Various Ideas VI

As I said last time. The following ideas bother me but they can hardly be viewed as revelations. They're more like thoughts that need development but now's not the time for me. You can do that if you choose. Perhaps I've done them before or perhaps I have other things on my mind. In either case I'll just set them out and move on.

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

A clock makes me think. Before time was an issue for me I could think of the future as endless. Now that I've been warned I see everything in the perspective of time and its boundaries. Don't misunderstand. I have every intention of living forever (if it's G-d's will, and with my doctor's help – and the tests so far suggest that it's a possibility. Well maybe not forever). Still there is a (potential) limit set by the clock on everything and it's hard to ignore. Knowledge of time as a factor makes me more appreciative of what I have.

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

The replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – “Obamacare”) passed the House of Representatives today. Some Republicans voted against it, although most supported it. All the Democrats voted against it. This is the Congress which “governs” us nowadays: party-line (party-discipline) votes with no room for debate and compromise. President Truman complained about a “do nothing Congress” but at least the issues were discussed. All that matters now is public relations. The parties are positioning themselves for the next election and the next Congress that will accomplish very little despite the loud rhetoric.

The media glories in such controversies (and this is only one). It sells. And the media promotes controversy. A small group of protesters – even a sole petitioner – is worth a lot of media time and attention. That sells, too. As the protesters plan, the media helps them get their message out. Their complaint is well publicized and has the appearance of validity and mass support. At least it has the support of the media – especially those eager to promote the message. They can publicize those who support their views (as they promote their views in “objective” reporting by promoting advocacy journalism) and there's no cost to the protesters.

As time goes by we're becoming more polarized by those who vow to bring us together.

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

In "Family Plot," Hitchcock's last film, there are two "evil" couples, but one kills while the other only pursues scams, like psychic services. The latter pair are appealing while the other pair are to be condemned by the audience. Is there a relativity of evil – are some sins "worse" than others?

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

It was interesting to note that liberals, so eager to make changes, and so dismissive of our past traditions and documents, were suddenly horrified by the possibility of a change in the senate rules. It was wrong of Republicans to change the rules although, under Harry Reid, Democrats had themselves done that in 2013 to establish that only 51 votes would be needed to approve a presidential nominee (apart from Supreme Court Justice). It was a party-line vote, and resulted in the passing of what was then known as the “Nuclear Option.” To secure the confirmation of Judge David Gorsuch as a Supreme Court Justice only four years later the Republicans extended the “option” to include that office. They were roundly condemned by the Democrats, who made no mention of what they had done so recently.

The Constitution, was passed soon after our nation was established and it did not require a super-majority. But that was not the tradition that the Democrats honored. They preferred to follow the rules of their more recent Senate predecessors – at least the rules they liked. The initial rules were written by Thomas Jefferson as part of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and intended to ensure civility and décor. The manual's rules for the Senate were adopted in 1828, more than four decades after the Constitution and, indeed, after Jefferson's death. Subsequently those rules have become our “tradition” and are sacred when they serve the purpose of those who invoke them. I suspect that they should be reviewed and rewritten to reflect current views, but they should in no way be considered our tradition and beyond reconsideration. The wisdom of any changes will be decided by voters.

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

Enough. Time to move on.

The Imperious Loudmouth

I used to view myself as an imperious loudmouth – a curmudgeon who knew everything and wasn't interested in the views of others. But it's clear to me that I have to surrender the title. There's no question that Donald Trump is dark years ahead of me in the category: a veritable black hole.

As a Republican running for president he has negative views of possible Democratic opponents. Clinton is “a major national security risk” and “not presidential material,” while Sanders is a “wacko.” (Actually I'm concerned about both of them, but I'd describe them otherwise.) Indeed, the entire Democratic Party shows “total weakness and incompetence that gave rise to ISIS.” Not surprising. He's running against them.

But he doesn't have the nomination yet, so he's still insulting the other Republicans in the race for the nomination. “Hypocrite,” “clueless politician,” “loser,” “ liar,” “weak,” “nasty,” “dumb,” “weak,” “puppet,” and “lightweight choker” are just a few of his appraisals of other contenders, and he is quick to say aloud, or to “Twitter,” offensive remarks about anyone who disagrees with him or with whom he disagrees. Being Trump “means never having to say you're sorry.”

