Raritan Quarterly Review.  In 2005, Princeton University Press issued it as in a small hardback edition; it quickly became a New York Times bestseller - - due mainly, I would imagine, to its most unique title. In his 67-page book which is really an extended essay on communication, Professor Frankfurt posits that lies and bullsh*t are both about deception, but while lying is a conscious act of obscuring the truth, bullsh*tting has no interest at all in the truth, “An indifference to how things really are,” is the way Frankfurt puts it. Examples of #45's penchant for bullsh*tting include him furiously insisting that, contrary to what Meryl Streep ("the most overrated actress in Hollywood") said at the Golden Globes, he "never mocked a disabled reporter," even though there is widely circulated TV footage of him doing just that. He has also insisted he can't possibly take responsibility for the number of racists who have supported him or committed crimes in his name, having apparently forgotten about the times he made racist remarks himself.  Jump ahead to just the other day, and we have the POTUS claiming - without a scintilla of evidence - that President Obama ordered the bugging of Trump Towers during the 2016 presidential campaign.  Without question, #45 knows whether this statement is true or false; the fact is, he simply does not care.  That is the mark of a  b.s. artist . . . or what our British cousins would refer to as a hoofwanking bunglecunt.


In these, and dozens of other cases, the president is interested only in his own self-promotion; he is not lying, because for him an objective truth isn’t even a consideration – he is bullsh*tting.  Fascinatingly, when any of these things are pointed out by the professional press, Trump and his chosen team  cry out "elitism" - billionaires all standing in front of the golden doors of Trump Tower.  By now, we have gone well beyond a time in which facts matter. Indeed, we have even moved beyond a "post facts" period of time.  Today we find ourselves in a reality in which its all about bare-faced denial.  This is the culture of bullsh*tting in which expertise is both denigrated and spat upon.  Why? Because expertise can actually provide a bulwark against nonsense.   Today, it matters not a whit to the grossly, professionally uninformed that scientists have proven life existed billions of years ago or that global warming is a clear and present danger. To the purveyors of b.s., what the experts have concluded through rigorous and scientifically verifiable research is shund (Yiddish for "trash").


Today, we live in a blog/Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat culture where it’s pitched as a triumph of democracy that everyone can claim authority, which means anyone who says that, actually, there is an objective truth (i.e. 2+2=4) is condemned. Feelings rather than facts are what matter, these purveyors of bullsh*t claim, and the success of this, as Tom Nichols writes in his new book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters,  represents “the full flowering of a therapeutic culture where self-esteem, not achievement, is the ultimate human value, and it’s making us all dumber by the day.” No wonder America's elected a celebrity as President, rather than a seasoned public servant.  Believe me: I grew up around a ton of celebrities and public people; once the lights and cameras go dark, they are about as insecure a group as God ever created  . . .  


The Republican Party was birthed by a man known as "Honest Abe."  Its latest leader is a fellow who, in the words of Roald Dahl, might be best described as the "Oopma Loompa."
There is such a thing as objective truth.  So far as "honest bullsh*t" goes, it is about as ephemeral and lacking in reality as Dostoevsky at his most ironic . . .

43 days down, 1,417 to go.

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

Heard the One About the Literate Rabbi & the Dipso Nobel Laureate?

History is replete with odd couples.  Besides the eponymously obvious - Felix and Oscar, consider John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain and Nikola Tesla, Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini, Groucho Marx and T.S. Eliot, and Joe DiMaggio and Marilyn Monroe . . . to name but a few.  One of my very favorites, who shared a most productive - and financially rewarding - partnership were Sinclair Lewis, the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature, and rabbi/author Lewis Browne. The Lewis/Browne friendship was about as odd as that between composers Franz Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. On the one side was Sinclair Lewis, the Midwestern atheistic drunk who, whenever he included a Jew in one of his novels, resorted to base stereotypes; on the other side was Lewis Browne, the scholarly  London-born, Portland, Oregon-raised rabbi who, before turning to novel-writing, was one of the nation's premier religious writers and lecturers. 

In the early 1940s, the two joined together and went out on the national lecture circuit, where they were accustomed to speaking before crowds of 3,000 and more, each attendee paying anywhere from 55¢ and $1.10.  Without fail, their lecture topic was entitled "Can It Happen Here?" The Lewis/Browne lecture debates were based on novels they had published in the years between 1935 and 1943: Sinclair Lewis' far more famous (and bestselling) It Can't Happen Here, and Rabbi Browne's regrettably long-forgotten See What I Mean? Both novels dealt with the same topic: the scary prospect of America being taken over by Fascists.  In Nobelist Lewis' dystopian work, the weak-kneed, highly malleable protagonist, a mild-mannered nobody named Buzz Windrip, is led to create a "League of Forgotten Men," and manages to get himself elected POTUS as head of a benign "Share the Wealth League" movement.  Then, with breathless abandon - and before any but the most civically-engaged realizes it, has turned America in a Fascist Corporatist state.  Likewise, Lewis Browne's See What I Mean?" centers around one Clem Smullet, a failed Hollywood p.r. guy who, needing a job, joins forces with the leader of a fledgling anti-Semitic movement called "The Crusade."  Imprisoned, Smullet reveals The Crusades' true intention: to rouse anger and fear, and designate enemies of the state.  One of the things that Lewis and Browne found most troubling and dangerous, was the "America First" movement. 

Sound familiar?

Both It Can't Happen Here and See What I Mean? are available for reading.  I cannot strongly enough urge everyone to read these two classics for, truth to tell, they are as important and hauntingly prescient today as they were more than eighty year ago.  And while I am sorry to offend anyone who really, truly believes #45 has already shown himself to being well on the road to becoming the best POTUS in all American history;  of being the one President who in his first month has kept all his campaign promises and even more, I must strongly, stringently and sonorously declare that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Like Sinclair Lewis' "Corpos," (the group which brutally and systematically carry out their leader's orders) #45's bare-bones administration has set the wheels in motion for a government that is of, for and about the truly wealthy. Their overarching concern and purpose, as so clearly announced by #45's chief political strategist/amanuensis Steve Bannon, is "the deconstruction of the administrative state."  What in the hell does that mean?  Basically. the dismemberment of the entireFederal Government; especially when it comes to any regulations dealing with the rights and perquisites of big business, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the medicines we take,  the jobs we work at, the social safety net we have long relied upon or the myriad other protections which have tended to keep the "haves" from swallowing up the "have-nots." 

One thing you've got to give Steve Bannon: he is direct and deadly honest.  Speaking this past week before the Conservative Political Action Conference, he described himself as a "Leninist," saying that the Soviet leader “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” In other words, Steve Bannon, late of Breitbart News - the godfathers of "alternative facts" - wants to take the Federal Government back to the days before Theodore Roosevelt, when the government first began adopting the role of defender of the defenseless, the one entity whose job it would be to protect the rights and privileges, the health and safety, of the common clay.  To Steve Bannon, the opposite is the case. As he told the perfervidly right-wing gathering at CPAC, “If you look at [our] Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction." In other words, to eliminate the very cabinet departments they were selected to head.

What makes Steve Bannon far, far more dangerous than #45, is that unlike his putative boss, he is an ideologue who really, truly believes what he says and does.  #45, on the other hand, seems to believe precious little; his main joy comes from applause and the certain knowledge that he is loved by the people to whom he speaks.  I do not believe #45 is an anti-Semite.  But Steve Bannon is.  I do not believe that #45 has given much thought or consideration to what badmouthing Mexico, Germany, Britain or Australia means in the long run.  But Steven Bannon has.  I cannot see #45 giving a tinker's what bathroom an LGBT youngster uses.  But Steve Bannon certainly does. Simply stated, Steve Bannon is #45's puppet master; the maniac who pulls the strings and puts the words into the mouth of his creation.  #45 wants to be loved, admired and venerated; Bannon wants to change the course of human history.  This is both frightening and potentially fatal. It smacks of fascism. And this is precisely why people who oppose this administration cannot let their guard down.  We are not paid agitators; we are patriots.

I cannot tell you how many people have justified their supreme trust and support for #45's whims and flights of Twitter fantasy, by the simple statement "He's fabulously wealthy; he's single-handedly created a fabulous international business empire; he obviously knows how to get things done."  Well my friends, let me remind you that for many decades, the person who single-handedly ran the most successful, most lucrative business empire in America was Al Capone.  (His reputed $129,000,000 income in 1929 would be worth more than $1,820,000,000.00 in today's dollars.) What #45 and his henchmen are steering us toward is the world feared by the "odd couple," Sinclair Lewis & Lewis Browne; a world in which the press is "the enemy of the people"; tax breaks for the rich are precisely what the middle- and lower-classes must support; a gross increase in military spending precisely what the nation needs; and good old fashioned hypertensive fear the currency which will purchase the future so devoutly craved by the few.

Do read It Can't Happen Here. Likewise, if you can find it, do read See What I Mean? The two will give you that uncomfortable feeling which in the long run, is a far, far more valuable currency than anything #45, Bannon or their gaggle of amateur billionaires could possibly imagine. 

Sinclair and Browne may well have been the odd couple, but their fears and worries should be our fears and worries. 

37 days down, 1,423 to go.

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

Visiting G. Washington on President's Day

An introductory note: Today is Presidents' Day, 24 hours which are supposed to be in celebration and remembrance of, and reverence for, our two finest Presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.  Alas, for what I fear is the vast majority of twenty-first century Americans, Presidents' Day is nothing more than a one-day holiday in which many go shopping, having been lured to the local mall by Washington and Lincoln, acting in their contemporary incarnations of mercantile hucksters and hustlers.  As such, what we have lost over the years is an awe-filled appreciation of these two giants and what they accomplished in both giving birth to, and saving the very life of, this monumental experiment in self-governance.

Portrait By Gilberg Stewart Williamtown

And so, in honor of Presidents' Day, I've decided to take a break and let President Washington do both the writing and speaking.  What follows is one of the most amazing and prescient documents in all American history: Washington's Farewell Address.  Yes, it is rather long and the language not easily accessible to the modern reader. Nonetheless, please give it a try, sit back and ponder his words and admonitions and reflect on how far we've come . . . and how very far we have yet to go.

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

Avoiding Concussions is Essential For Your Health - and the Nation's Future

By now, it has become, at an absolute minimum, a thrice-daily commonplace: "45" or his press spokesman Sean Spicer or his advisor Kellyanne Conway or someone else from the West Wing, will tweet, claim or give voice to an outrageously obvious lie (i.e. murders at their highest rate in the past half century; America is in dire danger of a terrorist attack; there were between 3 and 5 million illegal votes in the 2016 election).  In other words, we are now living in a country where no more than 25% of the citizenry really, truly believe the most unbelievable, factually rebuttable things.  And for those who wonder to what this figure - 25% - refers, permit me to enlighten you with a fact:  25% represents the percentage of the American electorate that voted for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (or, to be honestly inclusive, against Hillary Clinton).  Yes, you read correctly: about 1 in 4 eligible voters in the USA actually cast their ballot for "45." That's bad enough.  But what's worse - far, far worse - is that this percentage - which amounts to just under 58,000,000 out of a total voting-age population of 231,556,622 in a nation of 326,474,013 people - also represents the only group "45" really, truly cares about.  For he senses that no matter what he says or does will be just fine with them. 

