Category Archives: Politics

On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 2

*   *   *   *

Okay, it wasn’t quite as bad – crossing that “swinging bridge” the first day on the Chilkoot Trail – as it was for Indiana Jones in the photo above.  (For example, we hadn’t been “cornered by Mola Ram and his henchmen on a rope bridge high above a crocodile-infested river.”)

But that second day on the Trail was pretty &^%$ bad…  In case you hadn’t noticed, this continues Part 1 of “On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail!”  We left Part 1 with we three – brother, nephew and I – all having made Sheep Camp by 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the hike.

13 miles or so – nobody seems sure how many – by 7:30 p.m…  That included crossing the swaying footbridge … à la Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

(Reprised in the photo above right.)  Part 1 also included the tale of a “young thing” I managed to insult on the second day of the hike – approaching the summit of Chilkoot Pass – and how most or all us hikers met up again – on the fourth day – waiting for the 3:15 train back to Skagway.

But I had to cut it short – and make this a two-parter – because I was “approaching the limit of the ideal length for a blog-post.”  (About 1,200 words.)  So now, back to Day 1 of the hike.

On Monday August 1, we left the trailhead – near “Die-eee” – at 9:00 a.m.  We made Sheep Camp by 7:30 that night, and after getting situated I managed to write a little something in the notebook I’d packed.  I wrote:  “I’m shivering as I’m writing.  I’ve been sweating all day despite the cool 68-degree temps.  And now it’s turning cool, so I’m shivering.”  I then added:

There were many times – many times – today when I wondered what the hell I was doing here.  And that this was just too far to go in one day.  And I like hiking at my own pace.  Rather than always bringing up the rear…  So today was the tough one, as far as miles traveled.  “Only” eight miles, but we’ll be climbing the Pass [tomorrow].  BTW:  I just had my fifth swallow of “O be joyful.”

So here’s another side note:  “O Be Joyful” was our code-word for ardent spirits.  We started packing them – in past canoe trips, like down the Missouri River from Fort Benton, MT – as a way of following in the footsteps of Lewis and Clark, and other American pioneers.

You see, back in the old days of our country, whiskey – for example – was used instead of hard currency:

One of the first media of exchange in the United States was classic whiskey.  For men and women of the day, the alcohol did more than put “song in their hearts and laughter on their lips.”  Whiskey was currency.  Most forms of money were extremely scarce in our country after the Revolutionary War, making monetary innovation the key to success.

See Why Whiskey Was Money, and Bitcoins Might Be.  So it was in that spirit – primarily – that I took a flask of “O be joyful” along on the Chilkoot.  Be that as it may, after I wrote, “I just had my fifth swallow of ‘Oh be joyful,’” I then added, “Which helps a lot.”

(I wasn’t so sure about the “song in my heart and laughter on my lips…”)

Also on the evening of August 1st, I wrote that the campground was more crowded than I expected.  And that in the audience – listening to a lecture by a ranger when we arrived – there were some cute women, but “romance is the last thing on my mind tonight.”

(Which itself was telling…)  I concluded,Altogether a good day.  I had my doubts, which were justified in a way, but ‘we’ came through.  Albeit with me bringing up the rear the whole day.”

On that note, I “brought up the rear” the next day as well, and for pretty much the rest of the hike.

Which brings up the fact that hiking the Chilkoot Trail is sheer torture for someone – like me – with only one good eye and and thus no depth perception.*  And that applied even on the relatively smooth parts of the trail, like the section shown at right.

Also – as mentioned in the notes – anyone hiking the trail is advised that if they have to get airlifted out, the cost will be a cool $28,000.00.  Which brings up another point rangers make in the process of getting your permit to hike the trail:  Watch out for the bears!

For one thing, the general rule is “no chow in your tent.”  Each camp has a tented-in dining facility,* and there – and only there – are you supposed to eat.  Eating on the trail can be messy, and the usual solution for crumbs or spills is to wipe the stuff off on your pants.  But bears have an extremely keen sense of smell, and so some crumbs in your pocket or syrup from a snack-cup on your pants could lead to an extremely unpleasant midnight visit.

But for me the message distilled down to this:  You don’t have to be faster than the bear.  You only have to be faster than the others in your party.  (Which of course spelled trouble for me…) 

But once again we digress…  The point is that eventually – in our case, the second day – we got  past the smooth parts of the trail and began approaching the summit.  It got so bad for me – after we got up and over the summit – that first my brother and then my nephew left their packs ahead and came back and carried my pack for a while.  Which led to its own problems.  Much like the phantom limb phenomenon, the “phantom pack” syndrome leaves you disoriented.  Especially when negotiating “one big pile of *&^% rocks after another,” you end up walking like the proverbial drunken sailor, weaving to and fro.

Finally – after much anguish – you get to and over the summit.  But as noted, things don’t get any easier.  There – on the other side of the summit of Chilkoot Pass – were at least three “glaciers,” or ice-fields.  (Like the one at right.)  My first reaction was:  “Great!  Nice smooth snow to walk on!”

But these glacier-slash-ice-fields were just as treacherous, though in a different way.  My fellow hikers hadn’t relieved me of my pack yet, so walking on the slippery snow led to several falls.

It got so bad that finally I stayed down – on the snow-slash-glacier – and slip-slid to the end.  That got my pants and boots thoroughly wet in the process, but at least – for a moment or two – I wasn’t struggling over “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another.”

Somewhere in there I slipped and fell on some rocks, banging my right knee enough that by Thursday, at Bennett, that area of my jeans was covered with crusted blood.

Which leads to my confession – I “do not deny, but confess” – that there were times on the Trail when if I could have cried I would.  (But that wouldn’t have helped the pain in my feet, or made the journey any shorter.)  Which brings us to the late afternoon and evening of the second day.

Along with the usual “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another” – and the three “glaciers” noted above – the other side of the pass featured a seemingly-endless series of streams and/or rivulets like the one at left.  They too were beautiful, but treacherous.  (I was going to say “like some women I know,” but decided against that.)

I know my brother took a spill or two – and got an infected elbow as a result – but mostly because he told me so later.

And as far as I know my nephew did okay crossing the many “beautiful but treacherous” streams, but not from any personal observation.  He – and my brother as well – were usually so far out in front of me that I often lost sight of them.

Then it started getting dark.

Back at the hotel in Skagway – before we left – it was still light as late as 10:00 p.m.  Therefore – I deduced – we should have plenty of hours to hike on the Trail.  But for some reason it got darker earlier on the Trail, which meant that by 7:00 p.m. or so my brother started getting worried.  The result was that in the fullness of time – just in time – we had a little parade.

To make a long story short, my brother went ahead the couple of miles to Happy Camp, dropped his pack and hiked back to where I was.  He carried my pack for a bit, then some strapping  young lad showed up.  He – the strapping young lad – had heard someone at Happy Camp talk about my struggles, and decided to come back and help.  (Apparently we – or at least I – became quite a conversation piece around Happy Camp that night…)

So the strapping young lad carried my pack a while – “jabbering all the way,” my brother said – and finally my nephew came back.  He had also dropped his pack at Happy Camp and then he carried my pack the final mile and a half.  That was my brother’s recollection.

David Allan Coe.jpgAll I remember is that along about 7:30, I could see some people on the Trail ahead of me.  Eventually I limped up to where my brother and nephew were.  Also there were the aforementioned “strapping young lad,” along with a nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady who called me by my name.  (They keep tabs on all hikers on the Trail.)

From that point, we all set off toward Happy Camp.  The nice ranger-lady followed behind me, engaging me in conversation.  (Probably trying to keep my mind off my aching feet.)  So, eventually we all made it to Happy Camp, and that’s how we “had a little parade.”  But this time I wasn’t bringing up the rear.  (For once.)

On that note – and as described in Campgrounds of the Chilkoot Trail:

Happy Camp is the only campground on the Chilkoot Trail in the alpine…  Happy Camp owes its name to the relief prospectors (and hikers) experienced from arriving at the first outpost after the pass. The camp is situated in a true alpine ecosystem and receives heavy use because of its location.

Personally, I can vouch for the “relief” part.  And it got better.  (At least for that night.)  

Happy Camp shelterApparently the nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady felt sorry for us.  (Or at least for me.)  So she let the three of us use her personal shelter tent.  That is, she said she had to get up early the next morning for some meeting elsewhere on the Trail, so she’d stay in main – wooden – shelter at Happy Camp, shown at left.

That meant the three of us didn’t have to set up our tents in the waning light of that second day on the Trail.

It also meant that two of us got to sleep on cots.  (My nephew slept on his air mattress on the floor, despite my saying I’d sleep on the floor.  But I made it up to him – for carrying my pack – by splitting two six-packs of beer once we got back to Skagway, as described elsewhere.)   And finally, the nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady brought us each a juice-box.

And a sweeter nectar I’ve never tasted.  

Wooden tent platforms among trees in front of a lakeFrom that point the rest of the hike is a blur.  I know we made it next day to the campground at Bare Loon Lake. (Which included numerous tent platforms like the ones at right.)  

And I know that that left only four miles to do the next day, Thursday, to get to the railroad station at Bennett.  And that rangers and other hikers kept saying the Trail would get easier and smoother “a mile or so further along.”

But it never happened.  At least not until a mile or so from the station, when the Trail got wide and sandy.  In fact the Trail at that point was pretty much like walking on the beach.  Which of course presented its own different challenges, but at that point I wasn’t complaining.  (Much.) 

Thursday, August 4, 1:20 Alaska Time.  We’re at the Bennett railroad station.  Got here at 12:05 AT.  I’ve set up my tent to dry it off – it rained last night – and heated up some water…   Spilled some walking back across the tracks.  (“No open fires.”)  But there was enough left over to make hot coffee.  For the first time since Monday morning.  The right knee of my jeans is covered with blood.  The ankle areas are dried mud.  I have two or three large blisters, one each inner heel, that have already popped.  And one large blister on the right big toe that looks about to pop.  Huge!  But right now the world looks great!

That’s what I wrote in the notebook I’d packed, writing in it for the first time since Monday.  So there – at the railroad station that would remain unmanned until the 3:15 arrived – the right knee of my jeans was crusted with dry blood.  And my feet were blistered and beyond sore.

Which is another way of saying they don’t call the Chilkoot Trail “the meanest 33 miles in history” for nothing.  Meanwhile, I had one final point to be made.  I made it via email – to the folks back home – once the three of us got back to Skagway:  “I used up my quota of expletives for the next couple of years, so any prayers in my direction would help immensely.”

So now, to paraphrase that great philosopher, Forrest Gump:

“That’s all I have to say about the Chilkoot &$%# Trail!”

 that's all i have to say about that - that's all i have to say about that Forrest Gump

*   *   *   *

Unless otherwise noted, the images in this post – including the photos at the bottom and top of the page – are ones I took during the aforementioned “hike.”  (More like sheer torture…)

For example, the image at the top of the page is courtesy of happyotter666.blogspot.com.  See also Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – Wikipedia, which provided the “cornered” quote.

