The McCarthy unAmerican madness ended abruptly on June 9, 1954 during the Army-McCarthy hearings when Boston lawyer Joseph Welch, finally outraged by Sen. Joseph McCarthy's baseless accusations, said, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty
or your recklessness. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
Trump has now committed an outrage worthy of McCarthy. He is blaming former President Obama for virtually all the problems that have plagued his administration and demanding that Obama testify to sabotaging his administration before he assumed office.
Enough is enough. We must all call out to Trump, "Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?" To which we should add "Have you no shame?" We must shout it in the millions of our voices from the rooftops, from town squares and from city plazas, and we must be heard.
--- Diogenes, 5/15/20
U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people
15 May 2020
14 May 2020
How long?
This is a rant. Yes, I've said some of this before. Please indulge me.
It is customary to blame the president for everything we don't like. Well, why not? He is the most visible public servant we have, and everyone can remember his name. We should rather remember the name of our Congressional representative, who is from our community and may even live on our block. Well, no matter. We don't.
The fact is, most of what goes on in the country is guided by Congress. They are our elected representatives and it is their Constitutional duty to make laws. Congress is a big, slow ship that doesn't maneuver quickly, so there is always time to contact your representative or senator to suggest mid-course corrections.
Where the office of president becomes useful is in times of emergency or disaster. He can, by executive declaration, make any number of things happen. Any fallout may later have to be sorted out with Congress, but urgent needs can be timely met.
It is in those moments that the mettle of any true leader is tested. High public office is not for the faint of heart. Enormous trust is placed in the executive--trust that he will respect those who put him in office and will see, to the best of his ability, to their welfare and protection--especially at times when the world changes.
America's involvement in WWII began and ended with two world-changing decisions from two strong presidents. Both were made and followed through with certainty and confidence.
Following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted with alacrity, declaring war on Japan, ending America's neutrality, and plunging the nation into a war it was not prepared to fight. He did so in the knowledge of mutual trust between him and the people, a trust that roused an entire nation to action.
Upon FDR's death Harry Truman took up the war, and brought it to an emphatic conclusion by deploying atomic weapons. Neither president's decision was taken recklessly or out of emotion, but after careful consideration, which lent them the strength of sure authority,
Many such moments and decisions have punctuated the history of the presidency.
Until now.
How long shall the wicked triumph?
--Diogenes, 5/14/20
¹ https://blog.factba.se/2018/01/08/stable-genius-lets-go-to-the-data/
² https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
It is customary to blame the president for everything we don't like. Well, why not? He is the most visible public servant we have, and everyone can remember his name. We should rather remember the name of our Congressional representative, who is from our community and may even live on our block. Well, no matter. We don't.
The fact is, most of what goes on in the country is guided by Congress. They are our elected representatives and it is their Constitutional duty to make laws. Congress is a big, slow ship that doesn't maneuver quickly, so there is always time to contact your representative or senator to suggest mid-course corrections.
Where the office of president becomes useful is in times of emergency or disaster. He can, by executive declaration, make any number of things happen. Any fallout may later have to be sorted out with Congress, but urgent needs can be timely met.
It is in those moments that the mettle of any true leader is tested. High public office is not for the faint of heart. Enormous trust is placed in the executive--trust that he will respect those who put him in office and will see, to the best of his ability, to their welfare and protection--especially at times when the world changes.
America's involvement in WWII began and ended with two world-changing decisions from two strong presidents. Both were made and followed through with certainty and confidence.
Following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted with alacrity, declaring war on Japan, ending America's neutrality, and plunging the nation into a war it was not prepared to fight. He did so in the knowledge of mutual trust between him and the people, a trust that roused an entire nation to action.
Upon FDR's death Harry Truman took up the war, and brought it to an emphatic conclusion by deploying atomic weapons. Neither president's decision was taken recklessly or out of emotion, but after careful consideration, which lent them the strength of sure authority,
Many such moments and decisions have punctuated the history of the presidency.
Until now.
- We are shackled with a president who has neither respect for nor trust in anyone who does not share his skin color, his ideas, his ethnicity, his party, his beliefs, his wealth, or his favorite color of tie. In short, no one.
