Here We Go Again

Many years ago, at a membership meeting in my synagogue, one of our members proposed himself for the position of President when the nominating committee presented its report. Actually he wasn't a member of the Board, nor had he been active in synagogue affairs up until that time. But he recognized that some problems existed, and suggested that he was the man to fix them. Chutzpah. One of the Board members suggested that rather than start at the top he become more involved in the congregation's structure as it already was, and work his way up.

I never saw him again.

There's a kind of leadership style which has a boss instructing his employee “Don't tell me the problems – tell me the solutions.” The approach bespeaks the view that the leader is there simply to supervise the difficulties that others recognize, and to get credit for leading everyone out of the wilderness. But it's an even more troublesome situation when the leader believes that he can identify – indeed he has already identified – the problems that exist, and that he can solve them all. It's the approach of the “outsider” who can correct the errors caused by those who had theretofore been involved. It takes someone not caught up in the organization's internal politics.

And that's where we are now. The current campaign for the presidency pits an individual who has no experience in organized politics and government against one who has. Whatever the personal qualifications of the other, the Republican has no experience governing but claims that he can solve all of our country's problems. He's a populist whose main capability, in the eyes of voters, is that he's a strong (loud) advocate of positions which provide simple solutions to complex problems – the ones he claims were created by those who have spent their careers dealing with them. His lack of tact and his inability to relate to those with whom he would have to deal are strengths, and would bring them around to his positions.

Sadly, his opponent, the Democrat, is not much better. She also has a powerful ego, but has shown herself to be, at best, ignorant of what is going on and what is being done in her name, and, at worst, complicit in improper and possibly illegal activities. And she has displayed a pattern of withholding information unless forced to reveal it. Perhaps she isn't quite the villain painted by her opponent, however she isn't the candidate whom we need to preside over our country. She won't lead us out of the wilderness.

But she's probably what we'll get. Our best hope is that we can survive the next four years without a major disaster and that by then we'll have regained our sanity and selected candidates fit for the office. Ego isn't an adequate qualification, whether it's in the form of a braggart with a following that reflects his unearned confidence, or a politician skilled in vote-getting but who shows signs that she would govern poorly.

Whom should we blame? According to Pogo Possum, We have met the enemy and he is us.

---------------------------

NOTE: I've said all this before, but I see no fix to the problem and it continues to vex me.

September 29, 2016

Shimon Peres A”H

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? 

         Declare if you have the understanding.

That was G-d's challenge to Job. He was telling Job – telling us all – that we really have no understanding of His plans, His methods, and, especially, His thoughts.

And we don't. It's a mistake when we try to “out-think” G-d. We do not know, and we shall never know His thoughts and plans. The best we can hope to do is our best – to follow the principles we find in His holy books.

Shimon Peres did his best. He spoke his mind. He fought for the land which, according to our traditions, G-d had given to his people (His people).

I didn't always agree with the positions he took, but there was never any doubt about his intent. His end was always to establish a Middle East in which there was peace, in which Israel and the Jewish people could live fruitfully and in security. He sought a region – he sought a world – in which the lion and the lamb could like down together. Safely. Perhaps that required nuclear weapons, perhaps it required mutual concessions and understanding. Perhaps it required trust, even when there was no reason to expect it from your adversaries.

That's where our views differed. He was willing to give trust a chance. I wasn't. I had, and I have, no belief that the countries surrounding Israel will ever do what is, in my mind, the right thing.

But I had no knowledge of Peres's thoughts, and perhaps there was always a “Plan B” if things didn't work out. It's obvious that he knew far more about the area's political possibilities and its peoples than I and other laymen in Israel and foreign lands, and it's also obvious that he was a brilliant strategic thinker. It's also obvious that his approach was one that was far more nuanced and acceptable to the world than that of those like me.

Whatever his practices regarding Judaism's theological dicta, he strove for the goal of “peaceful coexistence.” He will be missed. Even by us hawks.

The Debates

The debates begin tomorrow, on Monday. For the Presidency. There will be two candidates trading blows – the candidates of the major parties. Neither is trusted by the majority of Americans, but those are the only ones from whom we will hear the justifications for their seeking the office. One of them has claimed that the election is rigged (against him), which is seen as an advanced excuse for losing the election if that should occur.