Re:  “O be joyful.”  See also Definition of oh be joyful – Online Slang Dictionary, and/or O-be-joyful – 17 of the Finest Words for Drinking.

Re:  Whiskey and other “ardent spirits” used as currency.  See also TTB.gov Alexander Hamilton And The Whiskey Tax:  “small farmers on the young Nation’s western frontier in the Appalachian Mountains, often distilled whisky from their surplus corn crop.  This whisky was then often used as a form of currency on the cash-strapped frontier.”

Re:  “No depth perception.”  As illustrated by the image at right – courtesy of lookfordiagnosis.com – imagine trying to negotiate “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another,” with no depth perception.  And while trying maintain enough speed to keep up with your brother and nephew, while seeing the “piles of &^%$ rocks” as a blur.  (As in the background at right.)  And with the full knowledge that one bad move – one twisted knee or ankle – will cost you a cool $28,000 to get airlifted out.  (That’s what they told us in Skagway when we got our permits.  Meaning it’s happened often enough that they have the figures down pat.)    

Re: “No chow in your tent.”  The photo at left – courtesy of Campgrounds of the Chilkoot Trail – Wikipedia – shows both a “dining shelter” in the background, and in the foreground a ranger at Sheep Camp giving a lecture like the one in the main text.  Also, “Rangers recommend 7.5 to 10 hours for a group to travel from Sheep Camp to Happy Camp.”  We took longer than that… 

Re:  “Called Me by My Name.”  The allusion is to a song by David Allan Coe.  (Which – incidentally – is one of my signature karaoke songs.)  The photo shows Coe on stage in 2009.  It is not intended to refer in any way to the “nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady.”  That nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady should – in my estimation – be elevated to sainthood, along with Mother Teresa.

Re:  The juice boxes and “sweeter nectar.”  My brother said his was grape juice, but I could have sworn that mine was “raisin.”  I remember thinking that it was such an odd flavor for a juice box, but I couldn’t find any such flavor on the internet.  (Or maybe I was in a state of delirium.)  One thing I do know:  No matter what the flavor, that juice box – at that point in time – was delicious!

The lower image is courtesy of that’s all i have to say about that – Forrest Gump – quickmeme.

On the Electoral College – 2016

Here’s how the the U.S. looked in 2012, according to votes in the Electoral College

*   *   *   *

http://www.dralionkennels.com/images/newsflash.jpgDid you know that a candidate for president could get only 40% of the popular vote, yet get 59% of votes in the Electoral College(Thus “winning?”)  It’s happened before, as noted below.

Which brings up some confusion I felt a few mornings ago, after the first day of the Republican convention.  The confusion was about just who is leading in the polls, Hillary or Donald?

For an example, see Pick a poll:  Is the race tied, or is Clinton beating Trump?  As that article noted:  “It all depends on which national polls you believe.”  Which makes this as good a time as any to bring up the subject of the Electoral College:

Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president;  instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors” … who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state.

(See Wikipedia.)  Which is another way of saying the candidate who gets the most popular votes doesn’t necessarily become president.  (Think “President Al Gore.”)

President Harry Truman holds up the Chicago Daily Tribune headline trumpeting his "defeat" in the 1948 presidential election.Then there’s the fact that polls aren’t necessarily accurate.

For example, in 1948 “every major political poll predicted a landslide victory for Thomas Dewey.”  (For the history-challenged, Truman won.)  See also the article about such electoral colleges in general, which added:

In the 19th century and beyond, it was usual in many countries that voters did not directly vote the members of parliament.  In Prussia for example, in 1849–1918 the voters were Urwähler (original voters), appointing with their vote a Wahlmann (elector)…  Such indirect suffrage was a means to steer the voting, to make sure that the electors were “able” persons…  The left wing opposition was very much opposed to indirect suffrage.

Which could be another way of saying the powers that be – which for America includes some Founding Fathers, like at right – “didn’t trust the average voter.”  (And some would say – from recent trends – that they had a point.  See Founding Fathers, Trust Issues and the Popular Vote.)

But we digress…  So just in case I’m being too subtle, there are a couple points here.  One is that those “popularity polls” don’t necessarily mean very much.  The other is that what really counts is – are? – the votes in the Electoral College.

The problem is:  Determining the votes in the Electoral College can be a bit tricky.

On the other hand, the present situation in the Electoral College does seem to favor Hillary.  See for example Welcome to the general election: Where did Hillary’s cakewalk go?

Democrats looking for a cakewalk win over Trump in November may eventually get it.  The electoral college strongly favors Clinton.  And Trump is always a step away from a total meltdown.  But in an election in which Americans are disgusted with their choices, anything can happen and a Trump presidency is a real possibility.

The key passage – emphasized – is that the “electoral college strongly favors Clinton.”  Which seems to be true even though the election may come down to which candidate the voters dislike least.  In other words, the election may come down to choosing “the lesser of two weevils.”  (As noted in Independent Voter.)

For another take on the problem, see Don’t Worry About The Electoral College Math.  Among other things, that article noted that while the Electoral College effectively votes “state by state,” there are few if any purely state polls which can reliably show how a state’s electoral delegates will vote.

On the other hand, there’s 270toWin.com, with the trademark, “This isn’t a popularity contest.”

That site shows electoral votes by state.  (Which is – after all – what really matters.)  And that brings up the time in American history where one candidate for president got only 40% of the popular vote, yet won 59% of votes in the Electoral College.

That guy’s name was Abraham Lincoln, and in the presidential election of 1860, he won only 40% of the popular vote.  (The rest were split between John C. Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen A. Douglas.)  However, Lincoln won 180 Electoral College votes, out of a possible 303.  (Thus his “magic number” was the152 electoral votes needed to win.)  

The amazing thing in that election is that Lincoln lost the Solid South – updated at right – but won what might be called the “Solid North.”  (In 1860, those states generally above the Mason-Dixon line and/or the Ohio River.)

And a side note:  Back in 1860, Lincoln’s “for sure” votes in the Electoral College included New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Those three states had 35, 27 and 23 electoral votes, respectively, for 85 of the total 152 needed for victory.  Which means that those three states alone accounted for almost 60% of the total Abraham Lincoln needed to become president in 1860.

For purposes of comparison – and as updated to the present time – New York state seems “solidly blue,” along with Pennsylvania.  Ohio seems to be one of those swing states, but one big difference – compared to 1860 – is California.  In 1860, California had only four votes in the Electoral College, but today that state has 55.  And it too seems “solidly blue.”

Which means that Hillary seems to start out with a solid 104 votes in the Electoral College.  (29, 20 and 55, respectively.)  Which – along with the beginning – is a “very good place to start.”

That in turn seems similar to the beginning of that other American Civil War.  (Where one side “looked much better on paper.  But many factors undetermined at the outbreak … could have tilted the balance sheet toward a different outcome.”)  But once again we digress…

I’ll be exploring the 2016 presidential election in future posts.  In the meantime, one final note:

This may be the last post I’ll publish for awhile, or the next five weeks.  Next Tuesday – July 26 – I’ll be heading north to Skagway, Alaska.  From there I’ll spend four days hiking the Chilkoot Trail.  (The “meanest 33 miles in history.”)  Once that’s done, my brother and I will spend 16 days canoeing down the Yukon River, from Whitehorse to Dawson City.

Assuming I survive all that, I should be back in business some time after August 29.

But stay tuned.  There may well be “further bulletins as events warrant!”

(See the cartoon below…)

 

Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Hesler.png

This guy got 40% of the popular vote,  but 59% of the electoral votes…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Electoral College (U.S.) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  BTW: There is a movement afoot to pass a “National Popular Vote” bill.  That would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire U.S.”  See National Popular Vote.com

The “news flash” image is courtesy of www.dralionkennels.com/newsflash.

Re:  “Pick a poll.”  The article said – among other things – that “Trump’s negatives remain sky-high and higher than Clinton’s, and the GOP brand is horrible (and much worse that the Democratic brand).”  See also Myra Adams: How Does Trump Win 270 Electoral Votes?

If we do see Donald Trump push the white vote up into 63-64%, it suggests that as whites move towards minority status that they become more aware of their whiteness, and it plays into politics.  It is a disheartening and dangerous trend, but it might be something we don’t have any control over…  He has no other path to victory.

The “Dewey Defeats Truman” image is courtesy of the link 5 Historic Presidential Campaign Collapses, in the web article How the Electoral College Works | HowStuffWorks.  (“Dewey Defeats Himself.”)

Re: President Al Gore.  See also Al Gore: Electoral College System Needs National Popular Vote Plan.  But see also Would Al Gore Have Won in 2000 Without the Electoral College?  (Not to mention Famed third-party candidate [Ralph Nader] accused of ruining election for Al Gore in 2000 says Bernie [Sanders] shouldn’t run as independent.)

The Founding Fathers image is courtesy of quotesgram.com.

Re: “Left wing opposition … opposed to indirect suffrage.”  They might be changing their minds now…

The “lesser of two weevils” image is courtesy of pinterest.com.  See also Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – YouTubeLesser of Two Evils – TV TropesReader Opinion: Clinton v Trump and “the lesser of two weevils, Master and Commander: A Movie Review – Maccabee Society, and/or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – Wikipedia.

The actual expression of course is the “lesser of two evils.”  See Idioms …Free Dictionary.

Re:  “magic number.”  That term is also defined online as a “figure regarded as significant or momentous in a particular context.”

The comparison in Electoral College votes – between 1860 and 2016 – was gleaned from sources including 270toWin.com, and RealClearPolitics – Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls.

Re:  The beginning of the Civil War, in which “one side ‘looked much better on paper,'” etc. See Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South [ushistory.org]

Re: “Further bulletins as events warrant.”  See Calvin and Hobbes Comic Strip, October 25, 1986:

Calvin and Hobbes

The lower image is courtesy of United States presidential election, 1860 – Wikipedia.  The caption: “Black and white portrait photograph (bust) of Abraham Lincoln taken immediately after Lincoln’s nomination.”  The article noted that voter turnout was 81.2%, “the highest in American history up to that time, and the second-highest overall (exceeded only in the election of 1876).”

For some recent historical perspective, voter turnout in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was 61.6% and 58.2%, respectively.  

Other notes from the presidential election of 1860:  To be precise, Lincoln won only 39.8% of the popular vote.  His closest competitor – in terms of popular votes – was Stephen Douglas.  Douglas got 1,380,202 popular votes, or 29.5 percent of the total, compared to Lincoln’s 39.8%.  However, Douglas’ million-plus popular votes translated to only 12 votes in the Electoral College.

*   *   *   *

And speaking of voter turnout, see The Americans: The National Experience, by Daniel J. Boorstin. Boorstin indicated that political parties were originally designed – in part – to increase voter turnout, though the blessings of that change seem to be mixed. 

Near the end of his book, Boorstin wrote about the “novel institution of a party ticket.” (429)  The idea – of voting along party lines – originally stirred opposition from political idealists.  For example, one editor in 1790 wrote, “We want no Ticket Mongers.”  (Emphasis in the original.)  And in 1800 a Connecticut Federalist “attacked the whole ‘detestable practice of electioneering.”  

But the practice – which eventually led to our two political parties today – proved “too useful for office-seekers, and too entertaining to voters.” (E.A.)  Which brings up the matter of political conventions.  Boorstin wrote that in its original form – before today’s system of voting in primaries – political conventions “concentrated party strength” and increased the chances of victory.  Also in their original form, party conventions were held only at the state and county level.  It was not until 1832 that national conventions – like we have now – “were for the first time held by all the major parties that offered candidates for president.”  See page 430, which also included this thought:

So long as problems of American political life remained compromisable, the political parties were the great arenas of compromise.  When this ceased to be true, the nation itself would be on the brink of dissolution; and then the political parties, like the nation itself, would have to be reconstructed.

A voter marks a ballot for the New Hampshire primary Feb. 9 inside a voting booth at a polling place in Manchester, N.H.And it seems that we may be seeing that Reconstruction “even as we speak.”  See Sick Of Political Parties, Unaffiliated Voters Are Changing Politics.

See also Five myths about independent voters – Washington Post.  Among the findings:  “Independents are more turned off than partisan voters by negative campaign ads;” “Most independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives;” and 60% of Independents “agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.” (The red-blue voting booth image is courtesy of the Sick Of Political Parties article.)

“The Coming Fury?”

NY Post's Shameful 'Civil War' Cover On Dallas

Did someone mention The Coming Fury – first book of Bruce Catton‘s Civil War Trilogy?

*   *   *   *  

My last two posts noted a recent 10-day family road-trip north, via “convoy:”

Three cars, carrying five adults and seven younger folk, ranging in age from 10 to 22.  Among other places, we’ll be visiting Valley Forge, the Liberty Bell and Philadelphia in general…  Last but not least we’ll see Hershey PA … “The Sweetest Place On Earth.”

7096For five nights of that 10-day trip, we all stayed with my aunt in Wilmington.  Her three-story house is pretty much a museum, and a much-loved place to visit.  (By nephews, great-nieces and -nephews, and other relatives through marriage.)

Nowhere is that “museum-ness” more evident than on the third floor.  The third floor was pretty much my aunt’s private “penthouse” when she was young.  (My grandparents stayed on the second floor.)  She was an avid reader then, and a great collector of books.  Which means that now the third floor of her home resembles nothing so much as a library.

And so, late one night that last week of June, in Wilmington, I sat relaxing on the third-floor bed – topped by an air mattress – sipping a bottle of Rolling Rock.  It was then that my eyes lighted on a Bruce Catton book I hadn’t read.  I have read – and pretty much loved – all his other CW books.  But that night, I saw “Bruce Catton,” on a thick, hard-cover book, and the unread title, The Coming Fury.

WmLYancey.jpgI was hooked from the first page.

Catton began by describing the first of two 1860 Democratic National Conventions, with the arrival of William L. Yancey.  (At left.)  

It seems that certain “fire-eaters” – like Yancey – didn’t care if they caused a “split convention.”  The result?  A host of Democrat-delegates walked out of the convention.  (In essence, a revolt that split the party.)  That virtually guaranteed the opposition candidate – Abe Lincoln – would be elected.

All of which may sound familiar to modern ears.  That is, what caught my eye – in reading the beginning of The Coming Fury – was the way Catton’s writing seemed to foreshadow some of the surprises that may well be coming at this summer’s Republican convention:

The delegates might look for a safe middle ground [and] work out some sort of compromise that would avert a split in the party and nation;  or they might listen to extremists, scorn the middle ground, and commit all of America to a dramatic leap into the dark.

In 1860, it was the Democrats who saw their party literally split in two.  (Thus virtually guaranteeing the election of a candidate they didn’t want.)  In 2016, it may be the Republicans who experience a delegate revolt, and thus a split party.  (See also karma.)

Alexander H Stephens by Vannerson, 1859.jpgThe first 36 pages of Coming Fury led up to Part Four of Chapter One, “The Party is Split Forever.”  (A quote from Alexander Stephens – at right – after a friend said “things might be patched up” at the second, “rump” Democratic convention in Baltimore.)  Then at pages 78-80, Catton explored some of the reasons behind the split in the party.

He began by saying the choices made at the two competing Democratic conventions “came at least in part out of a general, unreasoned resentment against immigration and the immigrant.”  (E.A.)

[By 1860,] Americans both North and South could see that something cherished and familiar was being lost.  Looking back only a few years, it was easy to see a society where … everyone thought, spoke and acted more or less alike, living harmoniously by a common tradition.

Which is being interpreted:  “Some things never change.”  Aside from that, if anyone in 1860 had thought about it, they might have come up with a catchy slogan like “Make America Great Again.”  (That is, a call to “return the country to its previous glory.”)

However (as Catton wrote), that cherished vision of the past – “singularly uncomplicated and unworried … simple and self-sustaining” – seemed to be on the verge of disappearing:

Revolutionary change was taking place everywhere … and people who liked things as they had been found the change abhorrent.  Furthermore, it seemed possible that newcomers were at least partly responsible for the change…  Germans, Irish, French, Italians, men of new tongues and new creeds and new folk ways, cut adrift from Europe…  It was easy to feel they were corrupting the old America. (E.A.)

(79-80)  Which may be another way of saying that a large group of people who hadn’t been free – before – were about to get freedom for the first time in their lives.

But then and now, such a change in the status quo scares a lot of people.  As Catton wrote, “To fear change meant to fear the alien – the man who looked and talked and acted differently, and who therefore was probably dangerous.” (80)  Which helped give rise to the fire-eaters noted above.  (Defined in part as “extremists who did much to weaken the fragile unity of the nation.”)  

Which brings up the subject of “splitting” in another context.

In Independent Voter, I noted the phenomenon of “splitting,” a personality disorder also called “black and white thinking:”

Splitting … is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole.  It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.  The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).

It’s also known as cognitive distortion, or or “all-or-nothing thinking.”  And as noted, it’s a common defense mechanism that seems to be getting commoner and commoner these days.

joe-walsh-defends-tweetWhich means that in times of great stress, people are more prone to say really hurtful, unproductive or downright stupid things.  (Like ex-congressman Joe Walsh, at right.)

But my personal theory is that resorting to cliches, canned responses, and/or downright stupid remarks – in times of great stress – simply “beats the heck out of having to think!”

So in times of great stress – like we’ve seen in the last week or so – one option is to say something really stupid and/or counterproductive, like This is now war!”  Or you can sheathe your sword – metaphorically or otherwise – and stop adding fuel to the fire.

After all, who wants to start another American Civil War?

Or as that great philosopher Henry Ford once put it (offering a better solution):

Don't find fault, find a remedy... poster

In other words, “Be a part of the solution, not part of the problem…”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of NY Post’s Shameful ‘Civil War’ Cover On Dallas | Crooks and Liars. (Although there was a literal plethora of internet sources available:  See for example New York Post Recklessly Hypes ‘Civil War’ After Dallas Shooting (Huffington Post), and New York Post Blares Dallas Police Killings Set Off ‘CIVIL WAR‘” – from the Talking Points Memo website – which described the Post as an “infamous tabloid, known for its inflammatory headlines.”)

The book-cover image is courtesy of The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton — Reviews, Discussion. References to the text are from the are from the 1961 hard-cover Doubleday and Company edition, “The Centennial History of the Civil War, Volume 1.”

Re: “Fire-eaters.”  Here’s a quote I found working on this post, but misplaced the cite:

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as President, and thus trigger secession…  Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.

The “success-failure” image is courtesy of Why Black or White Thinking May be Keeping Keep Your Clients Stuck:  “I don’t know about you, but ‘Black or White’ or ‘All or Nothing’ thinking is one of the commonest issues I see with my coaching clients.  When a client is stuck – it’s often because they are looking at the world through this Black or White thinking filter…”  

(“The Coaching Tools Company.com is based on Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada. Launched in March 2009 … our goal is to inspire coaches and help spread the positive impact of coaching throughout the world. We do this by helping coaches get established, grow their clients, grow their skills and grow their businesses.”)

On that subject, see also All or Nothing’, or ‘Black and White’ Thinking and Depression.

Re:  Ex-congressman Joe Walsh.  See Ex Congressman tweets of war against Obama, Joe Walsh defends tweet threatening “war” on ObamaEx-Congressman Walsh on Dallas shootings: “This is now war,” and/or Ex-congressman threatens “war,’”warns Obama to ‘watch out.” 

And by the way – Joe Walsh – the Bible clearly says, You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” (See Exodus 22:28 and the beginning of Acts 23.) 

Re: “sheath your sword.”  See also Sheath Your Sword | Duke Today.

The lower image is courtesy of Don’t find fault, find a remedy… poster | Zazzle.  See also Quote by Henry Ford: “Don’t find fault, find a remedy (Goodreads).  As to the phrase “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.”  it is generally – and most recently – attributed to Eldridge Cleaver.  However, a guardian.co.uk article on the subject included one reader who said this was a “misquotation.”  Another reader wrote:  “Eldridge Cleaver was hardly being original.  ‘Those who are not for us are against us’ is in the Bible – and had probably been said before that.”  

Note that the Bible-quote is from Matthew 12:30 “Whoever is not with me is against me…”  Note further that this was part of Jesus’ sermon on A House Divided.  See also the “House Divided” Speech by Abraham Lincoln, given in 1858, when he was running for the office of Senator from Illinois.  (Two years before the original American Civil War.)  And finally, see the post from my companion blog, On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist?  That post compared Matthew 12:30 with what Jesus said in Mark 9:40:  “For whoever is not against us is for us.” 

On the Independent Voter

Emanuel Leutze (American, Schwäbisch Gmünd 1816–1868 Washington, D.C.) - Washington Crossing the Delaware - Google Art Project.jpg

Washington Crossing the Delaware” – which he managed to do without “rocking the boat…”

*   *   *   *  

In the last post, I noted that I was about to take a 10-day “family trip north:”

Three cars, carrying five adults and seven younger folk, ranging in age from 10 to 22.  Among other places, we’ll be visiting Valley Forge, the Liberty Bell and Philadelphia in general…  Last but not least we’ll see Hershey PA … “The Sweetest Place On Earth.”

I’m now writing two days after that family vacation ended, on Sunday, July 3d.

CB Terminology and Trucker SlangWhich means we all managed to get home – in our three-car convoy – on the eve of July 4th.

(It also meant that we had to drive home through FOJ-Weekend traffic, thought without the use of CB lingo, as shown at left.  We used cell phones…)

The three-car convoy lasted until Sunday, the 3d, when one of our three cars “peeled off” after a stop for gas – and fresh peaches – in Spartanburg SC.  The remaining two cars split up near Commerce GA, at Exit 149 on I-85.  (After dropping off a niece and her two kids.)

That left me alone, in my car, for the first time in 10 days.  But by the time I got back on the road – after getting some iced coffee – there was yet another traffic jam, further down I-85, closer to Atlanta.  (Thank you ATL.)  So I ended up getting home about 8:30 Sunday night.  And as noted, this was after a grueling two-day, thousand-mile-plus drive from Doylestown PA.

(A lot of those “grueling traffic jams” had to do with the fact that – in the America psyche – It’s Not Just Your Car, It’s Your Freedom.  But “too many dang cars” is a whole ‘nother topic entirely…)

Getting back to the grueling drive home:  Saturday we left our family reunion about 1:30, then got to drive down through Independence-Day-Weekend traffic.  (Especially heavy around Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and Richmond VA.)

That left us with 550 miles left to drive on Sunday.  (Two days ago.)  But the good news is that – even after all that “quality time” together – we’re all still speaking to each other.  (Mostly.)

graves-imgTurning to more pleasant topics:  On Friday afternoon – July 1 –  we visited the Washington Crossing Historic Park. (The one on the Pennsylvania side, as seen at right.)  

Which of course makes this a perfect time and place to bring up Independence Day in the U.S.:

Independence Day is a day of family celebrations [with] a great deal of emphasis on the American tradition of political freedom…  Independence Day is a patriotic holiday for celebrating the positive aspects of the United States…  Above all, people in the United States express and give thanks for the freedom and liberties fought by the first generation of many of today’s Americans. (E.A.)

Which brings up the fact that – somewhere along the line – I intended to make this post more about the recent road trip than about Independence Day itself.

For example, I was going to mention what John Steinbeck wrote, about how “We don’t take a trip.  A trip takes us.”  (See also Quote by John Steinbeck.)  I also planned to cite a year-ago post – A Mid-summer Travelog – from my companion blog, along with “I pity the fool!”

The latter post was on Ralph Waldo Emerson – at left – and his saying, “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.”

Which raises two timely topics for this July 4th.

One topic is Independence Day itself.  The other is the growing number of Independent Voters in this country.  And according to Wikipedia, Independents are those voters who don’t align with either major political party, Republican or Democrat:

An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship;  a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party;  a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election;  or a voter who self-describes as an independent.

And their numbers seem to be growing, which could be either good or bad.

For example, Wikipedia noted first that the definition itself is “controversial and fraught with implications.”  And that according to one theory, the growth of Independent Voters is a bad sign for the country.  (For reasons including but not limited to:  “independents may be more susceptible to the appeals of third-party candidates,” and that “the more independent voters, the more volatile elections and the political system will be.” Which could explain our present political situation…)

But personally I have my own theory.

My theory is that the American political system was designed to keep “moving back toward the middle.”  That is, once a party becomes dominant – for the moment – it tends to pay too much attention to what we might call its lunatic fringe.  Put another way, if one party dominates too long, it tends to move too far away from the middle.  (Left or right, as the case may be.)

5d5d8f10f87f013014e9001dd8b71c47

And so – traditionally – In response to being out of power, the other party has – generally speaking – tended to move back toward the middle of the spectrum.  It does so primarily to reach out to those voters in the middle.  (Those voters who decide elections.)

But that hasn’t happened lately.

One or both parties – it seems – have refused to compromise, and compromise is the keystone of a American democracy.  (See The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It, and/or The Spirit of Compromise.)

In other words, one or both parties have moved toward black and white thinking.  Psychologists call that splitting, or “the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole:”

It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.  The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground)…  Splitting creates instability in relationships because one person can be viewed as either personified virtue or personified vice…  [This] leads to chaotic and unstable relationship patterns, identity diffusion, and mood swings.

So one solution to today’s political-party black-and-white thinking – it seems to me – is the growth in the number of voters who identify themselves as Independents.  The problem there is that Independent or Moderate Voters are losing power in the process of one or both parties deciding on a particular candidate.  (As for President of the United States.)

Which brings up the biggest problem of being an Independent Voter.  That problem is:

“One must always choose the lesser of two weevils!”

 

*   *   *   *  

The upper image is courtesy of Washington Crossing the Delaware – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Washington Crossing the Delaware is an 1851 oil-on-canvas painting by the German American artist Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze.  It commemorates General George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on the night of December 25–26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War.  That action was the first move in a surprise attack against the Hessianforces at Trenton, New Jersey, in the Battle of Trenton.

I also used the image and related information in my companion blog.  (See On Independence Day, 2016.)  There I noted that “Wikipedia listed inaccuracies” in the painting – by Leutze, working in Germany in 1850 – which included:  The American flag in the boat “did not exist at the time of Washington’s crossing;”  The boat was the wrong model, and much too small;  The painting showed “phantom light sources besides the upcoming sun,” while the crossing itself “took place in the dead of night;”  and finally: “Washington’s stance … would have been very hard to maintain in the stormy conditions of the crossing[, and] would have risked capsizing the boat.”  (See also artistic licence.)

“And speaking of rocking the boat, Washington and his fellow Founding Fathers did in fact rock the boat, according to the British during the Revolutionary War.  (In the sense of causing “trouble where none is welcome;  to disturb a situation that is otherwise stable and satisfactory.”)  See also John Paul Jones’ CLOSEST call, in my companion blog.  It included a British caricature of the man they called “the pirate Paul Jones.”  (To us of course he’s the Father of the American Navy.)”

 

Re:  Cars representing freedom.  For a different take, see The Car Once Symbolized Freedom… ← The Urban Country, which noted in part:  “Things have changed. We took it too far.”

The image of flags on gravestones is courtesy of Washington Crossing Historic Park – Official Site.  The caption and original image can be found under the “Soldier’s Graves” link:

From the parking area at the Thompson-Neely House, it’s a short walk across the Delaware Canal to the memorial cemetery where an unknown number of Continental soldiers who died during the December 1776 encampment in Bucks County are buried.

The article noted that no American soldiers were killed during the crossing or the First Battle of Trenton, but that “others did succumb to exposure, disease or previous injuries.”  The article also noted a second battle, on or about January 2, 1777, involving Lord Cornwallis:

General Lord Charles Cornwallis of the British Army had been looking forward to a trip home to England…  In fact, on December 27 he had sent his baggage aboard the HMS Bristol.  But after the disaster at Trenton, his leave was promptly cancelled and he was ordered to Princeton.  A very unhappy Cornwallis took command of the British forces there on January 1, 1777.  He had one clear mission: to find the American army and destroy it.

In this second Battle of Trenton, Washington held off the attacking British forces until the evening of January 2, then withdrew north from Trenton, which led to his victory in the Battle of Princeton, on January 3, 1777:  “Washington’s timely withdrawal set the stage for a successful engagement with the enemy at Princeton the following day.”

The full Quote by John Steinbeck on the uniqueness of individual journeys:

Once a journey is designed, equipped, and put in process, a new factor enters and takes over. A trip, a safari, an exploration, is an entity, different from all other journeys.  It has personality, temperament, individuality, uniqueness.  A journey is a person in itself;  no two are alike.  And all plans, safeguards, policing, and coercion are fruitless.  We find after years of struggle that we do not take a trip;  a trip takes us.  Tour masters, schedules, reservations, brass-bound and inevitable, dash themselves to wreckage on the personality of the trip.  Only when this is recognized can the blown-in-the glass bum relax and go along with it.  Only then do the frustrations fall away.  In this a journey is like marriage.  The certain way to be wrong is to think you control it.  (E.A.)

Re:  “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist… I freely translated that to:  ““I pity the fool who doesn’t do pilgrimages and otherwise push the envelope, even at the advance stage of his life.”

I used the “lunatic fringe” cartoon in Is this “deja vu all over again?”  The cartoon itself is courtesy of Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com.  Wikipedia said the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.’”

The lower image is courtesy of pinterest.com.  See also Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – YouTubeLesser of Two Evils – TV TropesReader Opinion: Clinton v Trump and “the lesser of two weevils, Master and Commander: A Movie Review – Maccabee Society, and/or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – Wikipedia.

“Thou shalt not insult FOREIGN leaders?”

One idea of how you might end up, bad-mouthing the ruler of Cameroon

*   *   *   *

At lunch the other day I glanced at the “Trending” section, on page 8 of the April 25 issue of Time magazine.  (The first issue – from 1923 – is at right.)  As noted in an earlier post, I get the magazines hand–me–down.

The middle item was about German authorities being pressured to prosecute a comedian, under a law that “forbids insults to foreign leaders.”  For reasons noted below, that piqued my interest.

It seems there’s a comedian in Germany – a “satirist and television presenter” – named Jan Böhmermann.  He’s the host of  a popular German TV show, Neo Magazin Royale.  Last March he aired a poem, Schmähkritik.  (Which translates, “abusive criticism.”)  The poem – “full of profanity and criticism” – was about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

After the fact, the comedian himself admitted that his attempt at humor was “unfunny, beyond crude and hardly worthy of the name.”  Among other things, the poem called Erdogan “the man who beats girls,” and also loves to “suppress minorities, kick Kurds, hit Christians, and watch child pornography.”  (Other “accusations” are not fit for mixed company…)

Then – it can be safely said – came the firestorm.  (As in “a firestorm of controversy.”)

The law at issue – which first appeared in the “Prussian legal code of 1794” – was designed to keep German citizens from insulting foreign leaders.  Somewhat ironically:

The United States tried to make a complaint against a shop owner in the city of Marburg in 2003.  The shop owner called then-President George W. Bush, a “state terrorist.”  But the German government decided this did not go against the law.

In turn, Turkish president Erdogan is trying to get Böhmermann prosecuted under the same law.

What piqued my interest was the contrast between the German law and Exodus 22:28.  That Bible passage says – in the English Standard Version – “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.”  However, it doesn’t say anything about “bad-mouthing the ruler of another country.”

Apparently, under the law of the Bible you could insult “foreign leaders” all you wanted.

That seems to be par for the course in other countries around the world.  You can insult foreign leaders all you want, but don’t dare “curse the rule of your people.”  See This is how these 12 countries will punish you for insulting their heads of state.  That site noted:

It may be par for the course in the United States, but in dozens of nations around the world, badmouthing your commander-in-chief will earn you fines, imprisonment or even a flogging.

One of those countries is Cameroon.  (And that’s where the top image came from.)  That country is one of several in Africa which “have laws against ‘sedition’ (read: saying stuff your ruler doesn’t like) left over from times colonial, and continue to make enthusiastic use of them.”

But don’t think I’m picking on Cameroon.  Lots of countries have penalties just as bad, if not worse.  But the notes on that country featured the interesting image at the top of the page.

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpgAnd don’t think that Germany is alone in having laws – at least laws on the books – that punish citizens for insulting the leader of another country. See No Insulting Foreign Leaders In Iceland, Either:

Iceland has enforced this article in the past.  On both occasions, it was to prosecute Icelanders who mocked the Third Reich in some capacity.  In 1934, Þórbergur Þórðarson was charged under the law for an article he wrote about Germany at the time, wherein he called Adolf Hitler “the sadist in the German chancellor’s seat.”  Further, Icelandic poet Steinn Steinarr was charged under the same law, when he and a group of others who torn down a Nazi flag flown by the German consulate in Siglufjörður.

So why – you might ask – would one country prosecute its citizens for insulting the leader of a foreign country?  The answer?  International relations.

As noted in The Guardian [on] Böhmermann, the only way to “make sense of this prosecution is to set it in the context that the law’s 19th-century drafters probably envisaged:

In the specific case of Germany’s section 103, about slighting foreign states, the government must expressly approve the prosecution, presumably because the whole original purpose was to deploy the criminal law as an instrument of foreign policy.

And incidentally, this business of punishing your own citizens for insulting a foreign leader is nothing new.  One notable example from history is Sir Walter Raleigh.

“Sir Walter” was a court favorite of Queen Elizabeth I.  (She knighted him in 1585.)  But then came a change of regime, in the form of Elizabeth’s successor, King James I.  (The guy who created the King James Version of the Bible, but was “not favourably disposed” toward Raleigh.)   And Raleigh pushed his luck too far.

Between bouts in prison, Raleigh was famous for establishing colonies in the New World and “also well known for popularising tobacco in England.”  But in doing all that he made the Spanish king very angry.  (Mainly because he stole lots of gold from Spanish ships.)

Things went well as long as his forays produced some income.  But finally, his luck – and King James’ patience – ran out.   In 1618, “to appease the Spanish,”  he was arrested and executed.

The good news from all this is that Jan Böhmermann won’t be hung or beheaded.  (Like Raleigh, above left.)  In fact, the “archaic law” now seems so ridiculous – “in the light of day” – that it’s on the path to extinction.  See Germany to Scrap Law [against] Insulting Foreign Leaders.

But the point I’m trying to make – in case it’s too subtle – is the marked contrast between those laws that punish citizens for insulting foreign leaders, and Exodus 22:28.  Whatever else you can say about the 12 countries [that] punish you for insulting their heads of state, they’re at least “following the Bible.”  I noted another marked contrast – between that Biblical commandment as practiced and as preached” – in On dissin’ the Prez.  (In my other blog.)

Another aside:  The Apostle Paul was reminded of Exodus 22:28 in Acts 23.  He was on trial – for “preaching” – before the Sanhedrin.  (The “Hebrew Supreme Court.”)  High priest Ananais told a guard to “strike him on the mouth,” and Paul responded as shown in the image below:

Those standing nearby said, ‘Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?’   And Paul said, ‘I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.”’

(Which brought up Conservative Christians who say the Bible must be interpreted literally.)

But getting back to the subject at hand:  In Turkey, over “1,800 people – including schoolchildren – have been prosecuted for comments posted on social media that insult Erdogan:”

In Istanbul, opinions are divided on the move against the comedian…  “The president [Erdogan] has his own rights,” said one man.  “When someone insults the German president they put him into the prison, also the American president. (E.A.)

Oh really?  Apparently that guy hasn’t watched Fox News or listened to American talk radio…

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Angelico,_niccolina_02.jpg

“God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of not bite your tongue about some world leaders – GlobalPost.  (Cited in the text as “This is how these 12 countries will punish you for insulting their heads of state.”)

Sources used in writing this blog-post include: Turkish President Wants German Satirist JailedGerman Comedian May Face PrisonCORRECTION BACKGROUND German law: When does insulting a foreign leader become a crimeCalls grow to scrap law on insulting foreign leaders [Germany]Germany to Scrap Law that Prohibits Insulting Foreign LeadersJan Böhmermann – Wikipedia, and The Guardian view on the Jan Böhmermann affair.

Re: firestorm.  See “F” Metaphors, including Firestorm.

Re: Raleigh and Spanish gold.  One example:  When his fleet captured an incredibly rich prize— a merchant ship (carrack) named Madre de Deus (Mother of God) off Flores.

The lower image is courtesy of wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Angelico,_niccolina_02.jpg.  The caption: ““Fra Angelico, Dispute before the Sanhedrin (1449).”  The painting is based on “Acts 23.”

Is this “deja vu all over again?”

This post tries to answer the musical question  –  “Is there a new Maverick in town?  

*   *   *   *

This post follows up the last one, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

The inspiration for both these blog-posts came when I found an old – November 1998 – copy of Rolling Stone magazine.  (At the bottom of a dumpster.)  The cover showed Bill Clinton – looking “befuddled” – in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  (She’s at left.)

But inside – starting on page 92 – I found an article “much more relevant to today’s political scene.”  It noted a candidate – 18 years ago – who showed a “malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings.  He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions…

Donald TrumpBut here’s the strange part:  It wasn’t Donald Trump!

So here goes:  Page 92 of the 11/12/98 Rolling Stone featured two headlines.  The larger one read, “The Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”  (That is, the stink from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.)

Page 97 included this tidbit, about that 1998 presidential candidate:  “The man sounds delusional, and probably he is.  He sounded the same twenty years ago…”  (Which seems to verify that history repeats in cycles.)  Also on page 97:

The demagogic style of politics is still present in the man…  A lot of [his] harsh rhetoric has the quality.  It may sound loopy at first…  But if you assume [his] eye is really on the White House, reckless declarations may make sense for advancing his agenda.

Page 97 also featured a side note about an assistant – on the campaign staff – who quit “as the [candidate] got more and more detached from reality.”

So just who was this guy?  

Who was this arguable precursor to Donald Trump?  (With his take no prisoners style of campaigning?)  You could see the answer in the smaller headline.  (Just above the lead “Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”)  Just above that lead headline, in slightly smaller type, read these words:  “The Real Scandal in Washington is Newt Gingrich.”

Which brings up the subject of “The Newt’s” powers of prophecy.  In 1998, Gingrich meditated on one thing quite often.  (Aside from his own presidential run.)  That one thing?

How will America look – in 2017 – “after two consecutive two-term Republican presidents (possibly including himself) have transformed America.”

Newt Gingrich by Gage Skidmore 7.jpgAs to how Newt’s powers of prophecy turned out, try an experiment.

Type “newt” into your search engine.  One result that I got quick was: “newt gingrich scandal.”  That “other teaser” led to links like Newt Gingrich Lacks Moral Character.  (According to “second ex-wife Marianne.”)

Another link:  Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained.  (According to both Mother Jones magazine and – in 2011 – the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” which said “Newt has a ton of baggage.”)  A third link-title read, Newt Gingrich Affair – Huffington Post.  That third link led to a host of other links on this apparently-robust topic.

Then there’s the fact that we didn’t have “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents.”

But we digress!

Getting back to the Rolling Stone:  Page 124 noted that Newt – in 1998 – “will  become anything and ruin anybody else in order to achieve his goals.”  That page also featured a quote from one victim – a Democrat – who noted ruefully:  “Gingrich developed a vocabulary of poison, which he injected into the political dialogue.”  (All of which sounds eerily familiar…)

Then came page 125, with this note:  “Sure it’s difficult to imagine the nation electing someone disliked by two-thirds of the electorate.  But it’s easy to imagine Gingrich scoring well in Republican primaries, where right-wingers can crowd out moderates.”  And this:

Newt Gingrich poses a greater threat to the Republican Party than to the republic itself.  The GOP will not become the governing party as long as leaders like Gingrich hold the reins.  And more and more reasonable Republicans are beginning to realize this.

One response to that “reasonable Republicans” comment could be:  Apparently not!  All of which arguably leads to this prophetic cartoon, by Charles Schulz back in 1961:

5d5d8f10f87f013014e9001dd8b71c47

One response to that 1961 prophecy could be:  “There seem to be plenty of openings in the lunatic fringe, and more and more of those openings are being filled these days!

But once again we digress.  The topic at hand is whether Donald Trump’s appearance – as the darling of a large segment of the conservative electorate – is something new under the sun?  Or is it instead just a case of deja vu all over again

Interestingly enough, the 1998 article noted – on page 125 – that Newt Gingrich was the “Bill Clinton of the GOP.  He’s a manipulator – flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening to be a winner.”  (Which also sounds chillingly familiar.)

But on the page before – page 124 – there was some wisdom the “Grand Old Party” may want to pay more attention to.  The page noted that the party’s “intramural crosscurrents are fierce and difficult to manage.”  On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s ability to manage just such fierce crosscurrents did allow them to be the “governing power for decades – a willingness to deal and compromise among its contending blocs and interest groups.”

Sarah Palin says Paul Ryan's failure to endorse Donald Trump is unwiseOn that note see Sarah Palin vows to campaign against Paul Ryan.  As an aside, Ryan is the current Speaker of the House. The article noted Palin’s decision was “sparked by Ryan’s bombshell announcement … that he wasn’t yet ready to support Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee. Palin endorsed Trump back in January.”

On a related note see Devouring Their Own.  But again getting back to the subject at hand:  Is “The Donald” indeed something new under the sun, or just deja vu all over again?

Which leads us to one last quote:

One result of these tactics [by many conservatives, back in 1998] is the brittle, bitter climate of distrust in national politics today:  the loss of civility amid endless personal accusations, the stalemates that develop on issue after issue when both sides are unable to approach the grounds where reasonable compromise can occur.  Possibly this nasty atmosphere would have developed anyway…  But Newt is the guy who poured poison in the stream.

Then of course comes the real kicker.  Donald Trump is considering Gingrich as his vice-presidential candidate.  Or that Gingrich is actively seeking the post.  (Or both.)  See for example:  A Trump-Gingrich Ticket:  So Crazy It Just Might Make Sense?

Failure to Communicate - 'Cool Hand Luke'.jpgSo “what we’ve got here” is either something new under the sun, or deja vu all over again.  Or maybe – instead – it’s just another failure to communicate.

According to Rolling Stone, Newt Gingrich sounded the same in 1998 as he did – politically – in 1978.  And what Newt said – and how he said it – seem eerily similar to Donald Trump’s style of campaigning today.  So whatever “problem” there is with Donald Trump goes back at least 40 years.

It may have been for that very reason that there weren’t “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents,” 16 straight years with a Republican in the White House.

Maybe it was the scandals, or maybe it was the ton of baggage.

Or maybe it’s just easier to win a local Congressional race with a “vocabulary of poison” than it is to win the presidency.  And who knows?  Maybe Donald Trump is the new “Bill Clinton of the GOP,” a master manipulator “flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening.”

But is Donald Trump willing “to deal and compromise” enough to navigate the “contending blocs and interest groups” within the Republican Party?  (If not the country itself?)

History seems to show that Newt Gingrich was not able to do all that.  Which makes Trump’s flirting with the idea of Newt as his VP candidate all the more intriguing.

And all of which leads to another set musical questions:  Is Donald Trump simply another case of deja vu all over again?  Or is he “crazy?”  Or is he instead crazy like a fox?

 

Charley Chase in Crazy Like a Fox.jpg

*   *   *   *

The post-title alludes to the phrase “taken from a famous (attributed) quotation from Yogi Berra:  ‘It’s like déjà vu all over again.'”  See Deja Vu All Over Again – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Déjà vu is the “phenomenon of having the strong sensation that an event or experience currently being experienced has already been experienced in the past.”  So Yogi Berra’s saying “its like deja vu all over again” would be similar to saying something was “redundant redundant.”

The upper image was borrowed from the last post, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”  In turn the image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia.

As for the phrase “answers the musical question” see e.g. Carol Brady – Quotes – imdb.com:  “Carol Brady:  ‘Yeah, the show that asks the musical question: Can eight average people make it in the big time?'”  See also “Bibliographia” – Verbatim, Vol. 29, Issue 1, Spring 2004 (“A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century”), which included this:

In the postwar years, young people became increasingly anti-authoritarian in their behavior. Blame it on Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones.  One way to keep the old folks at bay was to cut them out of your communications…  “Kids,” a song from the 1960 musical Bye, Bye Birdie, asks the musical question, “Who can understand anything they say?”

You could also Google the term “‘answers the musical question’ phrase.”

The article at issue – starting on page 92 of the November 12, 1998 Rolling Stone – started:

The obsession with Bill Clinton’s scandal covers up a stink at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue – that other Washington scandal known simply as Newt.  If Clinton were forced from office, the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich – a man loathed or distrusted not only by the public but by his own Republican colleagues – would be a heartbeat from the presidency.  

The next sentence:  “‘President Gingrich.’  Not likely to happen, but truly frightening to contemplate.” 

The Donald Trump image was featured in On Reagan, Kennedy – and “Dick the Butcher.”  In turn the image is courtesy of businessinsider.com/donald-trump-has-been-fired.

Re: Mother Jones magazine and the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” agreeing that Newt Gingrich has baggage.  See also Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Re: Lunatic fringe.  Wikipedia noted that the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.'”  See also Lunatic Fringe, the “song by the Canadian rock band Red Rider from their 1981 album.”

The “lunatic fringe” cartoon is courtesy of Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com.

The Sarah Palin image is courtesy of “aol.com/article/2016/05/08/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryans-failure-to-endorse-donald-trump-is-unwise/21373081.”

Re: “devouring their own.”  The link in the text is to Saturn Devouring His Son – Wikipedia.  That article told of the Greek god who, “fearing that he would be overthrown by one of his children, ate each one upon their birth.”  For other examples see Republicans Begin Devouring Their Own – LA Progressive, and Republicans devouring their own – Democratic Underground.  But see also COMMENTARY: Democrats are devouring their own, a website headquartered at 1400 East Nolana, McAllen, TX.

The “What we’ve got here” image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article noting the phrase “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate,” featured in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke.

The lower image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, “Crazy like a Fox (1926 film), a 1926 film starring Charley Chase.”  The caption reads: “Charley Chase as Wilson, the groom:”

Crazy like a Fox is a 1926 American short film starring Charley Chase.  The two-reel silent comedy stars Chase as a young man who feigns insanity in order to get out of an arranged marriage, only to find out that his sweetheart is the girl he has been arranged to marry…  The film features Oliver Hardy in a small role filmed shortly before his teaming with Stan Laurel.

Which may bring up the fact – again – that sometimes history repeats in cycles.  

 

“Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

Is there a new Maverick in town?  (Or just another “nothing new under the sun“?)

*   *   *   *

I’m working on a new piece.  It’s based on an article I found in an old (November 12, 1998) issue of Rolling Stone.

Strangely enough, I found the old magazine at the bottom of a dumpster.  (Like the one seen at right.)  And that – you may come to agree – will turn out strangely appropriate.

I decided to keep the old Rolling Stone as a souvenir.  (Based on the cover photo.)  It featured a photo of Bill Clinton, looking rather befuddled, with the headline: Sex, Power & The Presidency: The Clinton Conversation.  (See also Monica Lewinsky.)  But inside – starting on page 92 – I found an article that seemed much more relevant to today’s political scene.

The article noted a presidential candidate who showed “a malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings.  He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions.  Beneath the mask of conservative idealogue is an amoral pragmatist.

Sound familiar?  Or is this instead a matter of:  “Can you say prescient?”

And here’s another hint:  It wasn’t Donald Trump!

Anyway, the project-piece turned to be out a bit more complicated than I expected.  So – in the interim – I offer up this blog-post.  It’s both a look at the past and a teaser.

Nick Adams The Rebel.JPGOne thing some politicians bring up a lot today is “how great things used to be.”  I agree.  That was pretty much my point in Whatever happened to … Cassidy?  But I made the same point much earlier in “Johnny YUMA was a rebel.”

The title of that post was a take-off from an old Seinfeld bit:  “A rebel?  No.  Johnny Yuma was a rebel.  Eckman is a nut…”

Which also seems strangely appropriate to politics today.

But take a closer look at that blast from the past:

[Johnny] Yuma faced down intolerance, distrust, greed, confusion and revenge.  Despite his rebellious nature, Yuma respected law and order and despised abuse of power.  He stood up for the weak and downtrodden.  He traveled alone and was often forced to work alone because he was the only one willing to stand up to the bad guys. (E.A.)

Which – I suppose – brings up the subject of mavericks in general.

Originally the term referred to “Texas lawyer Samuel Maverick, who refused to brand his cattle. The surname Maverick is of Welsh origin, from Welsh mawr-rwyce, meaning ‘valiant hero.”

As an adjective the term applies to someone who shows “independence in thoughts or actions.”  As a noun the term means someone “who does not abide by rules.”  Either that, or someone who “creates or uses unconventional and/or controversial ideas or practices.”

Maverick - Title Card.jpgBut to those of us of a certain age, the more-familiar connection is to Maverick, the “Western television series with comedic overtones” that ran from September 22, 1957 to July 8, 1962, on ABC 

(The series starred “James Garner as Bret Maverick, an adroitly articulate cardsharp.”)  Which – I suppose – brings us back to the subject at hand.

So:  Is there indeed a “new Maverick in town?”  Or are today’s politics just another example of nothing new under the sun?  (For the original thought, see Ecclesiastes 1:9:  “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”)

I’ll have the answer in the next post.  That post in turn will review more fully the Rolling Stone magazine I found at the bottom of a dumpster.  (Which I expect to turn out as a great metaphor.)  In the meantime enjoy this other blast from the past:

*   *   *   *

HOPALONG CASSIDY:

“Reserved … well spoken, with a sense of fair play,” and:

“His drink of choice being sarsaparilla.”

 

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re: “Dumpster.”  Here the proper term would be “roll-off,” a specific type of dumpster.  “Roll-offs” – as I know them – are used in recycling.  (Converting “waste materials into reusable objects.”)  See also Dumpster diving … Dictionary.com.  Note that when I found the “last century” copy of Rolling Stone, I wasn’t “foraging in garbage.”  I was “stomping down” paper products in the paper-recycling roll-off.  Such stomping-down insures that the roll-off will contain more material to be recycled.  (In this case paper products, which in turn will Save More Trees.

The lower image is courtesy of The HOPALONG CASSIDY Poster Page, WILLIAM BOYD.

 

On Gerrymandering and political “costiveness”

The original Gerrymander – a political ploy from 1812 – courtesy of Elbridge Gerry …

*   *   *   *

Today at lunch I finished the rest of the February 8, 2016 issue of Time magazine.  (The first issue – from 1923 – is shown at right.)  I get the magazines hand–me–down from my brother and sister-in-law, and sometimes it takes awhile to read them through.  

Specifically, today I read The Apprentice Voter, starting on page 32.

(See for example How Trump and Sanders Voters Are Upending U.S Politics, which noted that – online – “This TIME Magazine article is only available to subscribers.”  See also RE: TIME “Apprentice Voters” … Medium, and Meet the First-Time Voters Who Are Changing the Election.  For an “on the other hand” – or update – see New model finds 1 candidate surging in general election, dated 4/13/16:  “Hillary Clinton would secure massive victories in the general election against both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.”  The article also noted that Republican candidate John Kasich could “block [such] a victory.”)

Naturally the article focused on the upcoming 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For example, the two lead photos featured a 22-year-old Bernie Sanders supporter, and a 31-year-old Donald Trump supporter.  The Sanders supporter said that everyone “is tired of politics as usual,” and “frustrated with income inequality.”  He added, “We were told in kindergarten that we could do anything.  I don’t think that’s true.”

The Trump supporter said this:  “We’re becoming weakened in the face of the world.  We’re not the global superpower that we used to be.”  And Time added this summary:

From opposite ends of the spectrum, both [ – Sanders and Trump – ] have promised to remake the nation with a populist revolution.  You could call their supporters the Apprentice Voters:  the fed-up, the tuned-out, the frustrated flock who want their elected leaders to feel their pain, reflect their fury and actually do something about it.

Which is all well and good.  However, it does bring up a pet theory of mine.

Seal of the U.S. House of RepresentativesMy theory is that real political change will only come about when we re-make the U.S. House of Representatives.  (BTWcostiveness is defined alternately as causing constipation,” suffering from constipation,” being “slow” and/or “sluggish,” or “stingy.”)  

Which pretty much describes the political situation today.  

My original thesis was that the problem could well be due to gerrymandering.  (That is, the “practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan-advantaged districts.”)

But one website indicated that may not be the case.  See As Swing Districts Dwindle, Can a Divided House Stand?  (I used the search-term:  “congressional district entrenched.”)

That article said most Congressional representatives now come from hyper-partisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party.”

The article said the issue is a one of shrinking swing districts, where an incumbent stands a chance of losing an election.  (As opposed to landslide districts, where the incumbent is virtually assured of re-election.)  In a nutshell, “the number of swing districts has been on a steady decline since at least 1992, and the number of landslide districts on a steady rise.”

On the other hand, it seems there has a bit of gerrymandering:  For example, the Congressional redistricting “that took place after the 2010 elections.”

Republicans were in charge of the redistricting process in many states, and they made efforts to shore up their incumbents, while packing Democrats into a few overwhelmingly Democratic districts.  In the few large states where Democrats were in charge of the redistricting process, like Illinois, they largely adopted a parallel approach.

Which brings up the issue of Congressional redistricting itself.

Wikipedia noted that seven of our 50 states don’t have that issue at all. (Their population is so small they only have one representative for the whole state.  Like Wyoming, with the city of Casper shown at right.)  

Seven other states have their congressional districts decided by an “independent or bipartisan redistricting commission.”  (“To reduce the role that legislative politics might play.”)   But that still leaves plenty of room for political ploys, such as – for example – gerrymandering:

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party.  Consequently, many states including FloridaGeorgia, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.

Then there was another ploy – in 2003 – by Texas Republicans.  They “increased their representation in the U.S. House through a controversial mid-decade redistricting.”  (For another view see Mid-Decade Redistricting, Abuse of Power, by Texas Democratic Congessman Gene Green.)

Then too, in some other states – like California, New Jersey and New York – legislators have protected incumbents of both parties.  (Which reduces the number of competitive districts.)

On the “other other hand,” the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.

Screen shot of RawStory.pngSee for example Why Monday’s Supreme Court decision on redistricting is an important victory over conservatives.  Dated April 6, 2016, that Raw Story lead paragraph went like this:

As the composition of the Supreme Court remains in flux following the death of one of its most outspoken justices and as the executive and legislative branches continue to battle over the timing of his replacement, the eight-member Court spoke in one voice today to affirm a bedrock democratic principle.