- Gone is the eloquence of his predecessors in office; a recent study determined that he speaks at about a fourth-grade level.¹
- He has no use for people who are not puppets or toadies, or anyone who differs from him in the slightest way; his upper-level staff has seen an 85% turnover since his election.² Does anyone know who's watching the store?
- His mental state is clearly and obviously unstable.
- He lacks the ability to make decisions and stand by them.
- He cannot control COVID-19 and the inability to control any entity is so far from his life experience that it is likely unraveling his sanity.
- His body language speaks volumes. He frequently appears with arms crossed--closed off to the world, a defensive posture; and a downward gaze with downturned mouth, signaling contempt.
How long shall the wicked triumph?
--Diogenes, 5/14/20
¹ https://blog.factba.se/2018/01/08/stable-genius-lets-go-to-the-data/
² https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
13 May 2020
Readings for Radicals, Rebels, Revolutionaries, and Rabble-rousers
[Because we've just witnessed the first widespread civil uprising in quite some time, I'm republishing this list as a reminder of how important it is to stand up against tyranny] --- Diogenes, 6/11/2020
I hope that none of you have ever or ever will experience tyranny in real life,
but there are people highly placed in government who would very much like to have more power and would like the people to have less. I offer here some reading and viewing material by people who did experience tyranny in some of its worst forms that might help you recognize authoritarianism if it ever rears its ugly head.
These are standard works that will probably be in your local library. K=Kindle
Many of these works are challenging. If you start one and hate it, just grab another.
Bradbury, Ray: Fahrenheit 451 K
Dick, Philip K.: The Man In The High Castle¹ K
Frank, Anne: The Diary Of A Young Girl K
Lockhart, Robin Bruce: Reilly: Ace of Spies K
Marquis, John: Papa Doc: Portrait Of A Haitian Tyrant
Orwell, George: Animal Farm K
Orwell, George: 1984 K
Short, Philip: Pol Pot: Anatomy Of A Nightmare K
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich K
Trunk, Isaiah: Judenrat
Webb, William: The Dictator
Wiesel, Elie: Night K
Hitler, Adolf: Mein Kampf K
Mazin, Craig and Johan Renck: Chernobyl (Five-part HBO miniseries)
Powell, William: The Anarchist Cookbook K
¹Also an Amazon Prime series
If you haven't the time to read, then meditate on these quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Thomas Charlton
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." H. L. Mencken
"We have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words: 'We, the people.'" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
--- Diogenes, 5/13/20
I hope that none of you have ever or ever will experience tyranny in real life,
but there are people highly placed in government who would very much like to have more power and would like the people to have less. I offer here some reading and viewing material by people who did experience tyranny in some of its worst forms that might help you recognize authoritarianism if it ever rears its ugly head.
These are standard works that will probably be in your local library. K=Kindle
Many of these works are challenging. If you start one and hate it, just grab another.
Bradbury, Ray: Fahrenheit 451 K
Dick, Philip K.: The Man In The High Castle¹ K
Frank, Anne: The Diary Of A Young Girl K
Lockhart, Robin Bruce: Reilly: Ace of Spies K
Marquis, John: Papa Doc: Portrait Of A Haitian Tyrant
Orwell, George: Animal Farm K
Orwell, George: 1984 K
Short, Philip: Pol Pot: Anatomy Of A Nightmare K
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich K
Trunk, Isaiah: Judenrat
Webb, William: The Dictator
Wiesel, Elie: Night K
Hitler, Adolf: Mein Kampf K
Mazin, Craig and Johan Renck: Chernobyl (Five-part HBO miniseries)
Powell, William: The Anarchist Cookbook K
¹Also an Amazon Prime series
If you haven't the time to read, then meditate on these quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Thomas Charlton
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." H. L. Mencken
"We have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words: 'We, the people.'" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
--- Diogenes, 5/13/20
11 May 2020
Blogus Interruptus
I'm breaking into the daily flow of Vox Populi to ask you to watch the video below. I don't do this lightly; the clip is from the CNN program "Unfiltered," and it discloses some unusually troubling aspects of Donald Trump's behavior. Even if you've seen it elsewhere, please watch it again.