Now, truth to tell, most of the readers of this blog don't have all that much daily contact with members of the 25%. We all tend to live in our own concentric circles of interest, divided by income, demographics, education and a whole host of other factors.  As such, most of us spend far more time surrounded by folks whose political outlook - not to mention likes and dislikes - are pretty close to ours rather than with people who will give you an angry earful about how great "45" is, how corrupt President Obama was, or how Hillary Clinton is shortly going to be moving from Chappaqua to Sing Sing.

For most of us, it is both clear and axiomatic that "45" is a pathological liar; a potentially delusional monomaniac who is woefully unfit to serve as POTUS.  But having written all this, most of us also have a "crazy Uncle Bernie," an upstairs neighbor or a chappie at the gym (where, for reasons unknown, most locker room televisions are set to Fox News), who, as mentioned above, are rarin' to show you the error of your ways; to counter facts with fiction and heartfelt questions with toxic bromides.  Indeed, for those who believe that the better armed with facts we are the greater the likelihood of "converting" a Trumpeter into a progressive, guess again.  Many have been carefully tutored into "knowing" that the facts we counter with are mere products of the conspiratorial, utterly mendacious mainstream media. 

For me, it has long been a daily must to spend almost as much time reading, listening or watching Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh or News Max as it is the New York Times, National Public Radio or The Daily Kos.  Why? Well, despite the fact that the former are frequently no better than bitter emetics, they do keep one abreast of how the 25% thinks, what they believe, or give one insight as to how to best deal - or not - with them. 

(A hint: whenever you read an online pro-progressive, fact-checking op-ed piece, make sure to read a sampling of those responses which have the highest number of negatives.  It's a real eye-opener. Case in point, an op-ed piece by Washington Post writer Kathleen Parker entitled "Trump's Two-Year Presidency." In it, Ms. Parker, who is politically right-of-center, makes the case that "45" just might face impeachment proceedings before too long.  In one paragraph, Ms. Parker writes, "Once ensconced, it would take a Democratic majority approximately 30 seconds to begin impeachment proceedings selecting from an accumulating pile of lies, overreach and just plain sloppiness. That is, assuming Trump hasn’t already been shown the exit. Thus far, Trump and his henchmen have conducted a full frontal assault on civil liberties, open government and religious freedom, as well as instigating or condoning a cascade of ethics violations ranging from the serious (business conflicts of interest) to the absurd (attacking a department store for dropping his daughter’s fashion line). And, no, it’s not just a father defending his daughter. It’s the president of the United States bullying a particular business and, more generally, making a public case against free enterprise."

Ah,  but the comments are well worth the price of admission.  One writer responded with an attack on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "It was Hillary who lied. Remember "There was no classified info in the emails! Then when that was proven to be a lie it was "None of the email was marked classified!" which was a lie and irrelevant. Remember when she said "I only used one device for email." and that was a lie also." Another, which likewise didn't come close to defending "45" attacked Barack Obama: "It's funny to watch you Progressive Fascists run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Your pretending to be worried about our president, but you were happy to blindly support our worst president ever, Tyrant Obama the Liar. He violated the constitution, lied, failed at everything he did."

In total, this one op-ed piece drew more than 5,800 responses, about a quarter of which (yes, 25%!) were scathing denunciations, rather than heartfelt defenses.  So what to do? How do we respond in our daily lives to people who are incredibly pro-"45"?  People who will endlessly tell you "He is a tremendously rich, successful businessman; he knows what he is doing?  Sorry friends, but facts won't cut it. Rational arguments cannot keep a charging bull intent on doing what comes naturally.  In my experience, in political debates, the less one knows, the more certain they are, the more impervious they are to reason, and more likely to become angry, cutting and dyspeptic. (Sorry to say, this also goes for people reasonably well-armed with facts.)

So why even try?

Stone's first rule of politics has long been "Trying to convert a person on the other side of the political fence is akin to banging one's head against a wall. It's painful, damaging and can only lead to a potentially lethal concussion.  So unless you're truly in love with concussions, don't even try." This is to say that instead of trying to disabuse Trumpeters of their prideful certainty that he is going to stand up to our enemies, bring allexported jobs back home, build a "beautiful wall" and make Mexico pay for it, etc., etc., etc., why not take that time, effort and energy to instead find new, heretofore untapped supporters?  There are more than 90 million people who did not take the time to vote in 2016.  These are the people we should be talking to - not those who are charter members of the "Don't try to confuse me with the facts" club.

Medically speaking, concussions are bad for one's health; just ask any number of former NFL players. Civically speaking, concussions - the kind which come from continually banging one's head against the wall ofpolitical argumentation - are bad for the nation's future.  Engaging in us-versus-them debates and disputes won't change anyone's mind, and can regrettably make enemies out of friends and outlaws out of in-laws.  It is far healthier to recruit from the roughly 42% who did not vote than from the 25% who think "45" is just the answer for what ails American politics.

So where do we find and engage the 42%?  A couple of suggestions:

  • Attend any of the rallies going on all over America and engage people you don't know in conversation.  Ask questions; find out what upsets them and what they fear.  Invite them to become even further involved.
  • Find out who your local precinct captain is.  If you don't have one, contact your local party leader(s) and volunteer for the job.  Get to know your neighbors or the folks who live on the floor above. 
  • Listen more than you speak until such time as the people you're listening to are getting the notion that you're alright . . . then begin speaking so that they listen.

Many have erroneously suggested that what's happening in the country these past several weeks is merely a leftist version of the 2008 Tea Party phenomenon.  It isn't: the Tea Party was created and galvanized by Koch Brother money and Carl Rove cunning.  What's going on these past few weeks is a definite "people's movement." Become a part of it.  No concussions here; perhaps a sense of giddiness . . .

Join the movement.  Keep your cool.  Do a lot of listening.  And above all remember: concussions are both painful and potentially lethal . . .

23 days down, 1,437 to go.

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

TW3

Readers of a certain age will likely remember the early '60s TV show That Was the Week That Was - better known to cognoscenti as "TW3." Originally created by the late Sir David Frost for BBC television and then imported to the U.S of A., TW3 was an incredibly creative, sassy and on-point lampooning of the week's political events. The American version was home to such gifted writers as Buck Henry, Calvin Trillin, Herb Sargent, Saul Turtletaub and Tom Lehrer, the "Salinger of Satirical Song." Then too, those who appeared in front of the camera weren't too shabby either: Bob Dishy, Tom Boswell, Allan Sherman, Steve Allen, and even Woody Allen. Alas, despite its tart sauciness, TW3 only ran from January 1964 to May 1965 - a mere 24 shows.  And yet, it is fondly remembered as a groundbreaking showcase for some of the best, brightest and most perceptive talents in contemporary entertainment. 

One wonders what a contemporary, Trump-era version of TW3 would be like.  Unbelievably, within the span of a single week, Trump & Co. have provided enough fodder for at least 40 hours of satire and lampooning. Consider that within the past week (168 hours), the president and his people have:

  • Issued a travel ban against Muslims seeking to come to the United States from 7 majority Muslim countries.  When questioned about the enormity of the ban, both President Trump (via tweet) and Presidential Press Secretary Sean Spicer said “Remember we’re talking about a universe of 109 people. There were 325,000 people that came into this country over a 24 hour period from another country. 109 of them were stopped for additional screening.”  Turns out, the number stopped was in excess of 60,000.
  • Then, when the ban was overturned by Federal District Judge James Robart (a George W. Bush appointee whom the U.S. Senate confirmed by a vote of 99-0) the president responded with a tweet: “The opinion of this so-called judge is ridiculous and will be overturned!” (Within hours of making this rather breathtaking claim, a federal appeals court in San Francisco rejected the justice department's request for an emergency stay of Judge Robart’s order that the ban be suspended nationwide. The president responded again in yet another tweet: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"
  • Within a single week, President Trump managed to get into a kerfuffle with Australian P.M. Malcolm Turnbullover vetting - with an eye toward admitting - 1,250 Syrian refugees who are living on islands in detention centers off the Australian mainland due to strict government policies. (The agreement was reached while Barack Obama was still POTUS.) In his phone conversation with Mr. Turnbull, President reportedly insistedit was a very bad deal for the US to take 2,000 (not 1,250) refugees and that one of them was going to be the next Boston bomber, and then he hung up.  When news of the conversation was reported, Trump hit back, blaming the entire affair on false reporting by the liberal media. 
  • In yet another telephone conversation he warned Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto that he was ready to send U.S. troops to Mexico to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them.
  • He had his National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, tell the press "We're putting Iran on notice" after its latest ballistic missile test and several attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen.  
  • Stated that the failed raid against Al Qaedi in Yemen (which led to the death of an American serviceman and several civilian causalities) was the fault of the Obama Administration which had approved it.  According to two highly-placed members of the Obama intelligence/defense team, the former president never approved the plan.
  • In attempting to justify President Trump's ban on Muslims from seven different countries, Presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that when Obama was POTUS "Two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. … It didn`t get covered" Turns out that Ms. Conway's version of Obama-era history was pure fiction; there never was a "Bowling Green massacre."
  • At a Black History Month gathering, the president stated "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.” From his comments it appeared that (1) President Trump had no idea who Mr. Douglass was, and that (2), he's been dead for 122 years.  Attempting to clarify his boss's error, Press Secretary Sean Spicer essentially dug an even deeper hole, asserting  “I think there’s contributions — I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made,” Spicer said of Trump’s reference to Douglass. “And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he’s going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more.”
  • Appearing at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump urged those in attendance to pray for former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose ratings on The Apprentice are "down the tubes," as compared to the former host - none other than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • And finally, in an early-morning tweetstorm President Trump declared that "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election."

And this doesn't even count the president's move to gut Dodd/Frank so that financial planners andbrokers don't have to put their clients' interests above their own, and the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in a manner more akin to announcing a winner on The Apprentice than the naming of a Justice to the nation's highest court.

Indeed, were TW3 back in business, not only would its producers have to hire 200 additional writers and scores of additional actors; they would have to amend their tagline.  Perhaps they could steal the onethe late, lamented Westinghouse Broadcasting used: "All yuks all the time. You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the weird."  And, they would have to be on at least 5 hours a day, 7 days a week just to cover the most egregious, most satire-worthy acts and statements of this new administration.