But it is difficult not to accept the idea that the election is rigged. Not against either of them, irrespective of the claims. And not against the lesser of evils, but against those of us who trust neither of them. Despite voter antipathy towards both of the major party contenders, and the calls for new ideas and new leadership, the media won't let us in on any third party candidates' views, and the debate managers won't let us hear what those who question the major party offerings have to say, so we can decide. While the majority of Americans reject both the Democrat and Republican, we are not being given the opportunity to hear other views and judge for ourselves. Is Johnson better than Clinton or Trump? We'll never know. All we know is that the lesser of two evils is evil.

It's not a big surprise. Long ago the media staked out their positions, favoring either the Democrats or Republicans, and they gain nothing by devoting their personnel and their space to anyone else. And it will simply confuse their readers, who have been reared in the context of a “two party system.” They haven't been prepared, as have citizens of other countries, for a political system that contains many parties – each claiming different ground, pressing different issues, and favoring different political leaders and different political factions among the public.

It would also make debates both more complicated and expensive. And that's not the American Way. We have a free press – as long as you support the major parties. The idea of a third party is not one that the media support. Or at least not one that they “advertise.”

But if neither the media nor those who run the debates support the concept that there may be more than two points of view – on problems, solution, and people – how can we? When they limit what we can hear they limit what we can think, and what we can do. They deprive us of the ability to choose, while telling us that “anyone can grow up to be President.” The reality is that “anyone” has be an advocate (or claim to be one) of the policies of one of the major parties. There is no room for independent thinking. It is disruptive and uneconomical. It would cause citizens to question the prejudices of the established media. It would not be well received by the ownership and editorial staff of an organ that has a long-standing policy of supporting a particular party or philosophy.

A good example is the New York Times. It is a paper that, for the last half-century, has only supported Democrats for the Presidency. We have had Presidents who were members of the Democratic Party and never had a day during their stewardship when the country wasn't at war. The Times supported them. There have been Republican Presidents during times of peace. The Times has opposed them. Economic difficulties, as the “Gray Lady” has chosen to define them, are the fault of the Republicans, as is any racial strife. Even if they occur under a Democratic President.

Today (surprise, surprise), just in time for us to evaluate the candidates in debate having been primed to know who is right, the Times endorsed Secretary Clinton. She was recommended as “A leader with the intellect and courage to face hard challenges.” She “has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas.” It continues

Running down the other guy won't suffice to make [the] argument [although they promise to reveal to us tomorrow “why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history]. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn't Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton's capacity to rise to them.

In view of the fact that so many polls have displayed the belief that she is unfit for the office, she will certainly have “to rise to them.” And the frequent misstatements she has made while creating her image – some would call them “lies” rather than “misstatements” – make it difficult to accept her campaign promises without questions.

This is not a defense of Mr. Trump who is also not trusted by voters and would also be a bad choice. But the great flaws of both make it important that other points of view be presented to the American people. One of the two major party candidates is likely to win. They always do, and it will probably be Secretary Clinton. In either case we all lose. But if other ideas are presented either in the press or during debates we will at least have the opportunity of having more to discuss next time. I'm not so naïve as to believe that a third party candidate will ever be properly covered by the press or allowed to participate in future debates, but if their ideas become part of the conversation, Democrats and Republicans will have to discuss them. And we'll all gain from that.

Beats Me

I don't know anything.

Actually that's not accurate. I really know a lot. But I can't do anything.

That's also a little misleading. I know what needs to be done but I'm not a hands-on person and I need more skilled people than myself to do it. I'm the big-picture type who makes a mess of the small details and can botch almost anything. But so what?

I saw the movie about Steve Jobs recently and can identify with him very well. At least I can identify with some of his characteristics. I don't mean to claim that I have his genius. I'm bright, but certainly not a genius. And I don't engender the dislike of others that was attributed to him in the film. But I like to imagine what could be and how to get there, even if I can't accomplish things on my own. And Jobs's way was to come up with the imaginative ideas and hire the people he knew could bring them about.

Thomas Edison is reported as having said, “Genius is 1 per cent inspiration and 99 per cent perspiration.” (In other citations the division is two and ninety-eight percent, but the idea is the same.) New ideas may be easy for some people to produce, but to take the basic idea and make it meaningful requires a great deal of effort. Edison's words were intended to emphasize the idea that effort is what counts. To be sure, effort certainly does count, but without the inspiration, the only useful application of perspiration is in work that already exists; and important and productive as that is, no innovation is involved.