This isn't just another Trump-bashing tape. It includes a succinct and cogent discussion of how Trump controls his followers and the moral and ethical trap that many of them find themselves in as a result.
Earlier this month Trump was sent into a rampage by seeing an ad critical of his policies run by the Lincoln Project, a conservative Republican PAC that opposes his re-election.
In response he tweeted a broadside of insults and ad hominem attacks at Lincoln Project leaders. The words he uses are neither shocking nor unexpected, just his predictable limited monosyllabic vocabulary in full flow. What is troubling is the tone: sixth-grade bullyspeak. It is incoherent, rambling, and disconnected.
This is the man who is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. One must ask if this rambling jibberjabber is all he can do to defend himself, how can he possibly stand up for the Constitution? If he can't muster words will he turn to weapons?
If the Twitter texts are not legible on your monitor, I have provided links to transcripts at the end of this post. The clip is about 11 minutes long. Sorry for the ad at the beginning.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/05/06/lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-ad-se-cupp-intvu-vpx.cnn
If after viewing the video you have concerns about the stability of the president and/or his ability to conduct the affairs of his office, I urge you to contact your congressional representatives and share those concerns. Here are links to their contact information:
https://www.house.gov/
https://www.senate.gov/
--- Richard Brown, 5/11/20
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532112233803782
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532114666508291
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532110971318274
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532101966036993
This isn't just another Trump-bashing tape. It includes a succinct and cogent discussion of how Trump controls his followers and the moral and ethical trap that many of them find themselves in as a result.
Earlier this month Trump was sent into a rampage by seeing an ad critical of his policies run by the Lincoln Project, a conservative Republican PAC that opposes his re-election.
In response he tweeted a broadside of insults and ad hominem attacks at Lincoln Project leaders. The words he uses are neither shocking nor unexpected, just his predictable limited monosyllabic vocabulary in full flow. What is troubling is the tone: sixth-grade bullyspeak. It is incoherent, rambling, and disconnected.
This is the man who is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. One must ask if this rambling jibberjabber is all he can do to defend himself, how can he possibly stand up for the Constitution? If he can't muster words will he turn to weapons?
If the Twitter texts are not legible on your monitor, I have provided links to transcripts at the end of this post. The clip is about 11 minutes long. Sorry for the ad at the beginning.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/05/06/lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-ad-se-cupp-intvu-vpx.cnn
If after viewing the video you have concerns about the stability of the president and/or his ability to conduct the affairs of his office, I urge you to contact your congressional representatives and share those concerns. Here are links to their contact information:
https://www.house.gov/
https://www.senate.gov/
--- Richard Brown, 5/11/20
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532112233803782
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532114666508291
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532110971318274
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532101966036993
10 May 2020
Vacuum Sucks
If you've ever wondered what the phrase "vacuum of leadership" means, look around. You're in one.
Obfuscation, misinformation and doublespeak have characterized the Trump administration's response to COVID-19 almost since the beginning. The unpresident himself first denied, then downplayed, then ignored the virus. Until it came knocking at his door.
The first reported staff member to test positive was a presidential valet, who also happens to serve meals to the Denier-in-Command. Then came a spokesperson for the vice president, and now the top West Wing medical advisors have quarantined themselves. Yet the alleged leader of the country traipses around maskless, paying no attention to people from the CDC, who really do know what they're talking about.
Why is this important?
It's important because many of the Booboisie (Vox Populi, 5/6) are convinced they should follow his example, and they are a viral WMD waiting to infect God knows how many of their fellow Americans. Even a tiny bit, a smidgin, a soupçon of leadership from Washington urging followers to "do as the CDC says, not as I do," could potentially save many lives.
In the Louvre Museum in Paris is a painting by Antoine-Jean Gros¹ depicting Napoleon among plague victims in Jaffa (now in Israel). The general fearlessly reaches out with his bare hand to touch a victim's sore, a sure means of infection.
This is propaganda of the highest order. With this painting Gros effectively compared Napoleon with Jesus. The people of France would follow him anywhere.