Now I know there are still millions of Americans who continue supporting President Trump, believing most - if not all - of what he says, does, thinks, tweets and proposes; who trust him to make the right decisions and surround himself withonly the best, smartest and least politically correct people imaginable. These are the ones who continually command that the rest of us"Give him a chance!"  Sorry, but as the old saw goes, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."  Donald Trump is the wayhe is; what you see is what you get.  And what we get is a man-child who is anything but presidential; an unlettered egomaniacwho is in thrall to a malevolent Geppetto named Bannon.

At the same time, he and his crew are worthy of vicious satire . . . as well as petitions, protests, phone calls and acts of intelligent defiance.

For those missing the barbs, wit and outright tomfoolery of TW3, might I recommend their closest incarnation?  Do become acquainted with The Capitol Steps . . . the people who put the mock in Democracy. 

16 days down, 1,444 to go.

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

The Closing of Gates . . . The Opening of Doors

This past Friday, January 27, was International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  Gatherings and services were held around the globe, perhaps most notably in Warsaw, Berlin and Tirana, Albania, were an olive tree was planted during the inauguration of a downtown garden commemorating Albanians who saved Jews during the war.  In Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump commemorated the day by issuing a statement which bewildered some and infuriated many others. Why?  Because the president's contained nary a word about Jews.  Anti Defamation League (ADL) head Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted "@WhiteHouse statement on #HolocaustMemorialDay, misses that it was six million Jews who perished, not just 'innocent people.' 

It should be noted that last year at this time, then-President Barack Obama's statement made explicit reference to Jews, declaring, in part "We are all Jews." Ah, but Donald Trump is a great friend of Israel and the Jews; Barack Obama, despitebeing the first and only POTUS to have an ordained rabbi in the family, he is an Israel-hating anti-Semite.  To further trivialize International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Mr. Trump chose this very day to issue an Executive Order barring all refugees from entering the United States for four months — and those from war-ravaged Syria indefinitely.  In signing the Executive Order, the president defended it as being absolutely necessary to prevent “radical Islamic terrorists” from entering the nation.  Trump further said the halt in the refugee program was necessary to give government agencies time to develop a stricter vetting system.  One wonders if he and his team are even aware of how strict the vetting system employed during the Obama years already is; under it's terms, it can already take up to 2 years (or more) for an applicant to receive permission to enter the U.S.  

It would seem that being POTUS has not done a whit for Donald Trump's tone-deafness; it is as obvious as ever.  And despite Reince Priebus' best attempts at diffusing or deflecting the matter of failing to mention Jewish victims of the Holocaust, members of the rational public are becoming increasingly strident in their denunciation of a president and an administration that has only occupied the White House less than a fortnight.  

In an interview with CBN News, the president said persecuted Christians would be given priority in applying for refugee status. "We are going to help them, the president said.  "They've been horribly treated." Yes, this is true, but what about Yazidis? Sufis? Shi'ites living in Sunni-majority countries or vice versa?  When it comes to endangering the lives of whole communities based on their religion or ethnicity, we are all Jews; we are all Copts, Yazidis and yes, we all Muslims.

Strangely, while the travel/entry ban is most stringent when it comes to Syrian refugees - a heck of a lot of whom are in a relocate-or-face-death situation, it does not include any Islamic countries where the Trump Organization has business interests. The president's order makes no mention of - among others - Turkey (where Trump-branded home furnishings are manufactured); the United Arab Emirates (where Trump has licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort, as well as a luxury home development and spa),  Indonesia (the world’s largest majority-Muslim nation, where there are two large Trump-branded resorts underway);  and Saudi Arabia(the home of 15 of the 19  9/11 terrorists where The Trump Organization had incorporated several limited liability companies in preparation for an attempt to build a hotel). 

For many, the logic behind President Trump's Executive Order - which is already fomenting chaos and uncertainty around the world - is clear: if the order keeps even a single potential Islamic terrorist out of the country and saves even a single life, it will have been worth it.  This, it seems to me, is but a reification of the old Barry Goldwater bromide that "Extremism in the face of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." By this logic, if by enacting laws which would keep all assault weapons and multi-round clips out of the hands of the American public even a single innocent life is saved, wouldn't it be worth it?  Unfortunately even if the logic may be unassailable, there is one big difference: Muslims don't have a well-heeled, deep-pocketed lobby; gun-owners do. Muslims aren't in a position to buy politicians - or put the fear of losing the next election in them; gun owners do.

As we have seen over the past 24 hours, push-back from the public and the courts has been both vehement and successful.  Already, the Trump administration has been backing down on terms of this executive order.

Meanwhile, Israel's actions vis-à-vis Syrian refugees and Holocaust Remembrance Day is a horse of a different color - despite how much closer the reality of terror is there than here in the U.S . . . and the fact that a technical state of war exists between the two neighboring countries. For Israel announced that for the first time it would open its doors to 100 Syrian children who have been orphaned as a result of that country's six-year civil war.  Additionally, Israel has admitted more than 2,600 refugees from Syriafor medical care.  Unlike Donald Trump's America - and virtually every other country in the Middle East - Israel is distinguishing itself by extending a welcome hand to orphaned refugees in need. Unlike again, unlike Donald Trump's America and all other Middle Eastern countries, Israel is choosing to save the lives of the most vulnerable victims of the terrible Syrian Civil War and offer them a new chance for life. Tiny Israel, which is vilified by a vast majority of the planet for being apartheid-loving, racist, bloodthirsty and dictatorial is, when all is said and done, far more humane and compassionate than her enemies would have it.

This is the way great - though admittedly imperfect - countries are supposed to act:

They open their doors, rather than close their gates.

Are you paying attention President Trump? 

10 days down, 1,450 to go.

Copyight©2017 Kurt F. Stone

Can Knowledge Be More Dangerous Than Ignorance?

OK. Donald Trump has taken the oath of office, attended the inaugural balls, asked for God's Divine assistance at the National Cathedral and uttered his first presidential whoppers.  (Among these were having his new Press Secretary Sean Spicer falsely claim that his inaugural gathering was "the largest in history,"  and then take no further questions. We witnessed the new POTUS gleefully informing CIA agents "I am so behind you" while at the same time bashing the daylights out of the media for any reports to the contrary. Indeed, it wasn't a whit different from his campaign; high on demagoguery, low on truth . . . or as Kellyanne Conway now refers to them, "alternative facts."  This, of course, is her way of saying "blatant lies."  Sorry Kellyanne, you can't put lipstick on that pig. On the bright side however, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the press is no longer interested in giving President Trump and his mouthpieces a free ride; they are finally, finally challenging their lies. This is a good, positive and hopeful sign. But at the same time, one is tempted to ask "What in the hell took you so long?"

Welcome to the "Trump Era"; he's now officially the nation's  45th president.  Already, there have been nationwide protests attended by far, far more people than came to watch him place his hand on (somebody's) family Bible, take the oath of office, and deliver one of the shortest, most caliginous inaugural addresses in memory. To listen to the nation's new Commander in Chief, one would think that America looks like Dunkirk after all the buzz bombs; is the chaotic, dystopian Hill Valley of Back To the Future 2 - a place filled with crime, drugs, destroyed cities . . . a rusting hulk of its former self. And yet, most statistics point to an America which has come a long, long way since both the terror of 9/11 and the fiscal horror of 2008.

Historically, inaugural addresses have been known for soaring rhetoric:

  • FDR promised an impoverished nation "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
  • JFK told us to "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what can you do for your country."
  • Ronald Reagan spoke of America as a beacon of hope for the world.
  • Donald Trump gave us "American carnage," and promised that two words would shape the next four years: "America first! America first!"

I for one did not watch a minute of the inauguration; rather, in protest - and doing my small part to keep the TV ratings low - I kept one television on Turner Classic Movies, the other on the Animal Planet. I did, however, watch his address on You Tube several hours after its delivery. Click the link for highlights of his 16-minute address.)  

Besides the words "American carnage," which really gives me the willies, I was particularly stupefied to hear the term "America first" used as a rallying cry.  These two words immediately brought to mind Charles Lindbergh's infamous 9/11/41 speech in which he accused the British, the Jews and the Roosevelt Administration of pushing America into war against Germany. It was a notorious speech which even drew the ire and opprobrium of publisher William Randolph Hearst - to be sure, no admirer of FDR.  Lindbergh portrayed Jews as being a bunch of dangerous liberals and Marxists who controlled the media, the banks and Hollywood; people who were the very antithesis of those who put "America first."  

I quickly Googled "Lindbergh+speech+America+first" and came up with an audio capture of that speech.  To say the least, it was more than obnoxious and reminded me of why members of my family never mention "Lucky Lindy" without spitting.  But what really shocked me were the comments on the webpage containing the audio. Reading through them, it seemed as if someone had opened the gates of Hell, thus permitting Jew haters and Holocaust deniers to emerge into the haze of a new day.  And these, mind you, were not comments written years ago; most were less than a week old.  One fellow wrote "USA should have stayed out of the war and the so-called holocaust is a hoax." After reading several-such posts, I had to add my two cents: "How in the world can you call yourself a human being?  There has never been a more exhaustively photographed, filmed and documented event in all world history than the Holocaust."  Among the many responses, one came from a fellow who calls himself "Alexander Solzhenitsyn": "Kurt Stone Actually that is not true, there is no evidence for the gas chambers whatsoever. The chambers we see today were built after the war by the Polish FACT." Another, who signs on as "Applied Logic" smarmily responded to my post "I have forgotten more than you will ever know. People like you know a lot about nothing and nothing about a lot." The thread ended abruptly with my riposte: "If you would "apply logic," you would realize just how illogical your statements truly are. Any time you want to meet and compare knowledge and education, please let me know.  I'll provide the Earl Grey, you bring your AK47 . . ." (OK, this probably wasn't the smartest thing to write, but I was just that ticked off . . .)

Obviously then, when President Trump talks about "America first," some people hear it far differently than others.  One wonders whether Mr. Trump has any idea of what kind of dog whistle these two words are for anti-Semites, racists and Holocaust deniers.  If he does not, then he is ignorant and unlettered when it comes to American history. Perhaps he doesn't know anything about Charles Lindbergh, America Firsters, anti-Semites and how incredibly close America came to staying out of World War II.  Heck, even David Duke used "America First!" as the slogan for his recent failed Senate race in Louisiana - and you had better believe he knows its historic background.  If President Trump knows none of this, then shame on him.

But what if he does know what "America First!!" means? What if he is perfectly cognizant of what repellent hopes, dreams and schemes those two words represent? That would be even worse. For if he is blowing that bilious dog whistle in his inaugural address - just as he had during the campaign - it means that he has no problem roiling the waters of hatred, conspiracy and gutter-level nationalism. It means that he and his team - most notably alt-right conspiracist Stephen Bannon - have no intention of unifying the nation; of bringing us together in common cause. 