Donald Trump is a man who has never spent a day in public office and, without any knowledge or experience (or program), wants to start at the top. And he has several advantages that may make the quest a little easier: first of all, he's rich and can generously fund his own campaign. He has no record in office and, thus, none to defend. Having offered virtually no platform apart from the derogation of others, he has provided little of substance for others to evaluate and criticize. His past attempts, however futile, to establish a gambling empire, fade in light of his wealth and know-nothing populist charisma. The latter is really a strong point. He has no filter, and, on the spur of the moment, says whatever comes to mind. As such he says what many others are thinking but are afraid (too smart?) to say. (In fact the only thing that most people remember him saying is “You're fired.”) Like all populists and rabble-rousers he radiates strength. He's afraid of no one. And no country. And he can whip a crowd of true believers into a frenzy of mindless passion. Lenin would view them as “useful idiots,” but Trump considers them a power base. And he would never accept the idea that anything Lenin said has any veracity, even if he would ape his tactics.

But Trump is a bombastic bully. His approach is combative – to “shoot first and ask questions afterward”; to “shoot from the hip.” He's a “loose cannon.” He swings wildly. He not only calls a club “a club,” but he seems eager to use it. Perhaps his threats will play well among potential voters, but there is a grave risk, if he wins, that the leaders of other nations will consider those threats too stark to be ignored. And they will be especially wary, recognizing his brash behavior and his unwillingness to listen or to lose. Or to learn. He's a man who won't back down, even when he has created a dangerous firestorm. Others will have to take him at his word and act accordingly. (The only time he “explained” one of his remarks occurred when he saw public reaction to his refusal to condemn David Duke or to refuse his endorsement. He was asked about that and blamed his reaction to a “faulty earpiece.”) They will be especially alarmed at his lack of experience in diplomacy and compromise, and the uncertainty that this causes may goad unfortunate acts on their part.

Perhaps what he says reflects the views of advisors in regard to winning the nomination, and he'll change afterward. But I doubt it. His past media performances suggest that we're seeing the real Donald Trump. Even if that is not the case, however, any candidate who would choose advisors as cynical as his might be, is “more knave than fool.” Whatever is the case, however, he is not one to be trusted with leadership. Apart from being rich and a star of “reality” television, his only public record is as a failed gambler. Perhaps he can lead a mob, but not a nation.

Sadly, though, the day is coming closer. Competitors are dropping out. More and more of those who may personally despise and fear him are endorsing Trump, along with the masses who foolishly follow him. Politics? Angling for an appointment? Jumping on the bandwagon? Whatever their motives, they do their country and themselves a disservice.

Donald Trump may be the only thing that would make me vote for Hilary Clinton.

There She Is, Myth America

American history is draped in mythology. The drapings are, of course, a mixture of red, white and blue, but the mythology, itself, is pure white.ⁱ Whether Parson Weems or a modern text, the history is intermixed with unprovable – often invented – stories that add to the image of a great nation – a nation with a glorious mission – one with a Manifest Destiny. And, daily, the myths increase.

That shouldn't come as a great surprise. All societies remember their pasts with a luster that often exceeds reality, but one that answers the great inevitable questions in a way that both engages and honors us and our forebears.

Few history books will mention, for example, that George Washington was a poor generalⁱⁱ or that Alexander Hamilton was probably a British agent.ⁱⁱⁱ Most will gloss over the fact that although Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate against slavery, he was, himself, a slave owner. My intent is to deal with what actually happened – at least to the extent that we can so long after the events – not to belittle our Founding Fathers. Their greatness is undeniable. The documents upon which they founded this nation,^iv and the nation which has developed following the outline they put in place, are of unmistakable brilliance. Both are masterful products of their time, and those who fashioned them must not be judged by us. They acted, too, in accordance with the principles of their times, and they not only did the best they could, but they did a superb job.

But that's the point. They, and the founding documents, were products of their time. And we live in different times. Sooner or later those documents will have to be reviewed and revised to reflect the times in which we live.

“Jefferson also believed – uniquely – that this world belongs, solely, to the present generation. Hence, every twenty years or so, new laws should be promulgated at a constitutional convention. A grown man he noted in his best biblical parable style, should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”^v

Jefferson's view was acknowledged in what eventually was termed Federalist Paper number 49, although James Madison, who wrote that “letter,”^vi opposed constitutional conventions. And Jefferson was not alone in believing that the Constitution – the script for the great American drama – which we have come to revere, would have to be brought up to date periodically. There were many who recognized that a perfect document was not achievable at that, or any time, and that amendments would be required periodically.

The United States is one of the greatest countries on earth.^vii It is strong, rich, and the kind of place to which people from around the globe want to go. Some risk their lives to do so. And it exists because those who founded it endowed it with a governing document that was unique – one that has served as a model for other nations since then. But the mythology surrounding the founding itself and the documents employed to do so, as well as the virtue and wisdom of the founders, clouds the fact that however great they may have been, however far they may have been ahead of their time, they were fallible human beings of the eighteenth century. They were products of that age, but their time was not the twenty-first century in which we live.^viii Jefferson was right. “A grown man … should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”

The two major political parties have created their own “realities,” or, more accurately, their own mythologies. They have expressed exaggerated views of their own virtues and, very much in evidence at election times, frightening characterizations of the evils of their opponents. And the parties tend to become even more confrontational following election. The three branches of government, like the political parties, compete rather than cooperate. Each works hard to increase its own influence, leaving the mythical “We the People” out of the loop. Although our Constitution provides for a form of democracy, the reality is that the “representative” democracy our founders gave us is not representative of anyone but the politicians themselves. Having promised us solutions to all the problems we face, our representatives, once in office, focus on the next election rather than on our needs. The Executive branch of our government claims to lead, but its members are more likely to say what poll-takers tell them will sell, and after election they go on to assert their power and act as they see fit. And those of our Judiciary, who may never face an election, are free to follow their own views, irrespective of the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve.

The ability to review the mythology, however, and, if necessary, to change it, is built into our system.

Article IV

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The Constitution, which we sometimes view as sacred, provides for measured changes. No more should be necessary since its authors saw it as the answer to our country's problems and a solid basis for an infinite future of liberty.

But it was written illegally. The convention from which it emerged had been asked to amend the inadequate Articles of Confederation – not to write a new document. And we are as free as they to rewrite the Constitution rather than amend it if there are enough changes that need to be made, and if individual amendments will either not accomplish our wishes or will, because of their large numbers, either take too long or prove too burdensome to accomplish. It may take historical revisionists to correct our mythology, but a united citizenry – one fed up with current bickering and manipulation of the system to suit the needs of those who are supposed to work for us – has the ability, at least in theory, to invent our own future and the mythology that surrounds it. Whether we have the will to do so, though, is a different question. Probably not, because it's easier to live by the rules of an imagined past.

Next episode: “Gossip” – Some words to the wise guys.

i     The word refers to the purity of the story only, not to the harsh realities of our history. No defense of “racial purity” is intended. Indeed, it shouldn't be overlooked that racial politics spawned a separate mythology designed to justify the indefensible practice of slavery.

ii    Fortunately he was a patriot. He was honest and politically savvy even if he was a poor soldier.

iii    Recognizing the greatness of the work he did in establishing this country, we can only assume that he believed a close association with Great Britain would be beneficial to our survival. Whatever other motives he may have had, and notwithstanding disagreements we have had – and even a war – we have found our alliance with England to be mutually beneficial. In Hamilton's time, moreover, the (American) colonies had many supporters in the British government. England, to a degree, was just as happy to be rid of the colonies which had become a major financial burden, detracting from her hostilities with France.

iv    Primarily the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The efforts of James Madison in writing the latter document are also noteworthy.

v     From Inventing a Nation by Gore Vidal, 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Page 14.

vi    The Federalist Papers originally appeared as newspaper letters signed by “Publius,” but written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay.

vii    Some will take issue with this assessment, and that is understandable. They cannot, however, argue with the specific qualifications I mention in the next few sentences.

viii   In this electronic age – one never foreseen by eighteenth century politicians – both the tools and the rules have changed. See Constitution 3.0, by Rosen and Wittes (eds), Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

Tea For Who(m)

 

Let's start with the easy part. Not to mince words, in my view the Tea Party must accept responsibility for our current debt crisis.ⁱ But no service is performed if we overlook the involvement of the Republican Party as a whole.ⁱⁱ And the President and Democrats as well. They all bear some of the blame for the situation. And so do we.

However threatening the issue may be, it reflects the major problem of our political system. The same situation seems to involve all legislation. Our current system often seems incapable of achievement because our politicians are incapable of compromise. There's too much of a “my way or the highway” mentality. Selfishness rules.

Why do people run for office? Why do they vote on legislation as they do? It's not very complicated. There are only four real reasons. The first two are the critical issues for someone considering candidacy: ego and self-gain. But with those two in the background, there are two others which govern day-to-day voting. They are personal beliefs and, more important, concern over the views of supporters. Politicians are always looking to the next election. Only by being elected can they satisfy their egos and fill their pockets. Perhaps that's a cynical point of view, but it's hard to find exceptions to this rule.

I don't know if the problem will be solved by the deadline, but right now we face a fiscal crisis – the possibility that our nation will default on its debts.ⁱⁱⁱ I don't really expect that to happen,^iv but there is no question that the major news of the day is the dispute over raising the debt ceiling, paying off what we owe, the cost of programs we have established, and the financial obligation that we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

We're all responsible for the situation. Groups that are receiving entitlements^v demand that the payments they receive be increased; various professional groups^vi who insist that theirs is the last that should be cut since the job they perform is critical to keeping our economy intact and to keeping our citizens served properly; taxpayers complain that the government is taking too large a part of their earnings; lobbyists are making sure that their clients benefit from whatever legislation comes about; and everyone complains that prices – especially gas – are too high.

People want what they don't have. It doesn't always matter if their wants are justified. It may be reasonably argued that the Tea Party is taking its “mandate” too far, but apart from their own perspective, they are espousing what they believe the voters' viewpoint to be. After all, they want to be reelected. As do their opponents. So everyone is acting in a pig-headed manner to demonstrate their willingness to fight for what they claim the voters want. Those who support their position see it as virtuous; those who oppose it consider it the embodiment of evil.

But everyone agrees that some accommodation must be reached. Principles are important, however they cannot be allowed to prevent any movement from taking place. It's better to pass a measure that satisfies only some of our aims than to place ideals above action. We can try to change it later, but an incomplete solution is better than none at all.

Compromise. After that we can renew the fight.

 

i     The doctrinaire, at least those who read this, are likely to focus on this sentence and not read further. Certainly the liberals will see it as confirmation of their own view. But things are not as clear as we'd like to believe.

ii    See the first note. But also read the next sentence. And further.

iii    The employment and housing crises are a severe backdrop to the budget debate. They are not to be minimized, but they are not the subject of this essay.

iv    Although as time passes I become less and less confident.

v     And this includes the rich who are getting a variety of benefits through loopholes, special legislation, and the like.

vi    For example teachers, road builders, and health care workers. But those are only examples.

Out At Home

 

Now that the season's over and the various awards have been made, consider a baseball team.ⁱ

A winning team.ⁱⁱ

An amazingly winning team – way in front of the league, more than any team has ever been at this point in the season. And every day getting even further ahead. Sure there are problems, including rowdies and ticket scalpers, but the bottom line is a record unlike anything that has ever preceded it.

So what should be done? Over the manager's protests, the front office fires some of the old team and hires new players so that there is now a majority of new players, both position players and pitchers. Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, the existing players are doing well, so why keep them – a change is certainly advisable. Still the momentum continues for a while, with the team's lead lengthening.

For a while, but only for a while. Then, with the new team in place, the bottom falls out.ⁱⁱⁱ There is loss after loss, and a point is reached where the team has forfeited a good deal of its advantage. It's still far ahead of where it was at the beginning of the season, but not as far as before, and the losing is continuing.

The following season the decline continues, although after a while there is a reversal of the team's fortunes. Several changes are attempted but they don't seem to have much effect.

So what should be done now? Clearly the problem is that there are still too many members of the old team – the one that was winning. The front office fires some more of the pitchers. That makes sense too. The new team wasn't doing well, but maybe more of them, with an inexperienced manager who claims he can solve all the team's problems, will change everything so the front office fires the old manager and brings in a new one as well as more of the the new players. – both position players and pitchers. However to the front office's surprise and consternation, the losses continue. For a couple of years.

So they get cold feet. And wish for the “good old days.” They fire many of the players to bring in some additional ones – mostly from the old group but with a few others who are new – so they anticipate, for the following season, an old-school majority among the position players though the majority of pitchers are still newbies. The manager, who has an unbreakable long-term contract, stays on. The post-season games remain though, during which the previous players still predominate in all positions. The newly chosen players are barred from the action because they came onto the roster too late. But those still there are confident that they can battle back and achieve all their goals before the season ends and they're traded away.

That's where we are now. Only it's in government.^iv The year it started was 2006. The stock market was more than 2,000 points higher than it had been in on Election Day of 2004 (12,105 on election day 2006 versus 10,054 in 2004. A Republican was President and the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. At that point, in the November elections, the electorate decided on a Democratic House of Representatives (233 – 200) and a Senate, which, while equally split (49 – 49), was effectively Democratic controlled because two independents voted with them. The market continued upward and reached a high in early October of 2007, but then began to fall. It had gone down to 9,324 on Election Day of 2008 when the voters gave the Democrats large majorities in both the House (257 – 178) and Senate (57 – 41, with two independents who voted with the Democrats) and selected a Democratic President. And they had the Vice President (the President of the Senate) on their side in situations that required it.

The next two years, 2009 and 2010, with a great deal of stimulus, have brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to about 11,000 – higher than the previous low, but lower than when the Democrats took over Congress. The reasons were obvious to true believers. The greedy Republicans were answerable for the losses (their policies, a few years earlier, were the cause of all that ailed us) ; the gains were generously bestowed by the Democrats.

There are, of course, other measures of our economic situation. Unemployment on election day in 2006 was about 4.3%. With a Democratic Congress it had reached about 6.5% by election day 2008 and the most recently available figure at the time of the election – for October, 2010 – was 9.6%,^v having come down from 10.6% which it reached in January. It will be interesting to see what it is next January when the “post-season,” the lame-duck Congress, is over and a final attempt has been made by the party currently in power to right the wrongs of our situation. They claim that they'll pass all the legislation that they put off until after election day. It's not clear that they'll be able to deliver on their promises.

Are the Democrats to blame? Certainly not. But neither are the Republicans. It's too easy to put this all into a political context and start pointing fingers. Nice guys may not finish last, but this isn't a baseball game. We have to understand that the economy is a complex issue and to look for “good guys” making hits and “bad guys” making errors is to trivialize it – to use it as a vote-getting device rather than a springboard for national unity and action.^vi

We'll recover. We've been through cycles like this before and whatever happens will not be based on the greater wisdom of one set of politicians over another. Perhaps some day we'll learn to treat the economy with greater respect than a national sport. But I doubt it. We're too enamored of looking for someone to blame. So if our team isn't winning of course we won't blame them, but we can always kill the umpire. No. Wait. That's us.

Next episode: “Blow Up” – The inflation explosion.

i      Not the Mets.

ii     Now you know why.

iii   The Mets don't need a change of personnel to collapse.

iv   I don't suggest this is a perfect analogy. There's no such thing and this one is far from perfect. But perhaps it will provide the opportunity to consider the rationality of our actions by comparing this national exercise with the national pastime.

v   In November it reached 9.8% but this was after the election.

vi  Actually sports events have better headlines, so the media prefer a competition to an accomplishment.