But even more so – and I happen to believe that Edison had the numbers wrong, that genius has a much larger component of inspiration that makes the “effort” much more productive and enjoyable – unless genius is productive and recognized, it is valueless. One percent may be inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration, but one hundred ten percent is determination. I know that adds up to over two hundred percent, but we're talking about genius, and real genius knows no limitations.

Well, there are some limitations. For Edison it was the determination to turn his ideas into realities, and then into products that the public would want. For other geniuses – Einstein for example – it is the determination of others to understand the concepts which have been introduced. Einstein's hundred percent is only the beginning of the story. For Steve Jobs the task was one of analysis of what the public would want, and the inspiration to imagine what would fill their needs and desires. His perspiration primarily involved the locating and employment of others who could actually implement what he imagined. And his determination was to convince the public that he could solve their problems. His genius and determination involved both the creation of electronic devices and their marketing.

I enjoy writing, and I think I'm reasonably good at it. And I like to think about the problems that seem to me to exist. Sometimes those problems are real, but I suspect that occasionally I create problems and puzzles for myself in order to work them out.

That's the fun for me – working out a problem. I often do it by writing, which requires that I outline all the implications of an issue that I can imagine and explore how the various considerations impact it and help me reach a solution to the problem. Having done that, however, and having put the entire matter into some form of essay, it is far less important to me that my thoughts are read. Whatever the inspiration, and whatever the “perspiration” involved in working out the problem, I have little interest in whether or not others read what I have to say. That's up to them. There's no determination on my part.

Does that mean I'm a failure? I know I'm not a genius but I don't care. My ideas and efforts may not exceed one hundred percent. They may not even reach that level. Perhaps they're valueless, but that's only to others. For me they're fine.

Nobility

In 1895, Alfred Nobel's will provided for the annual presentation of five prizes for signal achievements in specific fields. Nobel was a scientist, and the majority of the prizes were in scientific fields – Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology and Medicine. A fourth was to be given for literature.

There was also a fifth prize which was awarded in Norway rather than Nobel's home country of Sweden where the others were presented. Whether in Sweden or Norway, however, the ceremony is held in the presence of the King. These are noble prizes and merit the honorable supervision of nobility. Why he decided on the second venue is uncertain, but the prizes awarded by the Norwegian committee are usually the most prominent, and they have certainly caused the most controversy that the award has received. (A sixth prize, in Economic Sciences, was added in 1968 but it was funded by a Swedish bank and, although awarded at the same time and equated with them, it is not actually a “Nobel Prize.”) Although there is disagreement over the relative merits of their accomplishments, there is rarely any question about the worthiness of the ultimate winner of an award in one of the scientific fields. And while the literature prize recipients may be more subjectively chosen, the laureates are almost invariably meritorious and well chosen (although James Joyce was passed over for an award).

Would that the same could be said of the Peace Prize. There has been much criticism of the committee choosing the winners, as well as extensive second guessing of some of the recipients. In part this probably results from the public being better able to understand the issues involved than it might be in regard to, for example, physics. But the level of consternation that some of the awards have engendered reflects the fact that personal biases and politics have played a significant role in some of the choices. The awarding of a Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat is enough to make one wonder what the aim of the committee was, and honoring Henry Kissinger, for ending a war that was still going on, was, at best, premature. Many, however, considered it a mockery. Tom Lehrer, who wrote satirical songs in the latter half of the twentieth century, is reported to have said “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger 'was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.'”

Another questionable award took place in 2009 when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to a President who had been in office for less than a year. It was for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” During his term, in the quest for peace as he sees it, he has angered our friends, lost the respect of our enemies, and diminished our nation's prestige. And in his entire term the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize he has not brought our nation a single day when we were not at war. The award was a victory of political bias over reality and common sense. It didn't reflect any accomplishments because there were none. It was merely a slap at the President's predecessor. Skoal.

I raise these points now because of the death last week of Elie Wiesel, 1986 winner of the award. [This essay is being written on July 7^th, 2016.] Notwithstanding the slanders of pro-Palestinians, Wiesel was one of the first to speak out about the horrors of the Holocaust, and one of the most vocal advocates of action to deal with other atrocities in whatever countries they occurred.