Already, we have seen an ominous spike in anti-Semitic activities all across the country.  Even my alma mater, Hebrew Union College - the nation's largest and oldest rabbinic seminary - was spray-painted with anti-Semitic graffiti (a swastika) the other day.  "America First!" indeed . . .

If our new POTUS does indeed know what "America First!" means, it is a worrisome case where knowledge could turn out to be far, far more dangerous than ignorance.

And that, my friends, is not an "alternative fact."

3 days down, 1,457 to go . . .

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone

Lunacy: the New Normal . . . and What Together, We Can Hopefully Do About It

Forty-seven years ago this month, President Richard M. Nixon reached what at the time was considered the height (or depth) of deranged presidential optics: he actually ordered White House guards to be outfitted in uniforms better suited to Ruritanian romance than to Washington, D.C. While preparing for a visit from then-British P.M. Harold Wilson, the man known as "Tricky Dickey," thinking his White House uniformed guards looked “slovenly,” outfittedthem in their new imperial regalia, which was based either on the honor guards he had seen and been impressed by, in Europe . . . or else from watching Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man" too many times. Not surprisingly, the media relentlessly skewered Nixon's attempt to create a more magisterial look for his presidency. "They look like old-time movie ushers," said the Buffalo News. Chicago Tribune columnist (and Nixon friend) Walter Trohan (1903-2003) wrote that the uniforms belonged onstage, calling them “frank borrowing from decadent European monarchies, which is abhorrent to this country’s democratic tradition.” The press and public spoke, and Nixon responded; the uniforms were quickly put into storage.  And for the past 40 years, the uniforms have been worn by members of the Southern Utah State marching band . . . who beat out rock icon Alice Cooper, who wanted five of the tunics for members of his band.  Unquestionably, Nixon was a deeply flawed, likely paranoid man. Nonetheless, he was a professional politician meaning, among other things, that he did pay heed to mainstream media.

Compare this to Donald Trump who, this coming Friday, will become this nation's 45th President.  Trump, unlike every POTUS from Washington to Obama, is a man without experience in any form of public service. Unlike Washington, Jackson, Grant or Eisenhower (to name the most obvious), he has never been a military leader.  Unlike either Roosevelt, Hayes, Cleveland, Wilson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton or George W. Bush, he has never been a governor.  Unlike Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Buchanan,  and Hoover, he has been neither a diplomat nor a cabinet secretary. And unlike Garfield, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Obama, has never served in Congress.  (This list is by no means exhaustive.)  And unlike virtually any of his 43 predecessors (Cleveland served 2 nonconsecutive terms), his skin is thinner than a Chinese condom; the man simply cannot and will not permit even a single word of criticism to cross his path without taking immediate - and harsh - retaliation.  Never having participated in politics - save making campaign contributions and getting himself elected POTUS by about a quarter of the eligible voting public - he has no understanding of the "rules" or deportment of governance.  And, as a man who has spent virtually his entire professional life sitting atop the financial food chain, he has littleknowledge - and even less concern - about how to work with others and is definitely not on a first-name basis with the truth.

As a result of all this - as well as many of his cabinet picks, his tendency to see conspiracies lurking around every corner, his incessant, puerile tweets, and his inability to stop campaigning and start acting like the POTUS - there are millions upon millions of people who are scared, depressed and terminally fearful about the future of American democracy - and how America is going to be presented to the rest of the world. Many are loathe to give voice to these fears and frustrations with friends and neighbors, lest they discover that the people they are venting to are rabid "Trumpeters."  And do keep in mind that it isn't just Donald Trump we're speaking about; he is but a symptom of a truly lethal assault on both civil and political reality.  He is the face of the new normal; that which is spelled either L-U-N-A-C-Y or D-E-R-A-N-G-E-M-E-N-T.

The question is: what in the hell can we do about this new normal?  Wait until the next election and hope things turn out differently?  Pray that President Trump will be arrested, impeached or be revealed as a Russian plant or that he and his billionaires will be found guilty of lining their already poshly-lined pockets at the public expense? And while indeed, hoping and praying can and do play a role in alleviating fear and depression, a far, far stronger protocol will be required.  To wit, taking a page from (gasp!) the Tea Party and organizing ourselves into a resistance.  It goes without saying that this resistance is absolutely essential, and to be successful, must include Democratic and even a handful of Republican politicians in Congress and the various state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and school boards, as well as members of the media (both "infotainers"  and the real deal) and the rank-and-file.  But unlike the Tea Party resistance, ours will be as multifaceted, multi-ethnic and diverse as the many faces of America.

  • For elected officials of every stripe, this resistance will require the courage to do what is best for the entire nation, not for a small fraction of the nation.  When Democrats can make common cause with Republicans, they should unquestionable do so.  In all other cases, they must stand tall and firm, and make their actions and disagreements plainly understood. Don't worry about being labeled "obstructionists," "dividers" or a hundred-and-one other idiotic epithets. You know it's coming; being forewarned is being forearmed.
  •  The media has a critical role to play in this resistance.  It must report the news as dispassionately, truthfully and courageously as possible.  This means acting as a collective "truth squad," holding everyone's feet to the fire and making clear - via video and/or vocal captures - when today's actions and pronouncements differ from that which was said, done or promised yesterday, last month or during the last election.  And yes, if you will do this, be prepared to be accused - even by some of your so-called "colleagues" - of being biased, false, or untruthful.  Sure, there will be those who buy into their egregious mischaracterizations . . .  but know that they constitute - at best - a minority of the American public.  And if you find yourselves being shouted down, blasphemed or belittled by the 45th POTUS, it is everyone's responsibility to report that highly unpresidential action.
  • Citizens can and must play the most important role in this resistance - at the grassroots level.  (And here I give a shout-out to both MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and my good friend Alan Ehrlich - the most active political activist I have ever known - for bringing what follows to my attention.  I urge you to watch the YouTube capture below; it will make the final part of this essay even more understandable.)

By all means, log on and find that the grassroots resistance to Donald Trump and his vision for America is already growing by leaps and bounds: it is called Indivisible. This is a group started by current and former Congressional and presidential staffers who want to stem the tide of Trumpism - not by making America "great again," but rather making America "even greater than she already is."  When you log on, hit the link Local Groups and then put in your zip code; you will be amazed at how many resistance groups there already are in your neck of the woods.  Within my zip code, I discovered more than a dozen groups including Speak Out South Florida, Florida Indivisible Congressional District 22, Indivisible Order and Rise Up-Broward and Palm Beach. Most of these groups already have Facebook pages which give information about upcoming events and meetings; all include phone numbers and email addresses.  For those who are worried, concerned, and no longer able to watch or listen to the news, do yourself a favor and log on.  We are not alone; there are already hundreds of thousands of people from coast-to-coast who are hard at work energizing a vast population of people who simply will not settle for lunacy or derangement becoming the new normal.

What America needs more than ever is a powerful, progressive, nation-wide grassroots movement.

It's beginning to feel like the sixties all over again . . .

Copyright© 2017 Kurt F. Stone

What Have We Learned So Far?

For the record:

It's been 62 days since Donald Trump was declared victor in last year's presidential election;

Mr.Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th POTUS in a mere 11 days;

The 2018 mid-term elections are a mere 646 days away, and

The next presidential inauguration will take place in precisely 1,392 days.

From my perspective, the most important thing we've learned over the past 62 days is that November 13, 2018 (the date of the next mid-term election) and January 20, 2021 (hopefully, Donald Trump's last day in office) cannot get here fast enough. For the past 62 days have revealed enough about what we're likely in store for over the next 646 and 1,392 days to turn the sober-sided into lushes and the reasonably optimistic into hardcore prophets of doom. Over the past 62 days we have learned quite a bit; to wit that:

 

  • Mr. Trump's Cabinet will be filled to overflowing with billionaires and multi-millionaires, many of whom are on record as either being in favor of abolishing the departments they are supposed to lead, or holding positions which are antithetical to the programs and people they are supposed to be protecting.  Where Dwight Eisenhower's first Cabinet was derisively referred to as "8 millionaires and a plumber," Mr. Trump's - a majority of whom have never spent a single day in public service - might well be called "14 barons and a brain surgeon."
  • Speaking of filling the various Cabinet posts, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said this morning that he expects the confirmation process to continue on schedule - despite the fact that most of President-elect Trump's nominees have not turned in their financial disclosure forms and have yet to be vetted by the Office of Government Ethics. Back in 2009, the same Mitch McConnell demanded that then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) not even schedule hearings on President Obama's Cabinet picks until such time as they had completed all their financial disclosure forms.  Unlike the majority of Barack Obama's nominees, most of Donald Trump's have vast international holdings and potential corporate conflicts which must be thoroughly investigated.
  • Senator McConnell has notified Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the new Minority Leader that "the American people will not simply not tolerate Democrats blocking President Trump's Supreme Court nominee."  In making this assertion, Senator McConnell seems to be suffering from amnesia - or else relying on the collective amnesia of Donald Trump's most ardent supporters. (Those who pay attention to political news recognize that McConnell's remarks come after nearly 10 months of Senate Republican opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, the federal appeals court judge nominated by President Obama in March 2016. Senate Republicans have refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland's nomination, arguing that the opening should be filled by the next president.)
  • We have learned that our President-elect has wafted, wavered, wobbled and waffled  on many of his campaign promises.  From promising to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, he now says that "once that wall is up and standing," he will get Mexico to pay for it.  Conservative members of Congress are far from sanguine with this new game plan, which will add anywhere between $12 and $38 billion to the national debt. From promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") "on day one," Mr. Trump now says he will "certainly keep various good aspects" of the plan.  Meanwhile, his Congressional "allies" are quickly learning how fraught with legislative and political costs  "repealing and replacing" is going to be.  They are beginning to hear the loud and menacing footsteps of the nation's insurance companies, who do not want to see the program uprooted.
  • The nation is becoming affrighted at the thought that our Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief's idea of foreign policy is limited to 140-keystroke tweets.  Mr. Trump's response to what likely will be his first international crisis - North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's announcement that his country was about to launch its first ICBM - consisted of two taunting tweet's - one directed at China, the other to North Korea:

 