Poor Trump has no Gros, no champion in the media who could give him the propaganda boost he so desperately craves. Even at the best of times he is not an inspirational person, not a leader to inspire sacrifice, not a charismatic figure to follow into battle. And no one can make him that.
What he can bring out, as I said a couple of days ago (5/8), is the "anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement" that dwells in many of his supporters, and frequently erupts in violence.
Perhaps this is why his followers are drawn to him. Perhaps they sense that he shares those feelings. His actions and policies certainly reflect some commonality. Perhaps they don't want charisma. Perhaps they want someone like them: average, working class, conservative with traditional values, colorless and mediocre.
In Donald Trump they have certainly found that.
---Diogenes, 5/10/20
¹Central detail of Antoine-Jean Gros, Napoleon Among the Plague-Stricken at Jaffa, 1804.
Obfuscation, misinformation and doublespeak have characterized the Trump administration's response to COVID-19 almost since the beginning. The unpresident himself first denied, then downplayed, then ignored the virus. Until it came knocking at his door.
The first reported staff member to test positive was a presidential valet, who also happens to serve meals to the Denier-in-Command. Then came a spokesperson for the vice president, and now the top West Wing medical advisors have quarantined themselves. Yet the alleged leader of the country traipses around maskless, paying no attention to people from the CDC, who really do know what they're talking about.
Why is this important?
It's important because many of the Booboisie (Vox Populi, 5/6) are convinced they should follow his example, and they are a viral WMD waiting to infect God knows how many of their fellow Americans. Even a tiny bit, a smidgin, a soupçon of leadership from Washington urging followers to "do as the CDC says, not as I do," could potentially save many lives.
In the Louvre Museum in Paris is a painting by Antoine-Jean Gros¹ depicting Napoleon among plague victims in Jaffa (now in Israel). The general fearlessly reaches out with his bare hand to touch a victim's sore, a sure means of infection.
This is propaganda of the highest order. With this painting Gros effectively compared Napoleon with Jesus. The people of France would follow him anywhere.
Poor Trump has no Gros, no champion in the media who could give him the propaganda boost he so desperately craves. Even at the best of times he is not an inspirational person, not a leader to inspire sacrifice, not a charismatic figure to follow into battle. And no one can make him that.
What he can bring out, as I said a couple of days ago (5/8), is the "anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement" that dwells in many of his supporters, and frequently erupts in violence.
Perhaps this is why his followers are drawn to him. Perhaps they sense that he shares those feelings. His actions and policies certainly reflect some commonality. Perhaps they don't want charisma. Perhaps they want someone like them: average, working class, conservative with traditional values, colorless and mediocre.
In Donald Trump they have certainly found that.
---Diogenes, 5/10/20
¹Central detail of Antoine-Jean Gros, Napoleon Among the Plague-Stricken at Jaffa, 1804.
09 May 2020
MIA: POTUS
You stand up in front of a large crowd, walk to a podium, place your hand on a holy book of your choice and say:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."*
This is an oath, a solemn promise to carry out a set of actions on behalf of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. You do not--you can not--walk away from it, abrogate it, deny it or ignore it.
These are the most important thirty-five words you will ever utter. You are making a covenant with all Americans--not Latino, not African-American, not white, not Asian, not Native American, not male nor female--but all of us; every single one of the 331 million citizens of this sovereign country.
Your duty is clear and your job has only two requirements: 1): Execute the office to which you were elected, regardless of what it throws at you, always keeping in mind the welfare of those 331 million people who expect you to lead them; and 2): Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, every word and phrase of it, with honesty, fairness, and decency toward all. That is what you have sworn to do.
From ancient times oaths have been considered a special kind of promise. They are frequently taken in life-or-death situations and sometimes include a plea or reference to a deity. Merriam-Webster defines oath as: "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words."
And it was words that Americans came to hear, in person or remotely. They enjoyed the fireworks and the spectacle, followed the parade, gossiped about who was wearing what at the inaugural balls, but they came to witness the words that make this nation unique in the world, words that have provided peaceful transition of power for 231 years.
You said: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If you have determined that you are unable to carry out your duties, you have two options. You can invoke the 25th Amendment, take a break and place the vice president in charge temporarily; or you can resign.
