The K.F. Stone Weekly

Amateurism's Allure

 

Audio Link to "Amateurism's Allure"

 

He who shall not be mentioned by name made a campaign stop here in South Florida last night, lamenting that "our country doesn't win anymore," and decrying the "incompetent people running our government." Moreover, he solemnly promised the adoring throng that when - not if - he's elected POTA, he will "bring back the American dream" to the point where ". . . we're going to win on everything." In a rambling hour-plus speech, Mr. Nameless said he'd be able to fix the U.S. trade deficit with China "by installing the toughest possible negotiators," and would vastly increase military spending: "We're going to build up our military so big, so strong, so powerful.  We've gotta do it.  So powerful that nobody is going to mess with us.  Nobody."  No one asked - nor did he explain - precisely how "tough negotiators" could balance a trade deficit (as if the Chinese negotiators are all a bunch of powder puffs) or how in the world we're going to pay for huge increases in military spending.  Such concession or conversation was irrelevant to the evening's agenda; the audience was just as amateurish as their political idol.  (n.b. The drawing above is Honoré Daumier's 1866 piece "The Amateurs," which is on permanent display at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore.)

And yet, according to the latest University of North Florida (UNF) poll, old nameless is leading the Republican field in the Sunshine States; he's 3 points ahead of fellow political amateur Ben Carson, 7 ahead of Florida's junior Senator Marco Rubio and a whopping 13 ahead of Florida's former Governor Jeb Bush. Moreover, the self-financing former reality television star and Platonic absolute of narcissism is currently leading the Republican pack by 15 points in New Hampshire, 34 in Massachusetts and nationally, leads the rest of the field by 10 points according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll.  In Iowa, it's a different story: Dr. Carson is currently leading Mr. "We Shall Overcomb" by 8 points and beginning to spend money like a drunken sailor.  Like his closest rival for the nomination, the good doctor has become known for making provocative, shoot-from-the-hip, off-the-wall statements:

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,"

"Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."

"We are living in a new Gestapo age"

"I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

The fact that both Dr. Carson and old nameless  - who between them haven't a second's-worth of experience in foreign policy, working with Congress or earning a passing grade on the Washington Post's "Quiz: 20 questions about the world a future U.S. president should get right" -  are one-two in the polls, is  both enormously troubling and a triumph for the allure of amateurism.   To some extent, this latter reality - amateurism's allure - is understandable.  Across the country, tons of people are fed up with the gross partisanship of career politicians; of the inability to get anything done; of the schoolyard bickering and downright nastiness.  At the same time, destiny's dice-box is rigged; it shakes out cubes far more often favoring consumerism than citizenship. We confuse the responsibilities of thoughtful citizenship with entertainment, and have little facility or patience for anything that has substance or depth.  And in the rare instance when the amateurs are asked trenchant questions by the professional press, they accuse that estate of purposely setting traps to make them look bad. Erudition has, in many quarters, become an embarrassment; anti-intellectualism a badge of honor.  And so many fall prey to simplicity's siren song.  Is it any wonder that many believe that the solution to all our problems is simply to "kick the bums out" and start all over again with a new team of the untried, untested and untutored?  We've already blazed that tortuous trail; to a great extent it wound up electing a majority of those sitting on the so-called "Benghazi Committee." I for one am fascinated that many of the same citizens who swear fealty to first-timers, castigated President Obama for being an abject amateur who came into office possessing not even a shred of "real world" experience. Then too these are many of the same people who find nothing incongruous about accusing the current president of being an effete elitist snob and while firmly believing that his predecessor is "just one of the guys."   