  • During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump made a ton of outrageous claims: that he was smarter than any American general when it came to defeating and dismembering Isis; that he wanted NATO members to "pay their fair share" or else suffer the consequences; that he would encourage other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Japan to obtain nuclear weapons; offered full-throated support for BRIXIT (which when first asked about it, had not the slightest idea what it meant); and continually praised Vladimir Putin as a decisive leader . . . dictators tend to be precisely that.  Now we learn that in a break with longstanding tradition, the President-elect is ordering all politically appointed U.S. Ambassadors all over the world to vacate their posts and return home no later than January 20 - Inauguration Day.  As The Daily Kos' David Nir has noted, this is an incredibly dangerous - not to mention doltish - move: ". . . the consequences are plenty. For starters, it means that America won’t have diplomats in place in many countries by the time Trump is sworn in. That's a situation that would endure for months, since the Senate has to actually confirm each new ambassador, one by one. It's also liable to frighten our allies and embolden our not-so-allies, though if anything, that’s probably to Trump's liking." (It should be noted that at the same time Mr. Trump is ordering all these diplomats home, he, his wife and youngest son Barron, will be remaining in NYC because the incoming POTUS " . . . does not want to pull him out of school during the middle of the year." If only he showed the same concern and understanding for the many American diplomats who likewise have children attending school).
  • We have learned anew something we always knew: that Donald Trump has skin as thin as filo dough.  He has virtually no problem bad-mouthing those who have the temerity to criticize (or even critique) him, but then expects these same people to turn around and work with him.  Just the other day, the President-elect referred to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer as the Democrat's "head clown."  Senator Schumer - who never would have climbed to the top of the "greasy pole" without a rhinoceros-thick skin, responded "this is not a time for calling names."  One wonders whether Mr. Trump understands that should he wish to get anything done in Congress, he will need to get the assistance of many men and women he has disparaged, denigrated and called nasty names.  Lots of luck! (Imagine Casey Stengel publicly referring to Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford as "drunks," Yogi Berra as "an uneducated idiot" and Billy Martin as "a psychopath," and then expecting them to play their hearts out for their manager!)
  • We have learned that Mr. Trump relishes taking credit for "successes" which are not truly his (such as "forcing" Ford, Carrier, and Sprint to keep jobs in the U.S., while getting the House Republican Caucus to reverse itself on eliminating the Office of Congressional Ethics).  If his words, threats and tweets are so all-fire powerful, perhaps he should also take credit for Macy's decision to close 68 stores and eliminate better than 10,000 jobs. After all, wasn't it Mr. Trump who urged the public to boycottthe 158-year old department store after they had the temerity to drop his signature line of clothing?
  • Lastly, we have learned that Mr. Trump has no problem burying the 17 diverse agencies of America's massive intelligence community under a tidal wave of noxious verbal sewage.  This does not bode well . . . at all . . . because the tens of thousands of spies, agents and assets employed by these 17 interlocking agencies are not only among the best on the planet; they put their lives on the line every day of the year in order to keep America as safe as possible.  And while it is true that they are not always correct (witness Iraq and WMDs), where would we be without them?  In refusing to accept their all but universal conclusion that Russian (read: Putin) unquestionably engaged in cyber hacking during the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump has put the entire intelligence community on notice that he trusts Putin more than the CIA, NSA, ISC, CGI, OIC, OIA, BIR, OTFI, NGIA, NRO et al. (Question to Mr. Trump: can you identify all these agencies and what role they play in the American intelligence community?) This has got to be dispiriting to the max for our spies.

Indeed, we have learned one hell of a lot during the past 62 days.  And it is neither pretty nor particularly confidence building.  For those who are worried, affrighted, dyspeptic or just plain scared to death about what is about to happen beginning on January 20, next week's essay may be a bit of a tonic.  It is tentatively entitled 

Lunacy: the New Normality . . . and What Together, We Can Hopefully Do About It

Until then, breathe deeply, take a walk, go to the gym, have a cuppa tea and a few biscuits, and remember this: although fertilizer smells awfully foul, it can, if used carefully and with knowledge, act as a first-class fuel to make wondrous things grow.

1,392 days and counting . . .

Copyright©2017 Kurt F. Stone  

Not Even Siri Knows

West Hills, CA. First things first. This past Friday, the U.N. Security Council by a vote of 14-0, passed a stinging resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction as lacking any legal validity. Where over the past 70 years the United States could reliably be counted on to exercise its Security Council veto authority whenever any such blatantly anti-Israel measure was on the table, this time, our U.N. Ambassador, Samantha Powers, abstained. Needless to say, this radical turn of events sent shockwaves around the world.  That President Obama should order Ambassador Powers to abstain is both historic and deeply troubling.  For as long as anyone can recall, the United States has acted as both Israel's BFF and partisan guarantor of last resort.  And even if one does not favor Israel's continued settlement program (I am among this group), this latest turn of events is monumental.  Monumentally bad?  Monumentally good?  Not even Siri knows . . .

With Friday's abstention, President Obama has done the heretofore unthinkable, thereby giving "aid and comfort" to Israel's international enemies, while at the same time  putting diabolic "We-told-you-he's-an-Israel-hating-closeted-Muslim-anti-Semite" leers on the faces of his most ardent detractors here at home.  By sitting idly by and permitting the Security Council to finally pass the resolution it's always dreamed of,  Barack Obama has essentially turned the soon-to-be inaugurated Donald Trump into Israel's vaunted political savior.  Indeed, upon hearing of the abstention, Trump warned the U.N. (and promised Israeli P.M. Bibi Netanyahu) "When I become President, things are going to be different."

Predictably, the president is facing widespread condemnation from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, and placed a noxious pall over his last month in the White House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the abstention "a failure of leadership and judgment," and pledged to work with the incoming administration to reassure Israel of America's continuing commitment to its security.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the vote "frustrating, disappointing and confounding." Across the country, leaders of most mainstream Jewish organizations have condemned the vote. A statement released by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations stated, in part: "There is no justification or explanation that validates the United States failure to veto the one-sided, offensive resolution adopted by the Security Council today. The United States vote will be seen as a betrayal of the fundamentals of the special relationship that will nevertheless continue to mark the close ties between the peoples of the two countries.” 

In Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to exact a “diplomatic and economic price” from countries who acted against Israel. (Whatever this means is unclear; as Rachel Maddow would say, "Watch this space.") The Israeli P.M. also announced that he would halt his country's contributions to several U.N. institutions (amounting to somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.8 million) and said he would work closely with incoming President Trump to rescind the U.N.'s resolution.

On the surface, the response to Obama's historic abstention and the U.N. resolution that abstention made possible has, for the most part, been fairly predictable. Without question, it poses vexing and unknowable difficulties for both the United States and Israel. The Jewish State now finds itself more isolated than ever; not exactly the kind of Chanukah miracle any sane person was hoping for.  But somewhere beneath the surface, where the chess match called politics resides, there lurks a specter haunting Mr. Netanyahu.  While it is far too early to know whether or not this action will forever taint Mr. Obama's political reputation, Mr. Netanyahu is already facing political high heat which threatens him from all sides. 

For years, the conservative Israeli P.M. has been engaged in a strange, somewhat duplicitous strategy where in a sense, he has been playing on both sides of the same political chess board.   For years, he has been competing domestically with his right-wing rivals in backing the settlement project all over the occupied West Bank while at the same time publicly professing support for a two-state solution with the Palestinians.  This attempt to be all things to all people has of late begun to wear pretty thin.  And now, with the Security Council having gone on record as finding these settlements both illegal and an impediment to any future negotiated settlement, Israeli politicians and analysts on the right, center and left are beginning to lick their chops, sensing that Bibi is about to lose the match . . . to himself. 

In Hebrew one might give him the following advice: הגיע הזמן לחרבן או רד מן הסיר - namely, "The time has come to sh*t or get off the pot."

This isn't going to be easy for the heretofore politically adroit Prime Minister. Those on Netanyahu's political right, feeling their oats because of the impending Trump administration and his putative Ambassador-in-waiting, David Friedman, are pushing their P.M. to abandon the idea of a Palestinian State - long considered the only viable solution to the conflict.  Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settlement Jewish Home party is goading Mr. Netanyahu to adopt even more extreme positions, like annexing parts of the West Bank, which would be politically disastrous. The Prime Minister has also spoken out in favor of the so-called "Regulation Bill," which, unbelievably, would retroactively legalize settler outposts and homes built on privately owned Palestinian land and force the owners to accept compensation.  And yet, at the same time, Mr. Netanyahu has warned that the bill he supports contravenes international law and "could land Israeli officials in the defendant dock of the International Criminal Court in The Hague."   

Former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, leader of the political center-left Zionist Union, while seeing the Security Council vote as being bad for Israel, nonetheless declared the other day that it is " . . . the result of Netanyahu's surrender to the extreme right." And yet, at the same time, Netanyahu still declares himself to favor a two-state solution.  As stated above, his political game plan is beginning to wear thin . . .

As much as one (myself included) may deride President Obama for failing to veto this latest anti-Israel U.N. resolution. it is nonetheless important to remember that the United States has over the past eight years provided the Jewish State with more financial aid and weaponry than at any time in the past.  While it is undoubtedly true that the optics of the current impasse are far from satisfactory, actions will always continue to speak louder than words . . . or abstentions.

Whatever is going to be in store for Israel will have a lot to do with America's next president, his administration and the political future of Bibi Netanyahu.  In the game of political chess, it is always best to know as much about one's opponent as possible and then make him or her play your game.  But when that opponent is one's own self, all bets are off.

Clearly, we're headed where no one has gone before . . . again.

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Donald Trump, David Friedman and the Predictability of Unpredictability

From almost the first day he tossed his hat into the presidential ring, Donald Trump made it clear that he was going to be unpredictable about . . . well, just about everything. Indeed, as far back as October 2015, Mr. Trump told Fox News' Chris Wallace - in answer to a question about his plans for dealing with the federal debt - "I want to be unpredictable, because, you know, we need unpredictability.  Everything is so predictable with our country."  In January of this year, Fox infotainer Bill O'Reillyasked Trump “If you’re elected president, and you don’t like the [Iranian nuclear] deal, are you gonna bomb their nuclear facilities?” to which the then-front runner responded “Bill, I’m gonna do what’s right . . . I want to be unpredictable.”  

This past March, when asked by the New York Times' David Sager whether he would rule out going to war with China in order to show the country he's serious about trade negotiations, he responded "There' a question I wouldn't want to answer. . . . That's the problem with our country.  A politician would say 'Oh, I'd never go to war," or they'd say 'Oh, I would go to war.' I don't want to say what I'd do, because we need unpredictability." Then in August of this year, Trump told "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson "I want to be unpredictable when it comes to nuclear weapons." In other words, Mr. Trump sees a virtue in being unpredictable.  What he doesn't seem to understand is that over a period of time, incessant unpredictability becomes predictable.

And then there's hiscabinet nominees,  which have represented the height of unpredictability. Indeed, the one thing most seem to have in common (besidesbeing filthy rich and possessing an all but total lack of government, foreign policy or diplomatic experience) is a deep-seated desire to do away with the very departments they have been nominated to lead.