Make a decision. Respect your oath, or in the name of God, go!
--- Diogenes, for the American people, 5/9/20
* Original spelling and capitalization. The phrase "So help me, God" is optional.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."*
This is an oath, a solemn promise to carry out a set of actions on behalf of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. You do not--you can not--walk away from it, abrogate it, deny it or ignore it.
These are the most important thirty-five words you will ever utter. You are making a covenant with all Americans--not Latino, not African-American, not white, not Asian, not Native American, not male nor female--but all of us; every single one of the 331 million citizens of this sovereign country.
Your duty is clear and your job has only two requirements: 1): Execute the office to which you were elected, regardless of what it throws at you, always keeping in mind the welfare of those 331 million people who expect you to lead them; and 2): Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, every word and phrase of it, with honesty, fairness, and decency toward all. That is what you have sworn to do.
From ancient times oaths have been considered a special kind of promise. They are frequently taken in life-or-death situations and sometimes include a plea or reference to a deity. Merriam-Webster defines oath as: "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words."
And it was words that Americans came to hear, in person or remotely. They enjoyed the fireworks and the spectacle, followed the parade, gossiped about who was wearing what at the inaugural balls, but they came to witness the words that make this nation unique in the world, words that have provided peaceful transition of power for 231 years.
You said: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If you have determined that you are unable to carry out your duties, you have two options. You can invoke the 25th Amendment, take a break and place the vice president in charge temporarily; or you can resign.
Make a decision. Respect your oath, or in the name of God, go!
--- Diogenes, for the American people, 5/9/20
* Original spelling and capitalization. The phrase "So help me, God" is optional.
08 May 2020
Were We Not Paying Attention, Or Did We Just Not Care?
Here are two comments about Trump's "The Apprentice," picked at random from the Internet Movie Database. I've made no edits or corrections.
"I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.
"after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack." 2/20/07
"I was at my friends house watching this, and it was the worst show I have seen in a long time. Uneventful, and lacking of any drama, I could easily slept through this. After I watched a couple of episodes I demanded my money back, which is crazy since I didn't spend any money to watch it. I wouldn't wish this on my enemy. I give this a 2, just for the fact that it gave Conan some material to make fun of Trump with. If your idea of a good time is to watch people act like they are the center of the universe, then this is for you. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time, not to mention money. Personally I would rather have a colon exam then watch this show again." 8/26/04
More than ten years before the ludicrous specter of a Trump presidency reared its obscene head, people were talking about the same atrocious behavior that troubles us today. Some of us may have echoed these volunteer reviewers at the time, or chuckled about them when jokes were made of them elsewhere on TV.
Why should we have paid attention to the antics of a boorish Manhattan real estate developer making a fool of himself trying to be a TV star? It was just Trump being Trump.
Then there it was: Against all odds, a Trump candidacy. Along with too many other Americans, I thought it was a joke.
I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. I was sure he would be nominated, because he was the only potential Democratic candidate who could match Trump punch for punch. Either the DNC didn't take Trump seriously or their heads were so far up their collective backsides they couldn't see beyond Hillary. They put their bets on her and lost the race.
And we didn't know it until the end. The media continually told us, and probably told Hillary and the DNC, that a Trump win was impossible, even unthinkable. He was a political nobody. She was a former U.S. Senator and sitting Secretary of State with an immense following and inside knowledge of Washington. We convinced ourselves it would be an easy victory. We lied to ourselves.
In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton could not have won the 2016 election. Because she is a woman.
That is not a sexist statement but a matter of realpolitik. No one, including the DNC and the Clinton team, was prepared for the kind of blitzkrieg Trump launched, nor for the violence it fomented. Bernie had the chutzpah to match it, but Hillary was always playing catch-up.
Yes, she won the popular vote, but too few of us had been watching closely enough to see that she needed more to get past the Electoral College.
Trump managed to tap a deep vein of machismo that infects a sizeable percentage of white American men and to release the anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement that flows through it, riding it to victory.
We can not, must not, shall not, let that happen again. Never Again!
--- Diogenes, 5/8/20
"I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.