That bedrock principle was representational Equality:  “the longstanding principle of one-person one-vote.”  (Formerly known as “one man, one vote.”)  See also Supreme Court ruling on Texas redistricting cheers Democrats.  (About liberal groups applauding the ruling that bolsters the power of “Texas’ booming Latino population,” in areas long dominated by conservatives.)

Which brings up a caveat.  Don’t think – from the last sentence – that I’m one of those flaming liberals.  (But as Seinfeld might say, “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That!”)  Instead – and as noted in Blue Dogs and the “Via Media” – I try hard to follow the “Middle Way:”

Via media is a Latin phrase meaning “the middle road…”   Aristotle [urged] his students to follow the middle road between extremes [and] the via media was the dominant philosophical precept by which Ancient Roman civilisation and society was organised…  The idea of a middle way [also] goes back to early in the Protestant Reformation

See Via media – Wikipedia.  However, we digress!

We were talking about gerrymandering and other symptoms of the political costiveness so prevalent today.  And possibly about whether there’s any hope for the future.

Personally, I think there is.  And that you can sum it one word.

The GraduateRemember that scene in 1967’s The Graduate?

Where Mr. McGuire takes Dustin Hoffman (Benjamin Braddock) aside and says – about his future – “I want to say one word to you.  Just one word.”  (See The Graduate “One Word: Plastics” – YouRepeat.)

Well, here’s my one word about hope for our political future:

Millennials!

See for example The “Millennials” Are Coming – CBS News, about the impact on corporate America by and from “the demographic cohort following Generation X.”

But since we’re talking politics, here’s what Wikipedia had to say about Millennials:

According to a 2013 article in The Economist, surveys of political attitudes among Millennials in the United Kingdom suggest increasingly liberal attitudes with regard to social and cultural issues…  The Economist parallels this with Millennials in the United States, whose attitudes are more supportive of social liberal policies and same-sex marriage…  A 2014 poll for the libertarian Reason magazine suggested that US Millennials were social liberals and fiscal centrists more often than their global peers.

So to sum this all up:  On the political front there seems to be good news for some and bad news for others.  Or to sum it up paraphrasing something Bob Dylan said back in 1964:

The times they WILL be changin.'”

 

A black-and-white close-up of Dylan's face looking down

The original album cover, released on January 13, 1964…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Gerrymandering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption:

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists.  The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts, as a dragon-like “monster.”  Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry’s last name.

Re: representatives.  See also the general article, House[s] of Representatives.

Re: Wyoming.  See also Wyoming’s at-large congressional district – Wikipedia.

Re:  “On the other other hand.”  The link-citation – Give me a one-handed economist! – referenced the practice of economists (for example) to keep saying, “On the other hand…  On the other hand…”  The first time I heard that joke it was about lawyers who kept saying pretty much the same thing, when asked a question by a client.  (Who was no doubt looking for a straight answer.)

Re: “the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.”  But see Redistricting – Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Pennsylvania gerrymander effectively cemented the right of elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for disenfranchised constituents to challenge gerrymandered lines.

That article apparently hasn’t been updated since Evenwel v. Abbott. (4/6/16.)  See also How Supreme Court stood up for democracy for minorities, about the Evenwel case.

Re: “One word.  Plastics.”  See also The Graduate – Wikiquote.  The “one word” quote is in the second set of dialogue, right after the exchange between Benjamin and Mr. Braddock, his father.

Re: “Millenial” political views.  Wikipedia added that they were “less supportive of abortion than Gen X were in the early 1990s,” and that The Economist predicted that “millennials would become more conservative on fiscal issues once they started paying taxes.”

The lower image is courtesy of The Times They Are a-Changin (album).

On Reagan, Kennedy – and “Dick the Butcher”

Two political rivals – back in the old days when such people could “sup with their enemies…”

*   *   *   *

Back on June 12, 2015, I posted “Great politicians sell hope.”

Chris Matthews 2011 Shankbone.JPGThe title of that post was a quote from the 2007 Chris Matthews book, Life’s a Campaign.  In the post I noted my first reaction. (To the idea of politicians “selling hope.”)  That first reaction was – and I quote – What rock have you  been living under?  Then I noted this, from page “xv:”

Political traits are in essence the ability to deal with people.   I’m talking about basic likability, the readiness to listen, to project optimism, to ask for help, to display good cheer in the face of opposition.  To learn the traits of the best [political] practitioners is to acquire a treasure chest of ways to persuade and influence people. 

In other words, Matthews suggested that – far from being inherently objectionable – today’s politicians are people that we “civilians” could actually learn something from.

I then noted that Matthews was – after all – talking about the best practitioners.  (The best “political” practitioners that is.)  Then I added this:  “Maybe the problem today is that too many politicians are trying only to be ‘basically likeable’ to their core base.*”

Donnie BrascoWhich is I suppose another way of saying that not too many people these days see the current crop of politicians as displaying “basic likability.”

Or for that matter “the readiness to listen,” the ability to project optimism, or display “good cheer in the face of opposition.”  (As to asking for help from your political enemies, “Fuhgeddaboudit!!“)

Matthews then added another zinger:  That our current state of political gridlock may well be more of a “situation normal,” and not an aberration.

Then he said something that really surprised me.  Matthews said that most politicians today are both smart and they know exactly what they’re doing.

As an example – and set the tone for the book – he started his Introduction with this Dale Carnegie quote:  “My popularity, my happiness and sense of worth depend to no small extent upon my skill in dealing with people.”  (As applying to politicians.)  Then came the kicker:

The premise of this book is straightforward:  To get ahead in life you can learn a lot from those who get along for a living[.  Again, politicians.  That is:  T]he people who make the biggest impression on me and who’ve actually taught me the tricks of getting ahead in life are the politicians.  I know that goes against the grain…  (Emphasis added.)

(Page xiii, emphasis in original.  But see also Counterintuitive – Wikipedia.)  The point of all this being that Matthews’ thoughts gave me just the inkling of a shocking idea.

Donald TrumpThat “inkling” was that maybe – just maybe – many of our seemingly-dysfunctional politicians today actually do know what they’re doing.  But Matthews had even more to say:

You can say what you want about these masters of power.  They get people to vote for them, give money to their campaigns, trust them with their country.  They possess this wondrous ability, I’ve discovered, to get other people to do just what they want them to do…  The best of these politicians have a sure grip on human nature.  They leave it to the amateurs to believe how people are supposed to behave; they know the secrets of how people actually do.

Here’s another counterintuitive point:  That politicians are good listeners.  As Matthews put it, “They know the deep human need to be paid attention to.”  (On Ronald Reagan’s ability to listen, see The Economist.)  And the best politicians – like Reagan – “can project a sense of hope.”

Of course you could respond that – by their very nature – politicians are devious and Machiavellian. (Like the guy at left.)  And shameless about asking for things.  But – Matthews added – the best politicians are also “upbeat.”  The best politicians – so rare these days – “know the magic of optimism.”

Finally, Matthews added that equally-shocking idea – the one I noted above – that maybe we – we “civilians” – can actually learn from today’s politicians:

I realize that the notion of learning anything of value from politicians cuts against the current mood.  But what these people can teach us about human nature is priceless…  The ability to get along with people … is an art.  Getting people to do what you want them to, I have further learned, is a fine art.

(Page xiv-xv, emphasis in original.)  That In turn led to another shocking thought on my part.

I thought that maybe – just maybe – we citizens despise “all those negative politicians” precisely because they are such an accurate mirror of our own dark side.

That in turn reminded me of a popular quote about lawyers, another despised group:

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers…

Marshall engravingThat’s from Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78, by William Shakespeare.  See Shakespeare Quotes – eNotes.com.  It’s also one of the most misinterpreted quotes of all time, but there’s no doubt the saying is popular.  See Let’s Not … (Above the Law):

Dick the Butcher was a minor character in the middle work of a trilogy of plays the Bard wrote about Henry VI …  and if it weren’t for 10 little words, Dick the Butcher would be largely forgotten.  But those 10 words live on and on, in t-shirts and bumper stickers and coffee mugs and anything else you can slap a quote on.

So here’s my point:  In today’s America we have two despised groups, lawyers and politicians.

And according to people who love to quote Dick the Butcher, the best thing to do would be to kill ‘em all off!   But that probably wouldn’t solve the problem.

The problem with lawyers is – after all – that they’re only doing what their clients want them to do.  (How many clients would tell their lawyer: “Don’t use that dishonorable legal trick.  I’d much rather keep my honor, even if it means spending the rest of my life in prison – and making sure I don’t drop the soap in the shower!”)  Which seems pretty much true of politicians as well.

So the popular view of both lawyers and politicians seems to go like this:  “It’s not my lawyer – or local political representative – who’s bad.  It’s all those other lawyers, politicians and political representatives who are corrupting the system!”

(And a BTW:  That last was either irony or sarcasm.  Or possibly both…)

Which brings up the fact that – as a former lawyer myself – I came up with what I thought was a much better idea.  That idea was that – when it comes to lawyers – maybe the rule should be this:  “The first thing we do is kill all the clients!

But of course, that wouldn’t solve anything either.  We’re not going to kill all the lawyers, or the clients who pay them to be nasty on their behalf.  (As long as they keep the client happy, as in keeping him from losing his “shirt,” or his “virtue,” as in prison…)  And we’re also not going to kill off all the politicians, or the people who vote for them to be “nasty on their behalf.”

Which brings up again the likely reason so many people don’t like either lawyers or politicians today:  They accurately reflect our own dark side.  (Think “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: I Am My Mother After All.”)  But – apparently – it wasn’t always that way.

There was a time – in the not-too-distant past – that politicians could actually “sup with their enemies.”

Take for example, Ronald Reagan.  His political arch-enemies included Tip O’Neill and Ted Kennedy.  Yet Reagan could – and did – sup with either or both men.  For one example, even though the two men were politic arch-enemies, Ted Kennedy admired Reagan.

Specifically, Ted Kennedy he admired the fact that Ronald Reagan “knew how to manipulate symbols for his causes yet could sup with his enemies:”

He’s absolutely professional.  When the sun goes down, the battles of the day are really gone.  He gave the Robert Kennedy Medal, which President Carter refused to do…   He’s very sure of himself, and I think that people sense that he’s comfortable with himself…   He had a philosophy and he’s fought for it.  There’s a consistency and continuity at a time when many others are flopping back and forth.  And that’s an important and instructive lesson for politicians, that people admire that.

See “Great politicians sell hope.”  So one theme of this post is that we “civilians” can – according to Chris Matthews – learn a lot from today’s professional politicians.

But another theme could well be that today’s politicians could learn a lot from the best politicians of the past.  And one of the most revered conservative politicians of the past was Ronald Reagan.  See for example Ronald Reagan: Conservative Statesman.  (But see also If Ronald Reagan ran today, where would he fall on the conservative spectrum?)

So in closing, we could easily say that we could use a lot more of Reagan’s professionalism from today’s politicians – on both sides of the aisle.  (Referring to “the skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well.”)

Now that’s what I would call True Conservativism

*   *   *   *

1006-ronald-reagan-tip-O'neill-ftr

Just imagine Paul Ryan putting his arm around President Obama…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/senator_ted_kennedy.  The caption:  “Senator Edward Kennedy talks with President Ronald Reagan, left, on June 24, 1985, as they look over an American Eagle that graced President John F. Kennedy’s desk during a fund raising event for the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library at McLean, Virginia.  (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi).”  

Re: “LIfe’s a Campaign.”  For a link to the book version, see Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success.

Re: “Core base.”  I was going to write “wacko base,” but thought better of it…

Re: “Fuhgeddaboudit!!”  That site noted, “‘Fuhgeddaboudit’ seems to have become a pop cultural meme around the time of the 1997 film Donnie Brasco.”  The image to the left of the paragraph featuring the quote is courtesy of Donnie Brasco (1997) – IMDb.

Re: Today’s gridlock.  See for example Gridlock in Congress? It’s probably even worse than you think (Washington Post), Political gridlock: Unprecedentedly dysfunctional, (The Economist), and Political Gridlock – Huffington Post.  

Re: “Situation normal.”  See Military slang – Wikipedia.

The Donald Trump image is courtesy of businessinsider.com/donald-trump-has-been-fired.

 Re: Ronald Reagan’s ability to listen.  The complete citation is US presidential endorsements | The Economist.  (Which included the illustration at right.)  Under 1980: Ronald Reagan:  “Many, though by no means all, of [Reagan’s] current advisers are indeed sound, and the evidence from his time governing California and from what the more impressive of them say is that his greatest quality is to be a good listener – though not to the legislature, which he treated with disdain.”

Re: “Most misinterpreted quotes of all time.”  See A Line Misinterpreted.  

The Shakespeare image is courtesy of PICTURES of WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.

The “mirror mirror” image is courtesy of studio773pillows.easternaccents.com/pv-32486-Mirror-Mirror-on-the-wall.

Re:  Ted Kennedy on Ronald Reagan.  See Battle for Justice: How the [Robert] Bork Nomination Shook America, by Ethan Bronner, Anchor Book edition (1989), at page 104. 

Re: Ronald Reagan as a conservative statesmen.  According to If Ronald Reagan ran today, where would he fall on the conservative spectrum:  “Conservative Republicans today don’t have one Reagan-type to coalesce around…  ‘There was only one Ronald Reagan and the eternal quest to try and clone him retrospectively is a failed mission.'”  For another view, see also 10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan.

The lower image is courtesy of parade.com/170490/1006-ronald-reagan-tip-oneill, from a post titled “Making Political Frenemies,” the gist of which is as follows:

The conservative president and the liberal House speaker found themselves constantly at odds during the six years they helmed their respective institutions, yet they managed to pass landmark legislation through divided government.

See also politico.com/story/2013/10/when-politics-worked-chris-matthews-colorful-memoir.  For other views of the relationship between Reagan and O’Neill, see Pat Buchanan: ‘There’s a Lot of Myth About Tip O’Neill and Reagan, and Sorry Chris – Tip and the Gipper didn’t like each other.  Which of course seems to be precisely the point:  That the two political enemies could work together – as “professional” politicians – even if they didn’t like each other…

*   *   *   *

Other thoughts from Life’s a Campaign:  1)  That making new friends, dealing with opponents, and getting out their message “comes with the territory” of being a politician:  “It’s called campaigning.” And  2)  That “when it comes to pushing their own careers, I can assure you, the best politicians know exactly what they’re doing.” 

On that OTHER “Teflon Don”

Jumbo poster 1.jpg

A poster celebrating that other “Greatest Showman on Earth” – circa 1882…

*   *   *   *

Just a couple thoughts on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race.

First of all, if “The Donald” – shown at right in 1988 – does manage to get elected, he may well be the first president in American history to get both impeached and convicted.

And here’s a BTW:  So far we’ve only had two presidents impeached – Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton – but neither man ended up getting actually convicted by the U.S. Senate.

(And that statement about “impeached and convicted” is judging by the GOP’s late[st] push to stop Trump.   “Which is being interpreted:”  If Trump does turn out to be as bad as many people expect – on both sides of the aisle – it seems likely that Congressional Republicans would gladly join any Democratic effort to impeach and convict him, if only to secure their own future employment…)

The other observation:  It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Donald Trump is really trying to help Hillary get elected.  In other words, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that Master Showman Donald Trump is actually playing those far-right conservatives like a piano.

Who knows?  He may be trying to get some kind of political payback from Hillary.  Or he may have felt it more advisable to run for president as a Republican rather than a Democrat. (How would “two New York Liberals” have played out at the Democratic convention?)  Or maybe he just wants to shake things up, to “show that he can.”  But whatever his true intentions, you can be sure he’s got something up his sleeve.  (There’s “more here than meets the eye.”)

But we’re digressing.  The title of this post refers to “that otherTeflon Don.'”

The thing is, I originally planned to do a post comparing Donald Trump to P. T. Barnum – at left – known for an earlier Greatest Show on Earth.  But surprisingly, I found a number of distinct differences between the two men.  (One of them: Barnum turned out to be an effective elected official.)

But first, here’s something of an experiment.  I Googled the phrase “donald trump fraud” and got 3,120,000 results.  I Googled the phrase “donald trump hoax” and got 1,157,000 results.  On the other hand, I Googled “donald trump huckster” and got a mere 32,400 results.

The point being that somewhere along the line, my recent free association on Donald Trump ultimately led me to that other Great American Showman, P. T. Barnum.

One surprising thing I learned about Barnum:  He served 60 days in prison when he was 19 years old.  He was publishing the weekly Herald of Freedom in Danbury, Connecticut.  In the process he managed to upset “some very powerful people,” and got convicted of libel:

Traumatic though this spell in prison must have been …  Barnum found that far from damaging his career the conviction increased both his notoriety and his popularity…  He became a folk hero for some and upon his release from prison he was met by a band and a horse-drawn carriage organised by his supporters for a parade back to town.

Which might have led to Barnum being labeled “Teflon P.T.”  However, that doesn’t have the same nice ring to it as “Teflon Don.”  (And besides, Teflon hadn’t been discovered yet…)

Then too, in what might be called a similarity between the two men, Barnum (1810-1891) was known for an alleged comment, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

But that seems to be like many another American myth, to wit: “greatly exaggerated:”

“There’s a sucker born every minute” is a phrase most likely spoken by David Hannum, in criticism of both P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid 19th century, and his customers.   The phrase is often credited to Barnum himself.  It means “People are foolish, and will always be fools.”

Wikipedia went on to indicate that we simply don’t know who first coined the phrase.  (But it did add that in the “1930 John Dos Passos novel The 42nd Parallel, the quotation is attributed to Mark Twain.”)  On the other hand, his biographer said Barnum “was just not the type to disparage his patrons.”  For that matter, Barnum thought his audiences should get their money’s worth:

Often referred to as the “Prince of Humbugs” [as shown at right] Barnum saw nothing wrong in entertainers or vendors using hype (or “humbug,” as he termed it) in promotional material, as long as the public was getting value for money.  However, he was contemptuous of those who made money through fraudulent deceptions, especially the spiritualist mediums [of] his day…

Now, about his serving as an “effective elected official.”

First of all, Barnum started out by promoting “hoaxes and human curiosities such as the Feejee mermaid and General Tom Thumb.”  But that didn’t pan out, and after “economic reversals due to bad investments in the 1850s, and years of litigation and public humiliation, he used a lecture tour, mostly as a temperance speaker, to emerge from debt.”  (Is is possible that, “The Donald” is also just trying to work himself out of debt?)  The point is that from there:

Barnum served two terms in the Connecticut legislature in 1865 as a Republican.  [On the issue of slavery] and African-American suffrage, Barnum spoke before the legislature and said, “A human soul, ‘that God has created and Christ died for,’ is not to be trifled with. It may tenant the body of a Chinaman, a Turk, an Arab or a Hottentot – it is still an immortal spirit.”

Which no doubt surprised a number of people.

From there he was elected as Mayor of Bridgeport, CT in 1875.  He “worked to improve the water supply, bring gas lighting to streets, and enforce liquor and prostitution laws.  Barnum was instrumental in starting Bridgeport Hospital, founded in 1878, and was its first president.

Which no doubt surprised even more peope.

In another strange twist, before the Civil War Barnum produced blackface minstrel shows, but with a twist:  His “minstrel shows often used double-edged humor.”

Then too, in 1853 he promoted a “politically watered-down stage version of Harriet Beecher Stowe‘s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

But in Barnum’s version, the play, had “a happy ending, with Tom and other slaves freed.”  And finally, another similarity:  Both men started out as Democrats.  In Barnum’s case, his “opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act which supported slavery, of 1854 led him to leave the Democratic Party.”

And so, in joining the “new anti slavery Republican Party,” Barnum had “evolved from a man of common stereotypes of the 1840s to a leader for emancipation by the Civil War.”

The question is:  In light of Donald Trump’s often-shifting political positions, will he eventually be seen as an “effective elected official,” a funhouse showman, or a Simon Legree?

 

Simon Legree hunting fugitive slaves in “UTC.”

 *   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of the Jumbo link within P. T. Barnum – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The caption:  “Jumbo and his keeper Matthew Scott (Circus poster, ca. 1882).”  For further information on Barnum, see P.T. Barnum, Human Freaks, and the American Museum, and/or P T Barnum Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com.

Re: To play someone like a piano.  The cited reference is actually to playing someone like a fiddle – Wiktionary, meaning to ” manipulate (a person) skillfully.” 

Re: Free association.  See also Free association (psychology) – Wikipedia.

The lower image is courtesy of Wikipedia’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”  The caption:  “Simon Legree on the cover of the comic book adaptation of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Classic Comics No. 15, November 1943 issue).”  And a note on Barnum’s “happy ending.”  In the original version Uncle Tom died, a victim of Simon Legree.  In turn, he is portrayed as “the perfect Christian.”  That is, at the end of the novel the character George Shelby returns to his Kentucky farm and frees all his slaves.  In doing so he “tells them to remember Tom’s sacrifice and his belief in the true meaning of Christianity.”

Re: Trump’s political positions:  “On specific policy, Trump has been described as a moderate Republican.  His politics have been described as populistnativist, protectionist and authoritarian by a variety of sources.”  A few examples:  Trump has said he wants to “lower taxes for middle and working-class people, and increase taxes on wealthy private equity and hedge fund managers.”  He has supported “improving America’s infrastructure,” even though on the federal level – he has said – “this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that.”  He started out pro-choice but now describes himself as pro-life.  He supports “states’ rights to legalize and regulate cannabis.”

One final note:  The “Simon Legree” comparison is based in large part on Trump’s emphasis on Mexico sending “its people” into the U.S., mostly “criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.,” while “some, I assume, are good people.”   He has said that on “Day 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast,” and that he would build a wall similar to the Israeli West Bank barrier.  Finally, “Trump opposes birthright citizenship based solely on birth within the United States, arguing that it should not be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”