At what point does moronic unpredictability morph into utter predictability?

Perhaps that point comes when Mr. Trump nominates a man like David Friedman to be our next Ambassador to the State of Israel. For in Mr. Friedman's case, the President-elect has nominated a man who represents the bipolar opposite of what Mr. Trump claimed would be his approach to the Jewish State and conflict in the Middle East.  During the campaign, Donald Trump famously said that he was inclined to "remain neutral" on the issue of Israel and Palestine.  As late as this past August, his campaign website contained the following language:

“It’s probably the hardest negotiation there is – great negotiators have tried and they failed. It’s just so deep-seeded – the hatred, the level of distrust – but I’m going to give it an awfully good shot. I want to remain as neutral as possible because, if you’re not somewhat neutral, the other side is never going to do it. But just remember, Israel, I love you. We’re going to see if we can get something done. It has to be done for both sides. It cannot continue to be the way it is.” 

This is certainly no longer the case; the unpredictable has once again become predictable. David Friedman serves as a stellar example . . .

For the past many years, the Orthodox Mr. Friedman has served as Donald Trump's bankruptcy attorney.  He is the fellow who filed some of Mr. Trump's most newsworthy bankruptcies, including those of 2004 and 2009, in which "Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts" returned investors a mere 10¢ on the dollar while reaping Mr. Friedman's client such a massive loss that he wouldn't have to pay a dime in federal income tax for more than a decade.  That a man with such a résumé should land such a crucial ambassadorial post is far from predictable. But that very unpredictability is fast becoming predictable; it is in the President-elect's very DNA.

The 58-year old Friedman, a graduate of Columbia University and NYU Law School, grew up in Woodmere, Long Island, where his father, the late Morris Friedman, was rabbi of Temple Hillel in North Woodmere, and served a stint as president of the New York Board of Rabbis.  For many years, David Friedman has headed up the creditors’ rights and bankruptcy practice group at the New York law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP. But far more crucial to this piece, David Friedman has long been positioned on the far right of the Israeli political map.  In matter of plain fact, he is more hard-line in his views than Israeli P.M. Benyamin Netanyahu. Friedman serves as president of American Friends of Beit El Institutions, which financially supports the settlement enterprise. He has long challenged the widespread view that Israeli settlement activity is illegal and opposes a ban on construction activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – particularly those places that would be part of a future agreement involving land swaps. Unlike every recent American president, every U.S. Ambassador to Israel and an overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community, David Friedman supports annexation of the West Bank and thinks a "single-state solution" would be workable because he believes there are "far fewer Palestinians than commonly estimated."

On the positive (and unpredictable) side of the equation, David Friedman also supports United Hatzalah, an Israeli emergency medical services group that prides itself on integrating Arab and Druze volunteers.  Moreover, he helped build a $42 million village for disabled children — Bedouin and Jewish — in the Negev Desert. 

In announcing this nomination, both Friedman and the Trump transition team made crystal clear that the new administration was going to be predictably unpredictable in its relations with Israel and the Muslim world.  Said Mr. Friedman, “I am deeply honored and humbled by the confidence placed in me by President-elect Trump to represent the United States as its Ambassador to Israel. I intend to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region, and look forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.” This last sentence is most notable, for the American Embassy has long been located in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. The embassy has not moved because the status of Jerusalem remains a disputed element in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should be noted that promising to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and then going back on the promise has a long history.  A 1995 law even mandated it, but every president since it was passed has repeatedly waived that requirement (without that waiver, authored by then Senator Bob Dole, the bill never would have passed).  In announcing that he would be working out of Jerusalem rather than Tel Aviv, Friedman and the Trump administration were making it clear that the American rule book is about to be rewritten; all bets are off the table. Out goes the two-state solution; in comes the one-state solution.  Then too, with Mr. Trump's telephone chat with the Taiwanese President, out goes America's long-standing one-China policy, to be replaced with god knows what.

Now, as mentioned above, a strong majority of American Jews disagree with Friedman's positions vis-à-vis Israel.  And how has Friedman responded to the vastly more moderate views of this community?  By likening them/us to "kapos" - Jews who cooperated with the Nazis?  I don't know about you, but this offends me to the quick.  Who in the hell is David Friedman to accuse me - or anyone else - of being less Jewish, less committed, less fervent - then anyone else in the Jewish community just because we don't look at the world through the same eyes? To claim we are no better than kapos; that we represent a greater threat to America and Israel than ISIS, shows how unqualified you are to be a diplomat. It also smacks of the same kind of intolerant self-righteous bilge which suffuses the Taliban . . . minus the landmines and suicide bombers.

 Remember this well Mr. Friedman: the majority of American Jews want nothing to do with an administration which has a known anti-Semite like Stephen Bannon sitting at the president's right hand. We want even less to do with a President who has set himself on a path which caters to the whims and wishes of an ideologically obdurate commingling of ultra-orthodox Jews, Dominionist Christians and conspiratorial Islamophobes.

During the campaign, Mr. Friedman, you frequently responded to charges of anti-Semitism among Trump supporters by dismissing the allegations, insisting that hatred of Jews is far more prevalent among the Left.  Although I do understand how you come to this conclusion, it is still shund, chara, basura, crappola.

Your nomination is the unpredictable become manifestly predictable. 

Let's make a deal Mr. Friedman: if you won't consider me a Nazi collaborator, I won't think of you as being an American Taliban.

 

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone 

"I" Strain

On April 29, 1962, President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy hosted a banquet honoring Nobel Laureates at the White House.  Forty-nine laureates - or their representatives - attended. The guests included writer Pearl S. Buck, poet Robert Frost, physicist Rudolph Mossbauer (who became a Nobel Laureate at age 32), Mrs. Ernest Hemingway, Mrs. George C. Marshall and Dr. Linus Pauling, the only person ever awarded two Nobel Prizes. . . and in different fields (Chemistry in 1952 and Peace in 1962).  (The photo shows President Kennedy chatting with Peal Buck, and Mrs. Kennedy with Robert Frost.)

In toasting this august gathering, JFK famously said: “I think this is the most extraordinary talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”  Some believe that Kennedy's statement was extemporaneous.  But what followed - and is far less famous - was definitely scripted.  For he continued, "Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet. Whatever he may have lacked, if he could have had his former colleague, Mr. Franklin, here we all would have been impressed." 

This lavish banquet - and Kennedy's rhetorical gem - came to mind as I began doingpreliminary research and source checking for this piece, "I" Strain.  It got me to thinking about some of the brilliant and immeasurably accomplished men who have served as POTUS: from Lincoln who gave perhaps the most important speech of the past 500 years, to Theodore Roosevelt who was as much a polymath as Jefferson; and from Herbert Hoover who, despite being a failure as president, was nonetheless one of the greatest, most selfless humanitarians in all American history, to FDR, who shed a blue-blood's bespoke tailoring and became a true friend of the working class.

And now we have Donald Trump, who unlike the vast majority of his 44 predecessors, lacks what the Russian writer Dostoevsky once termed "moral dignity" (Crime and Punishment, part one, chapter 4). Defining precisely what Dostoevsky meant by this Kantian term is difficult, but one senses he was referring to mutual respect, as well as the ability to govern one's passions while tempering one's innate prejudices.  If myunderstanding of what Dostoevsky had in mind isn't too far off the mark,  then it is reasonable to say that Mr. Trump does indeed lack "moral dignity." 

Now, much has been made of Mr. Trump's overwhelming sense of entitlement, his narcissism and apparent disregard - if not outright disdain - for facts, knowledge and what until recently decent folks called "the truth." Of course, for a lie (which Mr. Trump tells plenty of) to become accepted as the truth (which is happening more and more these days), it requires a community of - shall we put it diplomatically - the informationally challenged.  To a great extent, these are the kind of people who make up Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters . . . not nearly as many as he claims, or the rest of us fear. Whatever and whenever he Tweets a message - regardless of how outrageous it may be - it captures and shapes the news cycle.

When he was asked the other day  what he thought about President Obama's call for a full-scale investigation of nefarious Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump dismissed it with a wave of the hand, calling the assessment "ridiculous," positing that it was nothing more than a stratagemcreated by angry Democrats to rationalize their electoral loss. Facts, figures and tabulations to the contrary, Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he won a "landslide" victory of "epic proportions."  This, of course, is simply not true; Donald Trump won about as many electoral votes (306) as Harry Truman did in the historic race of 1948 (HST won 304). Truman, it should be noted, won the popular vote by 4.5% (about 2.2 million votes), while Trump has the distinction of being one of the very few presidents who won the Electoral College while actually losing the popular vote. (The latest figures have Secretary Clinton receiving 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.)  And yet, despite all this, he continues crowing about an overwhelming victory; something his most ardent admirers and supporters believe with every fiber of their misinformed beings.  Truth to tell, one cannot even say that Donald Trump received 100% of the votes from people who voted for him; many voted not for Donald Trump but, rather, cast votes against Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Trump's lack of moral dignity, coupled with his overwhelming narcissism, has all but guaranteed that we will have the most "I" strained president in all American history.  That is to say, a president who claims to know better than anyone else about . . . well, about nearly everything.  What follows is a partial list, based upon Mr. Trump's public statements about the things he claims to know:

  1. "I understand the tax laws better than almost anyone, which is why I'm the one who can truly fix them."
  2. "I know more about renewables than any human being on earth."
  3. "Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt."
  4. "I am a person that used to be establishment when I'd give them hundreds of thousands of dollars. But when I decided to run, I became very anti-establishment, because I understand the system better than anybody else."
  5. "Nobody knows more about trade than me."
  6. "Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."
  7. "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
  8. "There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me (sic)."
  9. "Nobody knows the (Visa) system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me."
  10. "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am (sic)."
  11. "Nobody reads the Bible more than me."
  12. "I alone can fix it."

Already, Trump's "I" strain is beginning to show; his monomania is wearing thin:

  • If he is truly on the side of working people then why, oh why has he nominated Andrew Puzder, chief executive of the company that franchises Hardees and Carl's, Jr. to be his Secretary of Labor?  Puzder is an outspoken critic of the worker protections enacted by the Obama Administration, is against raising the minimum wage, and believes that robots make better fast-food workers than human beings.
  • If Trump really believed - as he repeatedly said during the campaign - that Hillary Clinton was far too close to Wall Street (especially Goldman Sachs), why, oh why has he tapped current or former Goldman executives Steve Bannon (Chief Political Advisor), Gary Cohn (Director, National Economic Council) and Steve Mnuchin (Sec. of Treasury) to be high-ranking members of his administration?
  • If Donald Trump is so much smarter than the generals and promises to get rid of the lion's share of them within his first hundred days, then why, oh why has he nominated so many of them?  Why has he ripped through the traditional veil which keeps the U.S. military in civilian hands?  
  • And while we're at it, what in the world does the World Wide Wrestling Federation's Linda McMahon know about running the Small Business Administration, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt know about the Environmental Protection Agency (except that he wants to get rid of it) or Jim O'Neil, a non physician/scientist who favors doing away with rules requiring drugs to be safely approved before people can take them, to head the Food and Drug Administration? 