"after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack." 2/20/07
"I was at my friends house watching this, and it was the worst show I have seen in a long time. Uneventful, and lacking of any drama, I could easily slept through this. After I watched a couple of episodes I demanded my money back, which is crazy since I didn't spend any money to watch it. I wouldn't wish this on my enemy. I give this a 2, just for the fact that it gave Conan some material to make fun of Trump with. If your idea of a good time is to watch people act like they are the center of the universe, then this is for you. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time, not to mention money. Personally I would rather have a colon exam then watch this show again." 8/26/04
More than ten years before the ludicrous specter of a Trump presidency reared its obscene head, people were talking about the same atrocious behavior that troubles us today. Some of us may have echoed these volunteer reviewers at the time, or chuckled about them when jokes were made of them elsewhere on TV.
Why should we have paid attention to the antics of a boorish Manhattan real estate developer making a fool of himself trying to be a TV star? It was just Trump being Trump.
Then there it was: Against all odds, a Trump candidacy. Along with too many other Americans, I thought it was a joke.
I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. I was sure he would be nominated, because he was the only potential Democratic candidate who could match Trump punch for punch. Either the DNC didn't take Trump seriously or their heads were so far up their collective backsides they couldn't see beyond Hillary. They put their bets on her and lost the race.
And we didn't know it until the end. The media continually told us, and probably told Hillary and the DNC, that a Trump win was impossible, even unthinkable. He was a political nobody. She was a former U.S. Senator and sitting Secretary of State with an immense following and inside knowledge of Washington. We convinced ourselves it would be an easy victory. We lied to ourselves.
In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton could not have won the 2016 election. Because she is a woman.
That is not a sexist statement but a matter of realpolitik. No one, including the DNC and the Clinton team, was prepared for the kind of blitzkrieg Trump launched, nor for the violence it fomented. Bernie had the chutzpah to match it, but Hillary was always playing catch-up.
Yes, she won the popular vote, but too few of us had been watching closely enough to see that she needed more to get past the Electoral College.
Trump managed to tap a deep vein of machismo that infects a sizeable percentage of white American men and to release the anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement that flows through it, riding it to victory.
We can not, must not, shall not, let that happen again. Never Again!
--- Diogenes, 5/8/20
07 May 2020
The Clown Prince
I have no interest whatsoever in knowing the Great Pretender's reading habits. (I sometimes envision the White House bookshelves lined with hundreds of copies of the ghostwritten The Art Of The Deal.) But I digress.
Whatever his reading habits might be, someone at some point in his life must have told him about Nicolo Machiavelli. The Italian diplomat and writer is best known today for his book The Prince, which many people associate with the concept "divide and conquer."
In The Prince, written in 1513, Machiavelli discusses ways in which the ruler of a government, whom he calls simply "a prince," might govern his land, offering different approaches to princes who have come to power in various ways, from the affirmation of his people to crookedness and villainy. (What might he have thought of an ex-host of a wretched TV "reality" show?) Sorry, digressing again.
He does have some blanket suggestions for all princes:
"A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." *
That last idea would certainly resound with the unpresident.
Machiavelli's ideal prince is:
"[A man who] deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him, introduce innovations into old customs, to be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal, suppress the old militia, create a new one, maintain the friendship of kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit him and fear to injure him." **
This ideal prince shows different faces in different situations and speaks with a forked tongue. This is, in a sense, one way of dividing and conquering: set different sides at odds by telling them different "truths."
To the best of my knowledge the actual phrase "divide and conquer" does not appear in the original The Prince. Nor do I believe it to be in his later book, The Art of War.
Machiavelli was a soldier and strategian who knew war, which raged in greater or lesser conflicts all over Europe during his time. Today we're not talking a violent war, although the Clown Prince seems to think of himself as a generalissimo in the war on an invisible enemy (Movie: Superclown vs. The Virus From Outer Wuhan). But I digress yet again.
Machiavelli's ideas can still be applied, not in terms of actual war, but in the ideational struggles of our time: politics, corporate takeovers, stock market shenanigans, more politics.
This we know about the Clown Prince: The press is told one thing, the people another, then both stories are denied. At a public appearance one set of plans is proposed; at a meeting of people who can lend megabucks to a campaign something else is said; governors hear yet another swindle.
Fears about COVID-19 are raised, disputed, then argued some more. Qualified experts are touted, then denigrated when they start telling the truth. We get lie upon lie, hoax upon hoax, disrespect upon disrespect. It's the oldest con trick in the book: Keep your mark off balance.
"Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate." I've used that line from "The X-files" elsewhere, but we're seeing it everywhere now as the unpresident pulls out every dirty trick imaginable finagle re-election.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but shall we not put down our music books and pick up bullhorns?
Whatever his reading habits might be, someone at some point in his life must have told him about Nicolo Machiavelli. The Italian diplomat and writer is best known today for his book The Prince, which many people associate with the concept "divide and conquer."
In The Prince, written in 1513, Machiavelli discusses ways in which the ruler of a government, whom he calls simply "a prince," might govern his land, offering different approaches to princes who have come to power in various ways, from the affirmation of his people to crookedness and villainy. (What might he have thought of an ex-host of a wretched TV "reality" show?) Sorry, digressing again.
He does have some blanket suggestions for all princes:
"A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." *
That last idea would certainly resound with the unpresident.
Machiavelli's ideal prince is:
"[A man who] deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him, introduce innovations into old customs, to be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal, suppress the old militia, create a new one, maintain the friendship of kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit him and fear to injure him." **
This ideal prince shows different faces in different situations and speaks with a forked tongue. This is, in a sense, one way of dividing and conquering: set different sides at odds by telling them different "truths."
To the best of my knowledge the actual phrase "divide and conquer" does not appear in the original The Prince. Nor do I believe it to be in his later book, The Art of War.
Machiavelli was a soldier and strategian who knew war, which raged in greater or lesser conflicts all over Europe during his time. Today we're not talking a violent war, although the Clown Prince seems to think of himself as a generalissimo in the war on an invisible enemy (Movie: Superclown vs. The Virus From Outer Wuhan). But I digress yet again.
Machiavelli's ideas can still be applied, not in terms of actual war, but in the ideational struggles of our time: politics, corporate takeovers, stock market shenanigans, more politics.
This we know about the Clown Prince: The press is told one thing, the people another, then both stories are denied. At a public appearance one set of plans is proposed; at a meeting of people who can lend megabucks to a campaign something else is said; governors hear yet another swindle.
Fears about COVID-19 are raised, disputed, then argued some more. Qualified experts are touted, then denigrated when they start telling the truth. We get lie upon lie, hoax upon hoax, disrespect upon disrespect. It's the oldest con trick in the book: Keep your mark off balance.
"Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate." I've used that line from "The X-files" elsewhere, but we're seeing it everywhere now as the unpresident pulls out every dirty trick imaginable finagle re-election.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but shall we not put down our music books and pick up bullhorns?
--- Diogenes, 5/7/20
* Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 14.
** Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 7.06 May 2020
On The Booboisie
I'm bringing out my man H. L. Mencken for an encore.
A couple of days ago I noted that Mencken called the American species Boobus Americanus. He refined that tag for "plain folk," as he called the middle class. He referred to them as the Booboisie, and wrote this about them:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."* [My emphasis]
Yes, that is harsh. Mencken was a snob, but he was also an astute observer of human behavior, and he called them as he saw them. An unfortunate fact of today's American society is that so many of us have become so politically correct we no longer actually say anything. We prevaricate, hedge, circumlocute and tergiversate** all over the place in our attempt to avoid insulting anyone.
I'm going to adopt Mencken's straightforward approach temporarily and do some generalizing.
Most of us have asked at one time or another who voted for Trump. Some of us have found the answer, which turns out to be what we expected, but for those who haven't yet got there, here it is, based on four independent studies of voting patterns.*** Most of these traits are found in a majority, but not the totality, of Trump voters.
The typical Trump voter in 2016 was most likely to be:
--- Diogenes, 5/6/20
* Mencken, H. L., Notes On Democracy, 1926
** A great word; I just learned it.
*** Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Pew Research Center: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
A couple of days ago I noted that Mencken called the American species Boobus Americanus. He refined that tag for "plain folk," as he called the middle class. He referred to them as the Booboisie, and wrote this about them:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."* [My emphasis]
Yes, that is harsh. Mencken was a snob, but he was also an astute observer of human behavior, and he called them as he saw them. An unfortunate fact of today's American society is that so many of us have become so politically correct we no longer actually say anything. We prevaricate, hedge, circumlocute and tergiversate** all over the place in our attempt to avoid insulting anyone.
I'm going to adopt Mencken's straightforward approach temporarily and do some generalizing.
Most of us have asked at one time or another who voted for Trump. Some of us have found the answer, which turns out to be what we expected, but for those who haven't yet got there, here it is, based on four independent studies of voting patterns.*** Most of these traits are found in a majority, but not the totality, of Trump voters.
The typical Trump voter in 2016 was most likely to be:
- White
- Male
- Older than 45
- Conservative
- A high school graduate, possibly with some college
- Protestant or Evangelical
- A rural or suburban resident
- Earning more than $50,000 per year
- A veteran
- Primarily concerned about terrorism and immigration
- Supportive of the Mexican border wall and similar projects
- Angry with the federal government
- Convinced that Trump was honest, trustworthy, and qualified to be president.
--- Diogenes, 5/6/20
* Mencken, H. L., Notes On Democracy, 1926
** A great word; I just learned it.
*** Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Pew Research Center: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
05 May 2020
Death In Ohio
I was forcibly reminded today that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Kent State massacre in Ohio. To my shame, I had forgotten the date. But not the event.
On May 4, 1970, armed Ohio National Guard troops who had been mobilized by Republican Governor Jim Rhodes confronted a group of students on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. The students were protesting the American bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country. It was a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
Members of the Guard shot four students to death and wounded 9 others for exercising their First Amendment rights. Governor Rhodes denounced the protesters as terrorists, comparing them to communists, Nazis and the KKK, and calling them "the worst type of people that we harbor in America."
Say what? These were Americans exercising their rights. But Richard Nixon was president, and protest was not well tolerated.
I am aware that the Constitution gives us the right peaceably to assemble, and that passions were high at Kent State. The mayor of Kent and officers of the university had been spooked by rumors of everything from LSD in the water supply to plans to blow up the ROTC building.
The National Guard continues to deny any order to fire. Some of the guardsmen had been pelted with bricks and pieces of concrete. Some claimed they were responding to small-arms fire, others to reports of a rooftop sniper.
In fear or anger they fired indiscriminately, and 13 people, some of whom weren't involved at all, were hit.
Most of us who were active in what we naively called the Revolution abhorred violence. Kent State shocked us deeply and changed the protest movement in America. We had to decide how we would respond to the use of force.
One of our major goals was to get American soldiers out of Southeast Asia; but now we had a new concern. If they did come home, would the president turn them loose on us?
--- Diogenes, 5/5/20
On May 4, 1970, armed Ohio National Guard troops who had been mobilized by Republican Governor Jim Rhodes confronted a group of students on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. The students were protesting the American bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country. It was a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
Members of the Guard shot four students to death and wounded 9 others for exercising their First Amendment rights. Governor Rhodes denounced the protesters as terrorists, comparing them to communists, Nazis and the KKK, and calling them "the worst type of people that we harbor in America."
Say what? These were Americans exercising their rights. But Richard Nixon was president, and protest was not well tolerated.
I am aware that the Constitution gives us the right peaceably to assemble, and that passions were high at Kent State. The mayor of Kent and officers of the university had been spooked by rumors of everything from LSD in the water supply to plans to blow up the ROTC building.
The National Guard continues to deny any order to fire. Some of the guardsmen had been pelted with bricks and pieces of concrete. Some claimed they were responding to small-arms fire, others to reports of a rooftop sniper.
In fear or anger they fired indiscriminately, and 13 people, some of whom weren't involved at all, were hit.
Most of us who were active in what we naively called the Revolution abhorred violence. Kent State shocked us deeply and changed the protest movement in America. We had to decide how we would respond to the use of force.
One of our major goals was to get American soldiers out of Southeast Asia; but now we had a new concern. If they did come home, would the president turn them loose on us?
--- Diogenes, 5/5/20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)