There is no questioning the fact that Ben Carson was a brilliant surgeon or that He Who Shall Remain Unnamed is a master showman and richer than Croesus.  But these accomplishments - as rare and awe-inspiring as they may be - offer faint preparation for becoming the most powerful person on the planet.  Their life accomplishments tell us nothing about how well they work with others; about how adaptable they are to changing circumstances; of their ability to listen to a multiplicity of hard truths and conflicting options; of how thick their skin is when the arrows start flying. Many recall the old declaration that "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."  The intent of that statement was to aver that if we could do the former, whatever latter might be - ending poverty, making peace with our enemies, conquering climate change -  would be a walk in the park. The problem however, is that the former deals with a scientific, technological challenge, while the latter is far more in the realm of theory, human relations and politics.  So too, just because one has risen to rarefied heights in medicine or commerce is no guarantee that they have the skill to succeed on a totally different stage of endeavor.  For many, that dichotomy has been beclouded by amateurism's narcotic allure. 

The world is an increasingly dangerous place, filled with challenges that demand leaders who understand the players, who appreciate and understand the complexities, and who are masters of the serious arts of listening and responding.  Despite all this, I have faith that enough of us - like Odysseus of old - will find a way to lash ourselves to the mast and safely sail past the allure of amateurism.   

The times are simply far too complex, serious and demanding for amateurs; for those who, like the Platte River, are "a mile wide at the mouth but only six inches deep." 

Copyright©2015 Kurt F. Stone

 

 

 

 

Which Debate Did You Watch?

 

Audio Link to "Which Debate Did You Watch?"

While not nearly as historic - or quotable - as the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, this past Tuesday night's Democratic presidential gathering certainly had its moments. It contained a maximum of issues and civility, and a minimum of ad hominem; a lot of vitality and heart, and little vituperation. To my way of thinking, the evening's debate - while likely lasting an hour longer than necessary, nonetheless delivered a clear message: to wit, "Hey America, we're Democrats; and while you may not agree with any or all of our ideas or proposals, we hope it was obvious to you that none of us are crazy." 

After months of watching more than a dozen Republican presidential hopefuls pander to what the Huffington Post's  Richard Brodsky referred to as  "the wall-building, government-shutdown, destroy Planned Parenthood, investigate Benghazi and emails, fire Boehner, climate change denying, gun-toting, repeal Obamacare and gay marriage crowd," Tuesday's Democratic confab was a lungful of intelligent fresh air.  And unlike the Republican field, the five Democratic contenders are all distinct personalities: Bernie Sanders, reminiscent of the rumpled uncle who cares deeply, and Lincoln Chafee, who possesses the kind of blue-blooded eccentricity rarely seen in public any more. Jim Webb, the only veteran currently running for nomination - on either side of the aisle - carried himself like the highly decorated marine officer he was, and Martin O'Malley, who, despite being the only one on stage who has never held a federal, office came across as the most political of the lot - which in today's atmosphere has its plusses and minuses.  And then there was Secretary Clinton: bright, quick, assured and possessing one of the best, most spontaneous laughs in American public life.  Whether or not she - or Senator Sanders - "won" the debate is both difficult to access and not terribly important.  After all, this wasn't a true "Lincoln Douglas Debate" format which classically places heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy, and is scored in such a manner as to be obvious who won and who did not.  No, the true "winner" in this past Tuesday's debate, was the American electorate, who got a chance to meet several sane adults seeking our vote.  No put-downs, few barbs and little preening.   

The five debated and discussed issues ranging from economic inequality and climate change to war, healthcare and the N.R.A.  And although there were disagreements over policies, procedures and priorities, and questions about how consistent (or politically expedient) their positions might be, they were all handled with a maximum of maturity and civility.   Yes, there was that chuckle-headed comment from former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee about his first vote in the Senate, and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb's sophomoric complaint about not getting enough airtime.  But these were by no means central to how the debate was reported in the mainstream media. 

In sampling a plethora of post-debate wrap-ups and commentary on Twitter, Facebook, cable and talk radio, I discovered that not everyone was watching or listening to the same debate as I.  No, for many, the debate was "a farce," "a bunch of Socialist, America-hating, abortion-loving hippies" who didn't address any issues of importance.  One conservative talk-radio host, doing a not terribly convincing imitation of Bernie Sanders, had him say that when he's elected President, he will replace the American Eagle with the Hammer and Sickle.  Unbelievably, the host, who at no time told his listening audience that it was he - and not the senator - making that statement - started receiving calls from listeners demanding Sanders' arrest and imprisonment!  Then there was the talk-show host who edited 3 statements made by Secretary Clinton, bleeping out the word "given," after the word "God," thereby making it sound like she was taking the Lord's name in vane:

As an example, " . . .  making it possible for every child to live up to his or her god given potential" became  " . . . making it possible for every child to live up to his or her god BLEEP potential." 

Another thread of commentary asserted that Senator Sanders having spent time on an Israeli kibbutz after his graduation from the University of Chicago more than a half-century ago, proved two things: 

1. That he has always been a dangerous Socialist, and that
2. He hates Israel.

Although the second statement is both illogical and counter-intuitive, it didn't seem to bother all those tweeting their agreement. 

At one point, when Sanders and Webb were going back-and-forth about Veterans' issues (which most conservative commentators claimed was never brought up even once during the entire three hours), Sanders - who served as chair of the Senate Veterans' Committee, said: "When I was a young man . . . I strongly opposed the war in Vietnam. Not the brave men like Jim who fought in that war, but the policy which got us involved in that war. . ." One radio host blasted Sanders for lying, hotly claiming that ". . . Sanders was one of those long-haired hippies who spit on veterans when they returned home from Vietnam." Unbelievably, he then asked his listeners to find video proof of his claim  . . .

In comparing this "debate" to those recently held by the Republicans, it becomes abundantly clear that there are profound differences between the parties and the issues they choose to highlight. Candidates Bush, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee et al continually attack one another in an attempt to show the party's base that they are most closely aligned with God, guns and lower taxes, and most capable of standing up against gays, liberals and other assorted immoralists. Eventually, of course, whoever becomes their nominee will have to pivot towards the sensible center - a difficult task for anyone who has anchored her- or himself into the hard cement of the far right.  In their rush to secure a nomination they may one day well regret, these Republicans have offered monosyllabic solutions to polysyllabic problems.

The Democrats, on the other hand - while far from perfect and certainly not possessing all the answers - at least offer a vision and a platform that is far more positive than negative; more sensible than Sinaitic.

The differences between the parties - and their base supporters - reveal a divide; not just in American politics but in a rapidly changing America itself. It is a divide between those who seek to conquer a challenging future and those who deify a mythic past.

The debate I watched carried the message "We're Democrats: We are neither perfect nor have all the answers, but we are certainly not crazy.  And if we can work together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish." 

So tell me: which debate did you watch this past Tuesday . . . ?

Copyright©2015 Kurt F. Stone

Thinking Outside the Box

Audio Link to "Thinking Outside the Box"
 

Although neither the origin nor history of the expression "May you live in interesting times" is certain, most literate folk agree that whether it be of ancient Chinese or modern British pedigree, it is unquestionably a curse, not a blessing.  Almost always used ironically, "May you live in interesting times" carries the clear implication that 'uninteresting times' -  of peace and tranquility - are more life-enhancing than interesting ones.  Those of us who agree with the ironic nature of the statement, will no doubt also agree that we are, without a doubt, living in incredibly "interesting times."  Need proof?  Look no further than the stultifying political logjam permeating the House Republican caucus.

Who in the name of Henry Clay is going to be the next Speaker?  Is there anyone out there whose appeal - not to mention political standing - can bridge the caucus's various case-hardened factions and ideological divides? And most importantly perhaps, who in their right mind would even want to grab hold of that toxic gavel?   Is there any reason to believe that the next Speaker - whoever he or she may be - stands a snowball's chance of accomplishing that which John Boehner could not: herding the cats currently making up the Republican caucus?  As Pennsylvania Representative Charlie Dent - a longtime member of the moderate Main Street Partnership  - put it: The same guys who fragged Boehner will go after the new guy  . . ."

Indeed, these are most interesting times.

As I write this piece, various names are being bandied about. None is more prominently mentioned than that of Wisconsin Representative  (and House Ways and Means Chair) Paul Ryan.  As much as there can be a consensus candidate, Ryan would appear to be the guy.  In the past 48 hours Ryan has gone, in the words of California Republican Darrell Issa  " . . . from a 'hard no' to he knows he has to consider it." When asked yesterday on his way to the airport whether or not he would run, Ryan responded, "Right now I'm going to make my flight so I can make it home for dinner. Sorry guys I'm just going to go. The Packers are at home. They're going to beat the Rams and cover the spread."

Various names have been bandied about:

• Florida's arch-conservative Daniel Webster who as of a recent court decision doesn't even know if he will have a district in which to run for reelection.
• Utah's Jason Chaffetz, who few believe could unite the caucus.
• Louisiana's Steve Scalise, the Majority Whip.  In the current political climate, occupying the number three rung on the House leadership ladder could actually work against him.  In his favor: he is a favorite target of the White House press secretary Josh Earnest, who refers to him as "David Duke without the baggage"
• Then there are calls for electing some kind of "interim speaker," although exactly what that means is not clear.

The current situation certainly does not bode well for Republicans heading into the 2016 election.  Neither does it bode well for the remainder of the 114th Congress, which should be taking up such critical issues as raising the nation's debt ceiling, repairing the country's infrastructure and deciding issues of war and peace.  As things now stand, instead of dealing with issues of consequence, the remainder of the 114th Congress will consist of more hearings on Benghazi and Planned Parenthood, additional votes on repealing Obamacare and throwing lots red meat to the party's base via such "issues" as the administration's war on Christianity and plans to take everyone's guns away. 

If one is a Democrat, the knee-jerk reaction is, of course, to smile and smirk.  "Let 'em show how incapable they are of getting anything done," we say.  "The current imbroglio will send 'em into the political wilderness for at least a generation."  Maybe yes, maybe no.  What is far more important than partisan smiling or smirking, it seems to me, is what's going to happen to the country; of our ability to get anything done.  Remember, in order to deal with the nation's economy, our trade and foreign policy or the future of the middle class, the president - any president - needs someone to negotiate with.  And it cannot be the Democrats alone; that's not how Democracy works.  The essence of political progress is compromise; of getting not what the majority wants or demands so much as achieving that which a majority can live with.  Governance requires a majority that will to put the nation's needs ahead of a party's hide-bound ideology; of being motivated by far, far more than the next election.

To say the least, it is a tall order. And to have any hope of achieving that tall order in these overwhelmingly "interesting times," it seems to me, will take thinking outside the box; to contemplate "going where no one has ever gone before."

What in the Hell am I suggesting?

That despite being in the minority, Democrats help Republicans select someone both parties can live with in the short-run, in exchange for a promise that for the remainder of this Congress, they will knuckle down and work only on issues of national importance.  That is, to put all those grandstanding investigative hearings on the back burner, roll up their sleeves, and show the country that Congress cares more about addressing the problems of this world than about bringing on a millennial Apocalypse. In this instance, thinking outside the box demands that the new Speaker be one who isn't just acceptable to the Republicans, but rather one who can be acceptable to both parties.

I further recommend that a cadre of Democrats and establishment Republicans form a majority and go outside of Congress to select their next Speaker.  Remember, the Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected member of the House.  Ideally, this person would be a former member of the House - one who knows, understands, and appreciates how the institution can work.  It goes without saying that this person should be someone who, no longer being engaged in seeking
reelection, is capable of putting the nation's needs ahead of partisan political considerations.

After giving the matter a lot of thought, I've come up with someone I firmly believe is born for the position: Former Oklahoma Representative Mickey Edwards. 

(A caveat: I know Mickey, have written about him extensively over the years, am dazzled by his understanding of Congress, and am truly fond of him.)  Mickey was a Republican member of the House from 1977 to 1993, was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and served as national chair of the National Conservative Union.  Mickey was also a member of the House Republican leadership, serving as the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, the party's fourth-ranking leadership position. Since leaving Congress more than 20 years ago, Mickey has carved out a major academic career.  For 11 years, he was the John Quincy Adams Lecturer in Legislative Practice  at Harvard's Kennedy School. He then spent five years as a lecturer at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is currently Vice President of the Aspen Institute and Director of the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership.  He has also authored numerous books and articles. My personal favorite is his 2012 work  The Parties Vs. the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans, published by Yale University Press.

I firmly believe that Mickey has the skill, the intelligence, the personality and political chops to ford the lethal stream our Congress has become.  He is a political pro for whom patriotism, is, in the words of the late Adlai Stevenson " . . .  not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”  Mickey Edwards is one of the best, most significant political minds of the past half-century.  He walks the walk and talks the talk.

If we are to survive these "interesting times," it will require thinking outside the box. I truly believe there are enough Democrats and Republicans who care more about addressing issues of importance than serving the needs of their benefactors.  I also believe that political logjams of historic dimension require solutions of historic proportion. 

Mickey Edwards for Speaker!

How's that for thinking outside the box?

Copyright©2015 Kurt F. Stone

Definitely Not Ready For Prime Time

 

Audio Link to "Definitely Not Ready For Prime Time"

Like many, I was saddened to learn of the recent passing of baseball legend Yogi Berra at age 90. Although largely known nowadays for his Goldwynesque malapropisms, Berra was, simply stated, one of the greatest ballplayers of all time.  A squat, uneducated, roly-poly kid from an Italian neighborhood in St. Louis, Berra had both the fortune and misfortune of replacing future Hall of Famer Bill Dickey, who at the time (1946) was universally considered the greatest catcher in the history of the game.  By the time Yogi hung up his spikes in 1965, he had achieved the impossible: he had turned his mentor into the second best catcher of all time.  To the best of my knowledge it was the first of but two occasions in which one Hall of Famer was replaced by another (the other being Ted Williams/Carl Yastrzemski).

Of course, in addition to being the ultimate winner (Berra was a 3-time MVP who wound playing on 13 World Series championship teams), Yogi was well known for his improbable, head-scratching use of the English language.  A couple of his more memorable "Yogi-isms" include:

• "You can observe a lot by watching."
• "Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours."
• "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
• "When you get to a fork in the road, take it." 
• "90% of life is half mental," and of course,
• "It ain't over till it's over."    

No one knows for sure whether Yogi was in truth the author of everything he said.  Indeed, one of his nine books was entitled The Yogi Book: I Really Didn't Say Everything I Said (1998).  But it really doesn't matter -- any more than it matters whether Sam Goldwyn was responsible for such howls as:

• "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."
• "I don't think anyone should write his autobiography until after he's dead."
• "Anybody who goes to see a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined," and
• "Include me out."

Despite their mutual mangling of the English language, Berra and Goldwyn were a whole lot smarter than they chose to sound.  In a sense, what both these men -- the catcher and the motion picture producer - what they had in common was the fact that at root, they were entertainers.  And while it's fine and dandy - not to mention diverting - for athletes and movie folks to be masters of the malaprop, it is truly unsettling when that parody of literacy isn't trying to be funny and -- even worse -- is potentially the second most powerful politician in Washington, D.C.  And here we are referring to California Representative Kevin McCarthy (photo at right), the man who likely will become the next Speaker of the House. McCarthy, not to be confused with the actor of the same name who starred in one of my all-time favorite movies, the 1956 classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, was first elected to the House in November 2006.  From all appearances, McCarthy is a highly likable, engaging, non-threatening member of the House.  A run-of-the-mill, non-ideological conservative, McCarthy, who has served as Majority Leader for a little over a year,  will never be mistaken for a policy wonk or legislative giant.  During his 8 years in the House, the now 50 year old McCarthy has passed precisely three bills:  

1. H.J. Res. 129 (113th Congress) Appointing the day for the convening  of the 113th Congress;
2. H.R. 667 (113th Congress) To redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center, and
3. H.R. 1384 (110th Congress) To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 118 Minner St in Bakersfield, California as the "Buck Owens Post Office."

Within hours of Speaker Boehner's surprise announcement that he was resigning his seat, McCarthy announced his candidacy.  In order to build up his foreign policy credentials, McCarthy spoke before reporters at the headquarters of the "John Hay Initiative," a resource for Republicans who need to sound like they know what they're talking about when it comes to Europe, Russia, the Middle East and the rest of the world. During his rambling chat with the press, McCarthy made several statements which, to say the least, were mindbogglingly confusing and grammatically idiotic.  (The following statements are all sic erat scriptum, namely verbatim):

• It defies belief that the President would allow the ban on Iranian oil exports to be lifted and also stands by a Russia blackmails an entire continent – all the while keeping the place of the band on America.
• Speaking on Veterans’ Issues: Those who return home are being disrespected by the VA that can’t keep the simple promise to all of our heroes to the need when they need it most.”
• We must engage this war of radical Islam if our life depended on it. Because it does.
• Unlike during the surge in Iraq when Petraus and Crocker had an effective politically strategy to match the military strategy.  We have isolated Israel while bolding places like Iran. The absence of leadership over the past six years has had a horrific consequences all across the globe.
• In the past few years alone I have visited Poland, Hungria, Estonia, Russia and Georgia.
• It had to be hundreds of thousands of grandchildren to make that decision.  We don’t have the same as difficult decision, but this White House is managing the decline in putting us in tough decisions for the future.  

But what has drawn the greatest amount of attention in the past several days have been McCarthy's comments about the interminable hearings on Benghazi.  Throwing political caution to the wind, McCarthy told Fox News' Sean Hannity that indeed, the hearings have been a political maneuver whose aim has always been about one thing and one thing only: bringing down Hillary Clinton.  In answer to Hannity's question "How are you going to be different from John Boehner?"  McCarthy, unbelievably said:

What you're going to see is a conservative Speaker that takes a conservative Congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.  And let me give you one example:  Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought and made that happen.

"Untrustable?"  Where did he come up with that?  Oh well, never forget that it was President Warren G. Harding who gave us the word "normalcy." Must be something in the Republican gene pool.  No matter what one thinks of Kevin McCarthy, one must give him credit for one thing: being honest to the point of political suicide. His comments about the Special Committee on Benghazi (which now holds the record for the longest congressional investigation in American history) bring to mind a bon mot of the late great George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  Needless to say, McCarthy's honesty - or brain cramp, take your pick - drew the ire of many of his Republican colleagues.  To the party's most conservative members, McCarthy is no better than an establishment cog; someone who doesn't see government as being the problem and even worse, might actually be willing to work with Democrats in order to get something done.  To the party's more responsible wing, he doesn't have the chops to unify an increasingly divided and unwieldy Republican caucus.  It is reported that conservative Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee is making plans to challenge McCarthy for Speaker.  Chaffetz (photo at left) called on McCarthy to apologize for his comments on the political nature of the Benghazi hearings. "That's an absolutely inappropriate comment," Chaffetz said.   "I think it's an absolutely terrible statement. … I think he should apologize. I think he should withdraw it."

It would seem that Kevin McCarthy simply is not ready for prime time.  He can't speak, makes little sense and has no grasp for legislation; he possesses neither the spine nor the heft to corral an increasingly fractionated Republican caucus.  The party's establishment wing cannot get the ultra-conservatives to go along with anything; by the same token, the ultra-conservatives don't have the numbers to take over the caucus.  Which means that the next Speaker - whether it be McCarthy, Chaffetz or anyone else - is going to have as difficult and frustrating a time as John Boehner when it comes to getting anything done.  Which, if you're a Democrat is just fine and dandy.

Indeed, it is a confusing situation.  Who knows what the future of American politics will be?  Perhaps the best answers comes from .  .  . who else . . . Yogi Berra:

The future ain't what it used to be, and

You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there.

Copyright©2015 Kurt F. Stone