This is insanity, to say the least.

But then again, one who is in the throes of "I" strain, is incapable of believing thathe or she can ever do anything wrong.

Perhaps someday a future POTUS will invite 80 or 90 world-class egomaniacs to the White House for a banquet. And perhaps that president - whoever he or she may be - will offer the following toast: "Here's to the greatest collection of ego-driven narcissists ever assembled under this roof . . . with the possible exception of when Donald Trump dined alone . . ."

 Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Better Get Used to It Mr. Trump

Last week's essay, Amateur Hour, generated quite a few comments and responses. Many were both positive and helpful; they tended to agree that President-elect Trump's early staff appointments and Cabinet nominations take one's breath away . . . and certainly not in a positive sense.  At the same time, a lot of the comments were - to put it mildly - cranky and laced with ad hominem attacks.  Most of these carried the same message: how dare I criticize our next POTUS  before he's even taken the oath of office?   "You're just a sore loser and can't stand it that now we have a real leader," one person wrote.   "Lay off; let the man do the job he was elected to do," another chimed. "He's already done more for the U.S. economy in his first couple of weeks as President-elect than your guy Obama did in 8 years," yet another chortled. This last comment was, of course, referring to Mr. Trump's recent announcement that he had convinced Carrier Air Conditioning to keep 1,000 jobs in the United States, rather than shipping them off to Mexico. We'll return to this below.

The past week has also seen our next POTUS announcing that he is nominating retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson to be his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, recently retired Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense and Seema Verma as Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This means that out of 652 key appointments the next POTUS must make, its' now 12 down, a mere 650 to go.

A word about Mr. Trump's three newest nominees:

  • Dr. Carson, brilliant neurosurgeon though he may have been, has virtually no experience in government or running an immense bureaucracy. He will oversee an agency with a $47 billion budget, bringing to the job a philosophical opposition to government programs that encourage what he calls “dependency” and engage in “social engineering.” "He has no expertise in housing policy, but he did spend part of his childhood in public housing," said a close friend, Armstrong Williams. Sorry, but a compelling life story cannot make up for a lack of experience.
  • General James N. "Mad Dog" Mattis, Trump's nominee for Sec. of Defense, is a 41-year veteran of the United States Marines.  "He's the closest thing we have to General Patton," Mr. Trump said the other day in announcing his nomination of the 66 year old combat veteran. Maybe yes, and maybe no. Although he was so hawkish on Iran as head of United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013 that the Obama administration cut short his tour, General Mattis has since said that tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement - as Mr. Trump has vowed to do - would hurt the United States. General Mattis now favors working closely with allies to strictly enforce the treaty.One possible stumbling block in the path of confirmation is a 1947 national security law that says a general must wait 10 years from leaving active duty before becoming defense secretary. (n.b. An exception was granted on a one-time basis for General George C. Marshall, with lawmakers saying in special legislation at the time that it was the “sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”)
  • Seema Verma, MPH, Mr. Trump's nominee for Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is described as "a conservative darling who has introduced work requirements and lockout periods for impoverished recipients into the medical safety net in three states." A close adviser to vice-president-elect Mike Pence, Ms. Verma made her bones devising Indiana’s Medicaid plan, one of the most punitive in the country. The unique requirements Vermadesigned for Indiana require that the destitute in that state have “skin in the game” by paying “premiums,” even if they were just $1. In Kentucky, her consultancy firm SVC Inc developed a plan to require the poor to perform “work activity," which could include unpaid community service, in order to receive health insurance.

Before we get to the issue of Carrier, it should be noted that Mr. Trump's recent telephone chat with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen represented a distinct break with American's longstanding "One China" policy.  Many opined that in speaking with the leader of a country with whom we have no formal diplomatic relations, Trump was revealing an appalling lack of knowledge or understanding.  "Not so," said his amen chorus; " . . . far from being a mistake or an affront to China, it was a long-planned, deliberate move . . . and a brilliant one at that."  Sorry, but I'm rather inclined to go along with the former, not the latter.  Remember, when the press first queried the Trump p.r. machine about the conversation, they were speechless, claiming they knew nothing about it. And, circling the wagons around his pontificator-in-chief, former Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore made crystal clear what he thought about the telephone call: "If China doesn't like it, screw 'em . . ." As Rachel Maddow would say, "Watch this space . . ."

Let's get back to the Carrier Air Conditioning situation. So far as the optics, all's great; the President elect managed to save upwards of 1,000 jobs from being shipped down to Mexico.  Kudos and mazal tov.  However, as with many things in politics, "optics" exist only on the surface; what lurks beneath is frequently hazy, cloudy or occasionally downright scum-ridden. Plunging beneath the surface, one discovers that Trump & Co. convinced Carrier to retain those 1,000 (some say 800) workers by first offering them $7 million in tax incentives. That was the carrot. Then came the stick: Trump and his economic team promised to wield an economic cudgel, promising to impose punishing tariffs on companies that move American jobs overseas. This drew the ire of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) who refused to endorse the plan.  Even Sarah Palin (!) was against the move, calling the Carrier deal "crony capitalism."  Then too, there is every reason to suspect that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies gave a thumbs-up to the proposal for the simple reason that U.T. a leading defense contractor benefits from billions of dollars in federal spending. It needs to maintain good relations with the incoming Trump administration. For the incoming POTUS to make such threats - either implicitly or explicitly - is both dangerous and counter to the very message he presented during his presidential campaign . . . remember all that malarkey about "draining the swamp?"

Does this mean that we can expect a President Trump to become personally involved every time a company seeks to outsource jobs? Besides being a textbook example of micro-managing - the worst thing a corporate executive . . . or POTUS - can do, it truly does smack of crony capitalism.  And for those who inanely proclaim that Donald Trump has already done more for peace and economic security in three weeks than President Obama has done in eight years, I have a suggestion: head for your local E.R. and take a saliva test.  For the fact is, during the past eight years, the Obama Administration has created upwards of 15 million jobs; as of this week, the unemployment figure is at a nine-year low of 4.6%; last week the Commerce Department boosted its estimate of 3rd quarter growth to a 3.2% annual rate . . . up from the previous estimate of 2.9%.  That's a mere .8% (eight-tenths-of-a-percent) less than the figure promised by Donald Trump during the campaign.  Mr. Trump should thank Barack Obama; he's left his successor a pretty healthy economy. 

Oh yes, there are plenty of people who have not benefited from job growth or are underemployed.  And, yes, there is tremendous job disparity associated with our slow recovery: jobs at the upper end - (mainly high tech) - and the lower end (mainly service and minimum-wage positions) have grown quite nicely; it's of course impossible to outsource fast-food servers, hotel maids and the like.  Jobs in the middle - largely manufacturing positions and so-called "repetitive motion jobs" have either been replaced by robots or exported to countries where workers are paid a fraction of what they would receive in the U.S.  Then too, an awful lot of the new jobs created in the last seven or eight years do not come with benefits . . . just ask any adjunct professor.  Which is to say that although far, far more people are employed in 2016 than in 2008, many are working for far less . . .

Now, when things go well via-à-vis jobs and the economy, the president takes a victory lap while the opposition proclaims the White House has nothing whatsoever to do with economic growth.  However, when the economy is on a downward trajectory, you had better believe that the story is precisely the opposite: the White House plays down its involvement in the doldrums while the opposition declares the administration in question to be guilty of historic ineptitude. That's just the nature of the game. 

Well, Mr. Trump, better get used to it. That's the way things work in Washington, D.C.  It's you who's going to be on the hot seat, receiving the catcalls and withering criticism you and the party you lead have so blithely handed out over the past eight years.  It's not going to be easy . . . or particularly comfortable. And for all you Trump fans out there who never found a single thing good or redeeming about Barack Obama, remember this: what goes around comes around.  But this time, what "comes around" is going to be based on fact, not fiction, and on matter, not myth.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Amateur Hour

It perhaps should come as no surprise that Orson Welles' Citizen Kane is Donald Trump's favorite movie of all time.  And for good reason: like Trump, Kane started life with a vast inheritance; like Kane, Trump has been oft-married and built a monument to himself - Xanadu for Kane and the eponymous Trump Tower for our PEOTUS.  And like Kane, Trump is an egomaniac; a man terribly cock-sure of himself.  Unlike Charles Foster Kane who could care less about what people said about him, Donald J. Trump has tissue-paper thin skin and is more than willing to get back at anyone and everyone who criticizes him.  Oddly, as much as Trump admires Citizen Kane, he has never thought much of the man who in his first movie, produced, directed, starred in, and shared a Best Original ScreenplayOscar for what a clear majority of film historians consider the best movie ever made

In a 2016 interview with IndieWire's Graham Winfrey,, Trump opined that: “He thought everybody was a moron . . . . He was like this great genius that after 26, never did it. He became totally impossible.” Winfrey noted of the interview "Perhaps ironically, some of Welles’ least admirable qualities are exactly what Trump says attracted him to the director. “If he had a budget he’d exceed it by 20 times and destroy everything,” Trump said. “He became impossible. I loved that.”

Of course, there are many dissimilarities between the two men, not the least of which being that Orson Welles was a genius, while Donald Trump is a one-trick pony; the former an egoist, the latter an egotist. (We'll get into the difference in just a while.)  Welles was the toast of both Broadway and radio when barely out of his teens; he produced directed and starred in a sparse, modern-dress version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (which he called, simply Caesar) by the time he was 22; it ran for anunbelievable 157 performances. At the same time, he was starring (although anonymously) as Lamont Cranston in the radio version of The Shadow.  In 1939, RKO studios signed the 24-year old Welles to what biographer Robert Carringer noted was ". . .generally considered the greatest contract offered to a filmmaker, much less to one who was untried. Engaging him to write, produce, direct and perform in two motion pictures, the contract subordinated the studio's financial interests to Welles's creative control, and broke all precedent by granting Welles the right of final cut." It goes without saying that the agreement was bitterly resented by the Hollywood studios and persistently mocked in the trade press. (The picture above is Welles on the day he signed his monumental contract with RKO.)