In his presentation speech, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, spoke of the terrible period of the Nazi crimes which Wiesel and millions of others had endured, and then said

… The duty and responsibility which Elie Wiesel preaches are not primarily concerned with the fear of the terrors of the past repeating themselves. It is much more an engagement directed at preventing the possible victory of evil forces in the future. The creative force in this process is not hate and revenge, but rather a longing for freedom, a love of life and a respect for human dignity. Or as Elie Wiesel has said himself: "I will conquer our murderers by attempting to reconstruct what they destroyed." … It is in recognition of this particular human spirit's victory over the powers of death and degradation, and as a support to the rebellion of good against the evil in the world, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee today presents the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. We do this on behalf of millions — from all peoples and races. We do it in deep reverence for the memory of the dead, but also with the deep felt hope that the prize will be a small contribution which will forward the cause which is the greatest of all humanity's concerns — the cause of peace.

And in his acceptance speech Wiesel said

… Words of gratitude. First to our common Creator. This is what the Jewish tradition commands us to do. At special occasions, one is duty-bound to recite the following prayer: "Barukh … shehekhyanu vekiymanu vehigianu lazman hazeh" — "Blessed be Thou for having sustained us until this day." … Do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions. And yet, I sense their presence. I always do — and at this moment more than ever. The presence of my parents, that of my little sister. The presence of my teachers, my friends, my companions … This honor belongs to all the survivors and their children and, through us to the Jewish people with whose destiny I have always identified. … [Having suffered myself] I swore never to be silent whenever [and] wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. … Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.

This time they got it right.

Who's Worse?

Political negativism has gone mainstream. And it goes on for longer. (At least it seems that the political season, the “silly season,” never ends.)

It seems reasonable to me that those who consider themselves as potential officials charged with the responsibility of running our government and dealing with the problems which our society might face should offer the reasons why they believe they deserve our votes. They would tell us what qualifies them for the position they seek, and indicate what problems exist or are foreseeable, and how they would deal with those problems. In short, they would tell us why we should vote for them.

That, however, is not the case. Over the years the emphasis has been more on why we should not vote for their opponents. Less and less of the conversation deals with the proposals of the candidates themselves, and more involves the real or imagined faults of the individual running in opposition. What they want us to do is to vote against him (or her), which requires voting for them. And we get less and less information about them. That seems to be less important.

I used to vote for the candidate who had less negative to say about the individual running against him, but that's getting harder and harder to do. As the years go by there has been an increased emphasis on denigrating the other party, rather than presenting one's own qualifications. And the media aid in this tactic. After all, it sells.

For example – actually it's my favorite example of biased journalism – the New York Times, which is considered by many to be the standard of objectivity and excellence in American reporting, has adopted this approach to the presidential election which will take place in November (and to other campaigns as well). In recent weeks and months it has been the practice, on all too many occasions, for the lead article on the front page to be something finding fault with Donald Trump. That's not difficult to do. He has many flaws, and not much – if anything – to offer, but his failings don't deserve the prominence they are giving it. There are often several “Op-Eds” that belittle him as well, and a large number of letters to the editor which carry the same message. There is an enormous amount of coverage of a candidate whom they are sure to criticize strongly at election time.

In contrast, former Secretary of State Clinton is rarely the subject of a front page story or an “Op-Ed” in the Times. They have little to say about her. Nor are there many letters about her that are printed. It's possible that all they consider positive about her isn't newsworthy but a reader who doesn't already favor her – one honestly interested in learning about her views – is unlikely to get very much information about her in that paper. (In reality, she has numerous flaws as well.) Nor will there be much, if there is anything, about third-party candidates. It's almost certain that the Times will endorse Secretary Clinton when election time comes around, but they have almost nothing to say about her now. Their time and space are spent in disparaging Trump.

It's hardly a specific fault of the Times nor limited to this election, but as the years pass it is becoming more and more the usual pattern in election coverage. And in the way that candidates present themselves. Even in local elections there seems to be a plethora of brochures which spend more and more time denigrating a candidate's opponent than in telling us what “the good guy” is proposing – why we should vote for him. Negative advertising seems to be the primary method of addressing voters. Attacks. And the language used to describe that opponent has become increasingly harsh as the years have passed. The most important focus seems to be the message that “the other guy” is the greater of the evils, whereas I'd rather learn which candidate is the greater of the goods. And why.

Not surprisingly, I'm not alone. Unhappy voters are sitting out elections. The percentage of potential voters who actually go to the polls is embarrassingly low. Or they're voting for third-party candidates. (Interestingly, there was a letter in the Times in which the writer stated that she would not vote for a third-party candidate because that was the equivalent of giving the advantage to one of the other two. But she was reluctant to vote for either of the major party offerings, and would probably not vote for either on election day, leaving that choice blank. I find it hard to distinguish between the two approaches, but it seems to have made sense to her.)

Is there a solution to the problem? Probably not. As I mentioned, negative sells – especially when there are few positives. And negativity works. But it works less as more candidates adopt it, which is what they are doing. All it leads to is an increase in voter dissatisfaction and lower turnouts. Until we revolt and demand that candidates tell us what they have to offer rather than limiting their rhetoric to a description of someone else's faults, they'll continue to attack. And until a way is found to hear the positions of those who, because they are not candidates of major parties, have little interest shown in them by the media.

Seems unlikely to me. In front of every silver lining there's a cloud. And I fear that this one is here to stay.

Labor Day And The One Percent

No. No. You misunderstand. But I'll get to that.

First of all, happy Labor Day. Unofficially it's the end of summer, but we know better. Lots of hot days left. And Election Day's coming, so it's “Silly Season.” (But it's always Silly Season.) It was especially so during the run-up to the Democratic Convention when Senator Sanders's supporters outnumbered those of Colonel Sanders, and his ideas were “finger lickin' good.”

But I'll get to that too.

First let me comment on the “one percent.” It's a what, not a who. According to Thomas Edison, Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. It's not the idea that counts, it's the effort that goes into turning it into a usable “product,” whether that's a concept or a physical construction, whether it's commercial or simply for personal use.

The perspiration is certainly something any worker experiences, though not all workers share equally in that experience. There are many who “play the system,” making enough to get by while working just hard enough to keep their jobs. Or at least being seen to do so. Better still, with enough effort spent in doing so, work can be avoided entirely, with support provided by various unemployment and welfare programs. It certainly isn't the life of Riley, but it's far better than the life endured by so many around the world.

And the United States isn't the only generous country. There are many that provide for the needy. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and someone has to pay. Can you guess who? You. And me. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Louis Blanc, 1851. Later Karl Marx.) Socialism. That's the perspective of many, as exemplified in the “Occupy ...” movements a few years ago. And even if the movements no longer exist, the idea remains.

The “one percent” of whom they speak are the rich. But they are not the lazy. In addition to the perspiration, they have the inspiration. And much of their perspiration, their ninety-nine percent, is the effort to turn their ideas into usable products. (That's not to say that all the wealthy are good people with good ideas, but at some point in the history of each fortune is the effort, imagination, and hard work that created it.)

Inspiration is not present equally in everybody. Nor are capital, knowledge, and opportunity. But, if society is to advance it should be encouraged, not punished. By and large it benefits society, not only with both its products and employment for those who participate in its manufacture, but because the inspired one percent are the source of so much of society's philanthropy (see “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Philanthropy Matters” by Zoltan Acs, and other similar works) – and we all profit from that.

And, for better or worse, we're all selfish. We all want a peice of the pie. Of course we'd prefer not to work for it, but the greater rewards come to those who put greater effort into problem solving. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods. (Ralph Waldo Emerson. Now usually quoted as Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.) Society rewards imagination and innovation. As it should. If we are to advance we have to encourage our citizens to come up with and develop new ideas. And the best encouragement is fiscal. That's fair.

There are many, however, who adocate sharing. Usually they want what someone else has. They would have the rich provide for the poor. No one should benefit at another's expense. From their perspective that is what's fair. The Robin Hood approach. Irrespective of its effects on motivation and progress. Among those who take this position are politicians, like Senator Sanders who was recently a candidate for President. And his voice has had its effects on the Democratic platform. But popular as such a concept may be among the majority, it may not be for the good.

The following letter appeard recently in The Wall Street Journal:

Regarding Bret Stephens’s “What's Socialism Dad?” (Global View, May 17): I had a similar discussion with my grandchildren as did Bret Stephens with his son regarding the meaning of socialism. I pointed out to them that they all work very hard to achieve the grade of “A” on their tests. However, the student next to them may not have worked as hard, or may have goofed off, or just didn’t care, and as a result received a failing grade. But under socialism, the school administration (i.e., the “government”) could reduce your hard-earned “A” to a “C” to lift the failing student’s “F” to a “C.” They all immediately responded as I hoped they would, saying: “Not fair,” and “Why would I work so hard again?” They understood immediately the disincentives and the mediocrity of socialism

Steven Shanok

Northbrook, Ill.

I hope even the politicians – especially Senator Sanders – can understand its message. But I doubt that they want to.