History records that at the end of Welles' initial tour of RKO, a reporter asked him what his impressions were.  Smiling the beguiling Welles smile, the youngster, in one of the most youthfully egoistical statements of all time said, "This is the greatest electric train set any boy ever had."  If Hollywood disliked the 24-year old wunderkind before that comment, they now despised him.  And yet, regardless of what they thought about him, Welles did manage to helm two of the industry's all-time best films: Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons.  Welles may not have known a whole heck of a lot about film when he first stepped onto the RKO lot, but was smart enough to surround himself with the very best behind-the-screen talent the industry had to offer: cinematographer Gregg Toland (likely the best who ever lived), screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz, editor Robert Wise, composer Bernard Herrmann, special effects director Vernon Walker and set designer Percy Ferguson.  Unquestionably, Welles was an egoist. And like all good egoists, he was no one's fool; he knew what he did not know, was a good listener, an eager student, and a wonderful collaborator. 

Which bring us to Donald Trump, who is an egotist with a capital "E." Where an egoist - like Welles -  might devote considerable attention to introspection, but be modest - even humorous - about it ("This is the greatest electric train set . . ."), an egotist - like Mr. Trump - has an excessive sense of self-importance, speaks mostly in the first person, and is typically both arrogant and boastful ("I alone can fix it . . ."). Where Welles surrounded himself with people who were thorough-going cinematic professionals - people who knew film from A-to-Z - Trump the egotist, in naming people to his White House staff and nominating people to his Cabinet, has shown that he, unlike Welles the egoist, prefers to surround himself with amateurs - with people who, for the most part, have either no experience in government or are ideologues bent on undoing the very departments they are supposed to lead:

  • Trump's chief White House strategist and senior counselor Steven K. Bannon has virtually no governmental experience.  He has over the years shown himself to be, among other things, a racist, a white nationalist, an anti-Semite and a misogynist.  Even right-wing radio talk show host Glenn Beck proclaimed Bannon "a nightmare" and once compared him to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.  Among Bannon's morerevealingly pungent quotes are: “Gay rights have made us dumber, it’s time to get back in the closet," “Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty,”  and “Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage.”
  • Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for Attorney General: In 1986, before Sessions became a senator himself, a Republican-controlled Senate rejected his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to a federal judgeship. SeveralUnited States attorneys testified that he had made racist comments, including calling an African-American lawyer “boy,” and that he had been hostile to civil rights cases.
  • Betsy DeVos, Trump's nominee for Sec. of Education: A billionaire (she's married to an Amway heir), Mrs. DeVos has no education degree or teaching experience, has never attended a public school or sent her children to one, and supports the funding of for-profit Christian schools over public ones. Furthermore, she supports the teaching of Creationism over Evolution (although this may not be high on her list of priorities).
  • United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley: Like Secretary-designate DeVos, Haley, the sitting Governor of South Carolina, was hardly what one would call a Trump supporter throughout most of the campaign.  Looking over her c.v., one is hard-pressed to find any foreign policy or diplomatic experience.  In naming her to this position - which does require Senate approval - Trump likely shows what he thinks about the U.N.
  • Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani: both prominently mentioned as possible nominees for Secretary of State, the former has marginally more experience in foreign policy; the latter has virtually none.  The difference between the two is obvious: Romney never supported Trump; Giuliani was an avid Trump supporter from day one.
  • Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross, Jr.: A former Democrat, Ross is a billionaire investor who specializes in leveraged buyouts and distressed businesses.  One of his many enterprises is the International Coal Group;  the United Mine Workers of America  protested the bankruptcy regulations that had allowed him to set up the International Coal Group free of labor unions, health care and pensions. In the 1980s, while working as senior managing director of Rothschild, Inc., Ross assisted and assured Donald Trump that he would be able to keep his failing casinos and rebuild his businesses. It has also been widely reported that the billionaire co-owner of the Chicago Cubs Todd Ricketts is in line for Deputy Commerce Secretary.  (Ricketts was originally finance chair for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's failed presidential bid.)

To be sure, there will be more names made public this week.  Precisely how many - or few - will have government experience is anybody's guess.  Of course, it is not uncommon for major political benefactors to be named to positions by an incoming administration.  Generally speaking however, the majority of these positions come in the form of ambassadorships, not cabinet posts.  During his campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he would "drain the swamp" that is Washington.  Well, it appears that he is keeping his promise, because he is refilling the "swamp" with billionaires who are likely as clueless as he is.  This does not bode well for either the Trump Administration or for the United States of America.  As things stand right now, Donald Trump's cabinet is on track to be the least experienced in modern - perhaps all - American history. 

Having a narcissistic egotist sitting atop the government is a daunting prospect to say the least.  Here's hoping that at some point the Republican-led Congress will acquire some steel in their collective spine and learn how to "just say no" to this collection of richer-than-Croesus amateurs. 

Perhaps in the end - or indeed, the beginning - there is one great reason by Donald Trump so admires Welles' Citizen Kane: he relates to that fictional character who said:

"There's only one person in the world who's going to decide what I'm going to do and that's me. . ."

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Perhaps It's Time to (re)Party . . .

From our earliest days, the American political system has been both burdened with and challenged by a dynamic tension.  Much of this tension was - and still is - between those who greatly prefer a strong central government and those who strongly contend that, with few exceptions, power should always reside within the individual states - that the closer power is to the people, the better it is. This tension was largely responsible for both the establishment of our bicameral legislature - in which all states have equal representation in the Senate but proportional representation in the House - and our idiosyncratic, rara avis Electoral College. 

In the beginning, it was the conservatives - the "Federalists" - who favored a strong central government, while the more liberal - who called themselves "Democratic Republicans" (also known as "Jeffersonian Republicans") - who greatly preferred decentralization of power and authority. Today, of course, it is mostly the opposite; conservatives favor decentralization ("States Rights") while liberals have a tendency to prefer a system in which power radiates from Washington ("Federalism").  Ironically, the modern "Federalist Society," while like their eponymous forebears are deeply conservative, are ideologically far closer to the original Jeffersonian Republicans who, as mentioned above, were in their day quite liberal.

Throughout history, old parties have morphed into new; names have changed, and various geographic sections and groups have changed allegiances. From time to time a new party will arise, elect a few people running under their banner and then disappear into the historic vapors.  "Know Nothings," (a largely-anti-immigrant party) "Socialist Labor," and the "America Labor Party" come to mind.  A merger between the "National Republicans" and the "Anti-Masons" in post-Jacksonian America resulted in the Whig Party, which supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency; within twenty years (and four presidents), they would be replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party. When my Southern grandparents were born in the late 19th century, their part of the country was firmly Democratic, while the North was largely a Republican ("Party of Lincoln") stronghold. That was then . . . 

When LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Medicare Act in 1965, the "solid south" began leaving the Democratic fold in droves, finding a new home in the party of Nixon, Reagan, Bush (I and II) and now Trump. Then too, for at least three generations, urban blue-collar workers and members of labor unions were joined at the hip with the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson et al.  As of 2016, many blue-collar workers are voting for Republicans, feeling that their former party has been taken over by coastal elitists who cannot - and do not - feel their fear, share their values, or understand their frustration. Some groups - Jews, recent immigrants and people of color - have remained largely in the Democratic column for at least a half century.  But if there is anything American political history teaches us, it is that nothing is forever; alliances and preferences can and do shift.  Sometimes the movement is evolutionary; sometimes it is revolutionary.  Uniquely, 2016 has been a combination of both.

Depending on where one sits, Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton was either a stunning or a chilling upset.  But regardless of the adjective - and I can come up with a couple of dozen others - it was a victory which caught virtually every pollster, pundit and politico (myself obviously included) by surprise. As with last week's essay, this one is certainly not meant to be a forensic autopsy; that's really not in my skill set.  What I do know is that both Donald Trump and Senator Sanders did a better job of tapping into the psyche of America than did Secretary Clinton.  Of course, their methods and manners were decidedly bi-polar: Trump, on the one hand, inflamed a substantial portion of the electorate by pushing buttons marked "fear," and "frustration" while blaming political insiders and migrant newcomers for making America unrecognizable, all the while making faces, calling people names and promising to "Make America Great Again." Nowhere, of course, did he mention what "again" meant; to what time, year or erahe was referring. The Reagan years?  The time of Ozzie and Harriet? The days of Jim Crow?

Senator Sanders, on the other hand, stayed both on message and above the fray, energizing a new emerging generation of twenty- and thirty-somethings wanting not a hand-out (as warned Mr. Trump), but a hand up.  Trump's abrasive boastfulness was as attractive to some as was Sanders' rumpled avuncularity to others. And yet, for all their differences, they both did manage to strike a resilient energizing chord.

I've spoken and corresponded with a lot of people from both sides of the political aisle since November 8th.  It goes without saying that most, if not all Democrats are stunned, depressed and fearful for the future of the country.  Few of the Republicans feel like dancing in the streets.  They are under no illusion that President-elect Trump is the real deal; in fact, most seem to sense that he is a one-trick pony - a blowhard who knows precious little and appears to be without curiosity.  About all they can say in a positive way is "At least he's not Hillary Clinton!"  In other words, few people are satisfied, let alone optimistic.  And, seeing who the President Elect has already named to his team - 5 while males, one of whom is an anti-Semitic misogynist, one an out-and-out racist, and one a war monger who still believes going into Iraq was the right thing to do - see this is giving the shakes to those who held their nose and voted for him.  Precisely how well - or poorly - Congressional Republicans will work with a Trump White House remains to be seen.  Many are looking at the calendar, hearing the tick, tick, tick of the political clock and worrying about their own political fate.

Among Democrats, there is already an understandable scramble underway to reshape the party in time for the 2018 midterm and 2020 presidential elections, which will take place in respectively, 685 and 1,419 days. In my opinion, there are several things Democrats must do in order to have a chance to save the country:

First, Democrats must get away from a politics that is based on groups or identity ("we need to get more Millennials; we a higher percentage of women; we must revive support among union members; we must hold on to the support of Jews, Hispanics and African Americans . . .") and get back the politics of message ("It's the economy stupid; we must save the planet; we will push even harder for universal healthcare; we will not go gentleinto that good night . . .").

Second, Democrats must broaden their approach and appeal to everyone - regardless of party or lack thereof - everyone who fears Trump's immature demagoguery and convince them that repairing a broken system requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.  It is my firm belief that a few months of living in Trumpland, of having this maniac be the face of America,  will make more and more people long for leaders who are measured, mature, classy and professional.

Third, and this is perhaps unthinkable to many, we should all consider the possibility of creating a new political party; not a third party, but a new second party - one which will encompass those who supported Bernie Sanders, those who respected and supported the maturity and accomplishments of Hillary Clinton, those who cannot abide Donald Trump and those who are fed up with leadership by conspiracy theory, fear, threats and a total disregard for decency.  Secretary Clinton was absolutely correct when she said "We are stronger together."  Expanding our understanding of who the political "we" is may be the answer.

I know it's both heretical and unthinkable, but seriously consider this: perhaps the time has come to (re) party. It wouldn't be the first time.

What do you think?

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone