So Many Men, So Little Time November 29, 2018November 29, 2018 Here are five: Mike Birbiglia, Friedrich Trump; Al Lowenstein; Anthony Scaramucci; Sandy Kominsky. (Women? Tina Brown has launched a great new podcast. Trans? Tina Brown’s first episode is an interview with Jill Soloway, whose psychiatrist dad became her second mom a few years ago, so she wrote Transparent — get it? trans parent? — and not that long ago decided that she, too, fell under the trans umbrella.) Mike Birbiglia. I think I told you about his Broadway Show, The New One. If I didn’t, I may have been worried you’d find it anti-baby. But it’s not — as Mike explains in this coming Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Which is separate from the Times’ review (“Genius. Sublime.”) Full disclosure: I have a tiny piece of this one. Friedrich Trump. No, not Fred, arrested at a Klan rally in 1927. Friedrich, Fred’s dad. Did you see? Banished from Germany for failing to do his military service. (Supply your own bone-spur snark here: ___________________.) If only Prince Luitpold had let him stay. Allard K. Lowenstein. The one-term Congressman who led the “Dump Johnson” movement that helped end the Vietnam War — William F. Buckley, Jr.’s favorite “Firing Line” sparring partner — eulogized by both Buckley and Ted Kennedy after he was murdered by a deranged acolyte — Mississippi freedom fighter — friend of Eleanor Roosevelt . . . Al once asked me, when I was 22 or so, “what are you doing about South Africa?” Come again? I was nonplussed. What on earth would I be doing about South Africa? I was still furnishing my first apartment with cardboard furniture. But it was a question that’s stuck with me, as you can see, and that applies, of course, as I came to realize, not only to South Africa, but to any circumstance of suffering and injustice. Indeed, it was in South Africa that Al helped write Bobby Kennedy’s “Ripple of Hope” speech. Here is the two-minute lead-in. It unaccountably leaves off just before the part you know: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope; and, crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” A few years later, still in the early Seventies when no one — including me! — was brave enough to put his real name on a book I wrote, Al put his real name on it, providing its only blurb. (” . . . Remarkably honest.”) One of Al’s campaign posters hangs in my office and when young candidates come by, I make a point of telling them who he was. Here is a 1983 documentary of his life: CITIZEN. (And/or the eulogy above.) I offer all this in part simply because I just rediscovered the link to that documentary and wanted to share it. But also to remind myself and anyone who will listen of a time when we had serious champions of justice and intellectual rigor, like Al Lowenstein and William F. Buckley, Jr., Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy and — oh, wait! — Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale and George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton and Al Gore and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and so many more. I don’t see the same qualities in Donald Trump or his associates; or in those he stumps for, like Judge Roy Moore and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith. Anthony Scaramucci. From a friend in response to Monday’s post: “Scaramucci was at Neuberger Berman when I worked with him. He was a compliance department nightmare. A self-promoting scam artist. He has just enough charm to obscure just how awful a person he is. He’s not stupid, but he is not as smart as he thinks he is. He will do whatever it takes to promote himself and his own interests.” Sandy Kominsky. You need to watch the pilot of The Kominsky Method on Netflix. I’m pretty sure you will then binge on the subsequent episodes the rest of the weekend. Charles and Michael Douglas shared the same oncologist for the same problem — one day, as we were waiting to go in, Michael Douglas was coming out. Sometimes — witness this amazing show — oncology works. Enjoy! Have a great long weekend! (I’m declaring Friday a possible holiday.)
What Do You Do When No One Cares? November 28, 2018November 28, 2018 The sixth of seven Bag Man podcasts dropped yesterday and I’m telling you: you must listen to this series. Some of my young friends don’t even know who Spiro Agnew was; others, like me, had no idea how dramatic the real, full story was. Until now. What do you do when there’s a criminal in the White House (the Vice President) who is vehemently denying all the allegations (though true) and attacking the press and the prosecutors for conducting a witch hunt? And what do you do when that criminal might very well become President, because the actual President at the time — Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon — was also in serious jeopardy of being removed from office? Nixon, it turns out, was guilty of treason, in President Johnson’s view, that ultimately cost 20,000 American lives (all of which you can preview in the final two minutes of this clip). And that’s not even the Watergate affair and cover up he was impeached for! Oh — and here’s another question: what do you do when there’s a criminal in the White House and the majority of the Senate, though representing a minority of the citizenry,* just doesn’t care? The answer to that one I hope we never have to find out. At some point soon, if it turns out the honesty of the President has to be weighed against the honesty of Robert Mueller, the FBI, and the Intelligence Community, I hope Republican Senators will — however reluctantly — give more weight to the latter. The final line of Episode Six of Bag Man will knock your socks off for its relevance to today. But don’t cheat: start at the beginning, with Episode One. *Need I remind you that Idaho and Wyoming have as many senators as California and New York?
Divesting Fossil Fuel; Counting Votes November 27, 2018November 26, 2018 Anna Haynes: “I searched your site for ‘divest’ ‘fossil’ and nothing came up. What advice do you have for doing low-effort management of an IRA, to still have mostly index funds but not fossil fuels? How to (easily) find reputable well-chosen index funds that are at least low in fossil-fuel-related stocks?” ☞ You are wonderful to ask and to care. My view is that your owning fossil fuel stocks will not help the fossil fuel industry in any way, nor impede the transition to renewables. So I’d suggest redirecting this effort to: . . . finding yet more ways to conserve energy . . . inspiring friends to install solar or to eat less meat . . . organizing to elect Senators and Presidents who “believe in” climate change — all that. To the tiny extent your index fund may enrich you through its ownership of Exxon, I recommend psychological judo: . . . enjoy knowing that you’ll use those Exxon profits to work toward a fossil-free world. Tony Kenck: “I appreciate the sentiment that our current voting systems are flawed and lead to poor results sometimes. I need to disagree with your position from last week that ranked choice voting is the solution. “Ranked Choice (RC) and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) are technically different things. RC is a way of expressing preference, IRV is a method of tabulating votes from RC ballots. “This is an important distinction. IRV, which seems pretty good, can solve one problem (e.g. Gore Bush) but introduce others. Technically speaking, IRV is nonmonotonic. That is, a shift of public opinion toward a candidate can cause the candidate to lose, and a shift of public opinion away from a candidate can cause the candidate to win. IRV also has significant issues with tabulation. Late votes require the entire set of votes to be retabulated because it could change the last-place vote. Technically, you can not know the results until every single vote is in and calculated. . . . A different and probably superior method is one called Condorcet. It eliminates most of the IRV issues, but introduces a few other, but less likely, issues. The tabulation is more straightforward than with IRV. IRV is to Condorcet as single elimination is to round robin. . . . Superior to both of them is Approval voting, in which you simply select all candidates that would be acceptable to you. It’s simple to tabulate and does not have the issues of either IRV or Condorcet. IT’s not perfect, but is an improvement over the current systems, IRC and Condorcet. And it is very simple. It is not technically a ranked choice input though. . . . This website has wonderful graphics of how these different systems can work or not depending on the positions of the candidates. The author of the site is Ka-Ping Yee. . . . I have no problem stirring the pot to improve our election systems, but we need to be careful not to settle too quickly on a solution that will prove flawed. . . . I’m not a lone voice in the universe on this either — e.g, this editorial by Ari Armstrong in the Colorado Sun.” Bonus round: Did you see Nick Kristof’s wonderful column on immigration?
Anybody Have The Mooch’s Email? November 26, 2018November 24, 2018 My friend Tym wants to send him a note, but doesn’t have his address: Dear Mr. Scaramucci, My name is Artyom Matusov, and I attended the SplinterNews viewing of your documentary Monday night in Manhattan, where you appeared afterward for a discussion with Hamilton Nolan (I was sitting near the front, wearing a black leather jacket and red sweatpants, across the aisle from the older gentleman who asked you the last question about whether you believe Trump is a fascist). Firstly, I would like to thank you for participating in the documentary and for being willing to come and be interviewed about it with someone who very clearly doesn’t like you very much, in front of a small, hostile audience. That takes strength, intelligence, charm and courage, all qualities which you clearly possess. Speaking for myself, I decided to attend your viewing primarily out of curiosity, to get a better sense of a person who helped put Trump into office and keep him there. I am a gay, Jewish immigrant from Moscow, Russia. I came to America, legally, with my parents in 1988 when I was four. Both of my parents were only 28 years old when they started their new life in the United States, possessing little else than their wits, and left the Soviet Union because of its rampant antisemitism, and because they were political dissidents (in 1987 my father, who came from a prominent Soviet family, was arrested in front of the Soviet Defense Ministry and interrogated by the KGB for publicly protesting the Soviet war in Afghanistan; you can imagine our current state of déjà vu). I do not exaggerate at all when I say that as a Russian-American Jew, I have been hearing my entire life about the various horrors of fascism, communism and totalitarianism (this is almost all my parents and grandparents talk about when we are all together). Their stories and warnings always seemed distant and irrelevant to my life here, but I listened out of respect, and because I had no choice, even though the thoughts these stories evoke are not always very pleasant, and I don’t particularly enjoy having them. Unfortunately, I do not believe they are irrelevant anymore. A few weeks ago, a large band of neo-Nazis called the Proud Boys collected as a mob not far from where I live in Manhattan, engaged in mob violence where they physically assaulted multiple people, were caught on camera yelling things like “faggot” and “I think I just punched a foreigner,” and most shockingly of all, the NYPD was fully aware and present during the entire incident, and instead of stopping it, or arresting any of the neo-Nazi Proud Boys, instead chose to arrest three people who the Proud Boys had beaten up. Not long after, another ardent Trump-supporting neo-Nazi in Florida sent pipe bombs from his Trump-plastered van to a large number of Democratic leaders, while yet another murdered 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, in the neighborhood where my own family members had lived several years earlier. The inspiration for his mass murder came from Trump, who claimed that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was somehow responsible for the fact that Latin American refugees seek asylum in the United States. Although I cannot speak for HIAS’ activities in Latin America, it did most definitely help me and my family escape from the totalitarian Soviet Union and relocate safely to the United States, where we have all prospered and contributed to our adopted homeland. So with all of that said, here is my reaction to your performance: On a personal level, I liked you a lot, despite your many flaws and contradictions, and despite not wanting to like you at all. I think that is primarily a testament to your charm, intelligence, and candor, though I also think you are dishonest in many ways, as we all are in our own special ways, both with others, and with ourselves. Having thus been charmed by you, against my will, I am now disappointed in you. I am disappointed by the fact that you acknowledge Trump’s words and actions hurt and harm many different kinds of people, and that Brett Kavanaugh is at best, most probably a horrible pig and liar, yet you then choose to deny that these things are significant, central in fact to the Trump Presidency, and that they are significantly hurting the country, and specifically people like me (and women, and African Americans, and Hispanics, and Muslims). That despite this, you still choose to support Trump, because you think it is in your financial or political interest, which I can assure you it is not. My purpose in saying this is not to insult you, but just look at how your association with him has damaged your life already. It blew-up your businesses, almost blew-up your marriage, and put a major dent in your political ambitions, whatever those might now be. And your story is not unique. Most people who associate closely with the Trump family end up badly burned. These are facts, not my opinions. Here is another fact. I am part of the majority now, the majority in this country that is being attacked by a vicious, vengeful and bitter minority of mostly outrageous white straight Christian nativist men. I do not think this is who you are. But as a white straight rich Christian man born here, and as a Harvard trained lawyer, I think you know better than to think that you can tell someone like me that Trump is not a xenophobe or an anti-Semite, or a homophobe (or a racist). As someone who is not directly affected by these words, you do not get to participate in their definition. You do not get to tell people that Trump is not a racist. Nor do you get to use Van Jones’ support for criminal justice reform as proof of anything other than the need for criminal justice reform. My plea to you is to please reconsider what you are doing. Stop selling your book, which says that Trump is some blue-collar hero, when he is actually he a vicious scam artist, who has hurt you many times already. Reflect on your attempt to re-ingratiate yourself with Republicans. It will fail. Step back, breathe, be grateful that you still have all the things that you have, and imagine how you can make a genuine positive impact in the world that has nothing to do with ego, money or power. Please. Tym’s letter got me thinking about my few Trump supporter friends. They floor me. If I called one of them a liar, I think he’d flush very red — and lash back. It’s a terrible thing to be branded a liar. No? Yet somehow they’ve decided it’s funny — or at worst okay — that Trump is a liar. And a tax cheat. And a con man. And a sociopath who kept Hitler’s speeches by his bedside. Okay that Trump insists he doesn’t know Matt Whitaker while insisting he knows him well. Okay that — with months to pick Sessions’ replacement — Trump chose Whitaker to head the Justice Department. Maybe if the Roberts seat ever opens up, Trump will appoint Whitaker Chief Justice! He has a law degree, after all. (I’d say, “what more do you need?” but in truth, you didn’t even need that.) And he may not be indicted for his role in the World Patent Marketing fraud. “Oh, now you’re being ridiculous,” I can hear my Trump-supporting friends say. But am I? If it’s ridiculous to think Whitaker could be Chief Justice, why is it not ridiculous that he’s Attorney General? Anyway . . . UPDATE! THE MOOCH GOT TYM’S LETTER! Before I append his reply, just a little housekeeping on the “sociopath” thing. There are lots of “Trump sociopath” Google hits to choose from, and over the last few months I’ve linked to several. Brooks Hilliard: “Calling Trump a sociopath is exactly what Cong. Crenshaw, whom you extolled, suggested (sensibly) that we not do. I think we should be stating (provably) that Trump is a liar and a cheat (also provable: Trump U, stiffing subs, etc.). His opinions and policies are misguided and dangerous. But we should all stay away from name-calling, which runs the risk of diminishing us more than him (Michelle Obama may have said this best).” Paul deLespinasse: “The ’10 characteristics of a psychopath’ you linked to is truly frightening. However, I discovered that Mike Adams, the author, is a far-out inoculation-opposing conspiracy-theorist who was a birther and supported Trump’s election.” ☞ Well, okay. Then how about this link? ” . . . [sociopaths are] characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals . . .” Or this one? Anything there that strikes you as Trumpian? The Mooch responds: From: Scaramucci, Anthony Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Feedback on Monday’s Hamilton Nolan interview To: Artyom Matusov Very well written and I appreciate the time that you took to write it. Thank you for your honest appraisal. It is hard to know the truth through the distortion of the media and it’s self forming narratives. All things trump are bad. I got that. However it just isn’t true. He has governed pretty to very moderately. As for me I have absolutely no political ambition. I was trying to help the country and made a mistake on the phone with a reporter. Nothing more or less. John Kelly took advantage of it. It has come back to hurt him now. I am focused on my family and my business. I thought the other night was odd. I came to answer questions about the film not to be attacked. I thought the crowd was very close minded and just wanted a punching bag rather than meet in the middle. I appreciate you coming and making the decision to hear me out. The fact that you may not like me now, my opinions or philosophy has at least been confirmed by your own due diligence and not media biases. As for the book I encourage you to read it. It too may not be what you think. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, Anthony Whatever you think of Scaramucci — and however delusional his claim that Trump has governed moderately — it’s hard not to enjoy the trailer.
Weekend Reading, Listening, Watching November 23, 2018November 24, 2018 Becoming has already sold more than a million copies — and I’m guessing almost all those readers will shortly be recommending it to others, as I am to you. If you listen at normal speed, you’ll have 19 intimate hours with this wonderful, amazing woman — just you and she. Where she finds the patience, I don’t know. If you listen at 1.25X or 1.5X speed, as I think you’ll prefer, you’ll have time also to read Thanks A Thousand, wherein A.J. Jacobs thanks his barista for his morning coffee — and then proceeds to personally thank everyone else around the world whose efforts were required to produce it. It’s a lovely little book filled with charm, humor, and wisdom. What better way to wrap up Thanksgiving weekend? Come to think of it: buy five copies and use them instead of Hallmark cards the next five times you want to send a really nice thank-you note. Have you not yet begun listening to the seven-part Bag Man podcast? I’m telling you: even if you don’t know who Spiro Agnew was (he was Vice President of the United States) or how much time he spent in prison (he made a deal) or who took his place (Rockefeller), you will find this riveting. And oh, so relevant to today. In a related vein, watch “Betrayal: The Plot That Won The White House,” being rebroadcast tonight (Friday) at 9pm and midnight on MSNBC (Eastern Standard Time), and then again at 9pm Saturday and 10pm Sunday. Turns out — as we sort of knew, but now know with far greater certainty (listen to the tapes!) — Nixon kept Johnson from ending the Vietnam War in order to win the Presidency . . . at a cost of, among much else, 20,000 American lives. LBJ called it “treason,” but decided he had to keep it secret. It ain’t secret now.
Dick Clarke — Not American Bandstand November 21, 2018November 18, 2018 That one — here interviewing the Beach boys in 1964 — had no E at the end of his name and no national security credentials. This one — Clarke, not Clark — is an American hero whose podcast, FUTURE STATE, may qualify for your queue. Two recent ones I commend: The Constitution at Risk Cyber War and Defending Democracy Remember when life was as simple and innocent as this? Oh, and wait! Tomorrow is Thanksgiving! Happy THANKSGIVING!!! I am bursting with thanks to give — not least for your readership.
On This, Reagan Was Right November 20, 2018November 18, 2018 Hey, Trump fans! Take a minute to hear Ronald Reagan out. As Fareed Zakaria laid out in under four minutes Sunday, we are ceding the field to China. Trump is exactly what Reagan was warning against. The tragic fact is that America — until 2017, the world’s acknowledged leader — is being rapidly diminished by the incompetent sociopath in the White House and those who enable him. (Too shrill? Which of these 10 characteristics of a sociopath do YOU think do not apply?) If the Pete Davidson / Lt. Dan Crenshaw story interested you last week, here’s Crenshaw’s take on their Saturday Night Live exchange — and on how dialog may work better than feigned outrage. (Humor helps, too.)
Ranked-Choice Voting – Frozen, With Salt November 19, 2018November 18, 2018 I’ve long favored Instant Runoff Voting — also called Ranked-Choice Voting. It’s the very simple idea that if you’re ordering a lychee frozen margarita and the waiter says he’s not sure they have lychee today, you say, “well, if they don’t have lychee, I’ll take pineapple.” Just substitute Ralph Nader for lychee and Al Gore for pineapple. It’s worth digressing ever so slightly here to tell you that the Iguana at 240 West 54 Street in New York has both lychee and pineapple frozen margaritas, but also cinnamon, and you may come to calibrate your life not just as pre- and post-graduation or pre- and post-marriage but, now, pre- and post- the Iguana cinnamon frozen margarita. (Equally important: Monday and Tuesday nights, upstairs, Vince Giordano and the Nighthawks play Big Band music that is so much fun you won’t be entirely sure whether it’s the music or the margarita that’s left you unable to stop grinning.) Whether or not you like tequila, naming your first and second choices when you vote has several advantages: > It invigorates third parties and thus draws more voters into the political process. > It avoids unintended consequences (did most Nader voters really want to see Bush win?). > It eliminates the very considerable effort and expense of actual run-off elections. Not just the taxpayer expense of holding the election or the voter effort of having to go back to the polls — but also the expense and effort of yet more advertising, yet more door knocking. Maine has Instant Runoff Voting and it worked just fine in a hotly contested House race this month. Read more about Ranked-Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Voting (again: the two terms are interchangeable) here. In the race for Georgia governor just now there was a third-party candidate — industrial hemp advocate Ted Metz — but it was not has candidacy, but rather old-South-style voter suppression, that proved determinative. Stacey Abrams embodies the best of American democracy: integrity, competence, compassion, hard work, and talent. She was ultimately credited with a hair under 49% of the vote, Kemp a hair over 50%, Metz 1%. She acknowledged the election was over. She encouraged Hollywood not to boycott Georgia. But, in a speech worth reading, she did not concede defeat: On September 18, thousands of Georgians began casting absentee ballots, determined to lift their voices in the democratic process. A few weeks later, more than two million Georgians voted early. Then, on November 6, more than a million folks arrived in precincts around our beloved state, excited to express their patriotism through the basic, fundamental act of voting. But this year, our state failed its voters. More than a million citizens found their names stripped from the rolls by the Secretary of State. Tens of thousands hung in limbo, rejected due to human error and a system of suppression that had already proven its bias. The remedy, they were told, was simply to show up – only they, like thousands of others, found polling places shut down, understaffed, ill-equipped or simply unable to serve its basic function for lack of a power cord. Students drove hours to hometowns to cast votes because mismanagement prevented absentee ballots from arriving on time. Parents stood in the rain in four-hour lines, watching as less fortunate voters had to abandon democracy in favor of keeping their jobs. Eligible voters were refused ballots because poll workers thought they didn’t have enough paper to go around. Ballots were rejected by the handwriting police. Georgia citizens tried to exercise their constitutional rights and were still denied the ability to elect their leaders. Under the watch of the now former Secretary of State, democracy failed Georgians of every political party, every race, every region. Again. I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election. But to watch an elected official – who claims to represent the people of this state, baldly pin his hopes for election on the suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote – has been truly appalling. To be clear, this is not a speech of concession. Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede. But my assessment is that the law currently allows no further viable remedy. Now, I could certainly bring a new case to keep this contest alive, but I don’t want to hold public office if I need to scheme my way into the post. Because the title of Governor isn’t nearly as important as our shared title: Voters. Make no mistake, the former Secretary of State was deliberate and intentional in his actions. I know that eight years of systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence had its desired effect on the electoral process in Georgia. And as I have for more than twenty years, I will stand with my fellow Georgians in pursuit of fairness. Only now, I do so as a private citizen, ready to continue to defend those whose choices were denied their full expression. Today, I announce the launch of Fair Fight Georgia, an operation that will pursue accountability in Georgia’s elections and integrity in the process of maintaining our voting rolls. In the coming days, we will be filing a major federal lawsuit against the state of Georgia for the gross mismanagement of this election and to protect future elections from unconstitutional actions. We will channel the work of the past several weeks into a strong legal demand for reform of our elections system in Georgia. And I will not waver in my commitment to work across party lines and across divisions to find a common purpose in protecting our democracy. For a state that elects Democrats and Republicans and Independents. That elects leaders who will not tolerate an erosion of our values. Fair Fight Georgia. Because these votes are our voices. We are each entitled to our choices. And we have always, Georgia, been at the forefront of speaking truth to whatever power may lay claim to leadership – if only for the moment. We will win because we are Georgia. And we will get it done.
Whatever You Want November 15, 2018November 15, 2018 Want a three-minute love story? Just to make you smile? Click here. Like so many of life’s basic rules (a watched pot sometimes does boil), “never date an actor” turns out to have its exceptions. Want to spend more money on ice cream than you ever thought possible? I scream, you scream and now the Milk Maids are shipping nationwide (at increasingly prohibitive cost as you get further and further from Brooklyn). I scream because for quite a few years I’ve owned a scoopful of the company and the business has had its challenges. My only dividends so far: two new generally amazing flavors delivered each month, with dry ice I like to watch skitter in the sink. You scream because — whaaaaaat? The pints cost hoooooow much? But think of the Valentine’s Day cards you can include. They practically write themselves. “You melt my heart!” “Won’t you be my guilty pleasure?” Want yet more on “the conversation“? This time from outgoing Congressman (and former South Carolina governor) Mark Sanford, defeated by a Trumper in the primary (who herself then lost to a Democrat)? He writes: ” . . . What happened to Ronald Reagan’s notion of being a happy warrior? Like his policies or not, he was pleasant. He smiled. He joked. He played to optimism rather than fear. He and Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, had a famously strong working relationship despite their political differences. The Republican Party that so many of us care deeply about continues to be held hostage these days, and what I saw last week in a district I grew up in and know well is that there is a half-life to insults, bullying and an embrace of a post-truth world. . . .” If you favor civility and rational governance, his op-ed will resonate. Want a seven-part podcast that will widen even the droopiest eyes? (Not to say yours are anything but wide and bright and filled with the kind of intelligence that makes me want to write these posts for you each day — they are! they do! But that’s how stunning this podcast is.) In Bag Man, Rachel Maddow and her team tell the story of Spiro Agnew — corruption in the White House that led to demonization of the press and discrediting of the prosecutors but, ultimately, to the Vice President of the United States resigning and inexplicably escaping prison. (Later, the President would resign over a different matter.) It has been said that the Trump Administration is guilty of corruption on a scale never previously imagined. Even in light of Bag Man, that’s likely true in terms of amount. There are only so many $100 bills you can stuff into an envelope. But in terms of flagrancy? Cash-stuffed envelopes delivered to the White House are perhaps as flagrant as it gets. I’m not sure which is more eye-widening: what Agnew did, or the parallels to today. Have a great weekend!
The Conversation, Continued . . . November 14, 2018July 20, 2019 This turns out to be a week — at least loosely — about reconciliation. Monday, I posted “The Conversation.” Yesterday, I responded to Carl. Today, Carl responds to me. But first, in case you missed it, here is Pete Davidson apologizing to former Navy SEAL and Republican Congressman-elect Lt. Dan Crenshaw on Saturday Night Live. Both are wonderful people I find myself liking immensely — who could hardly be more different. Yet who got along fine. Watch! The most important thing to come out of this election was the reimposition of urgently needed “checks and balances.” But also good was an amping up of diversity in Congress: . . . more women (still nowhere near half) . . . more scientists (maybe they will enact a National Scientists Day) . . . more Muslims . . . more Native Americans . . . more LGBT Americans — and more veterans like Lt. Crenshaw. (“Veterans in Congress key to bipartisanship, study says.“) Hats off to them all — and to any Republicans and Democrats willing to work across the aisle in good faith to find reasonable, fact-based solutions to our challenges. Like the 48 members of the Problem Solvers Caucus — 24 red, 24 blue. This in stark contrast with the mindset of the Republicans when they last regained control of the House and Boehner said of Obama’s agenda: “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” And they did. But back to Carl, from yesterday. Carl responded: Believe it or not I actually like you and your devotion to the Democratic way of life, so to speak. But I believe that all the financial and hundred other achievements Trump has made FAR outweigh his negative past. Crime, safety and the greatest economy on the globe SHOULD be the Dem priority. NOT vindictive investigations that will tie up OUR country (yours and mine) for years. All the regulations that Obama put on the economy was stifling the potential of this great country and the JV team and Benghazi video and the “you can keep your doctor” garbage was too much to take. Stay in there and keep fighting let us pray you are right however you should temper your aggressive blog with the other side information that you knowingly omit. Try to take a middle road and avoid the far left BS (Hitler, sociopath, etc) Don’t forget the millions that voted for him that believe he truly loves this country. If you let me I will try to remind you when I can. I appreciate the tone, for sure. It might not have hurt to add, “I hadn’t realized the Florida referendum excludes murderers, or that 46 of the 50 states — now 47, with Florida — disagree with my position. I just like to rib you.” But I’ll take what I can get. And Carl should know a few other things, from my point of view. First, that the Trump achievements he points to are dubious. When you slash the corporate tax rate, you automatically raise corporate profits, which nearly as automatically raises stock prices. But at what cost? When you run trillion dollar deficits during good economic times, you juice the economy. But at what cost? When you slash environmental and safety regulations, again you raise corporate profits. But at what cost? We’re all for slashing unnecessary regulation and making government more efficient. (E.g., Clinton/Gore reinventing government, during whose eight years 24 million net new private sector jobs were added, versus fewer than 1 million after Bush’s eight years.) But even with Obama’s policies and priorities, he rescued the world from a global depression . . . (in hindsight, I wish he had sent some Wall Streeters to jail) . . . and reduced the unemployment rate from 10% to 4.7% even as he got the National Debt back to shrinking relative to the economy as a whole. Hurray to Trump for not (yet) killing the Obama recovery; but reducing the rate a further percentage point or so, from 4.7% to 3.7% merely continued the monthly job growth he inherited. There is so much more to say but let me stick here to some common ground: yes, Democrats are against crime. (The violent crime rate fell under Obama from 454 per 100,000 in 2008 to 372.) We’re with you, Carl! Democrats oppose illegal immigration. (Obama deported more people than any other president; we joined Republicans 68-32 with a comprehensive immigration reform package in 2013 that Republicans in the House killed; and a compromise earlier this year that Trump killed.) We’re with you, Carl! Democrats favor safety. (We favor gun safety regulation, workplace safety regulation, and other regulations designed to make the food and water we consume and the air we breathe safer.) We’re with you, Carl! Democrats favor a great economy. (Historically, the economy is stronger under Democrats — you can look it up. And if the Republicans had not blocked the American Jobs Act that Obama called a joint session of Congress to urgently advocate, we would by now have made a good start on reinvigorating our infrastructure and seen even better job and wage growth.) We’re with you, Carl! I agree we shouldn’t focus too much attention on what you call Trump’s “negative past.” It’s his campaign’s very recent past and his administration’s current corruption — on a scale never previously imagined — that I believe are worth scrutiny . . . even as we work with willing Republicans to lower the price of prescription drugs, improve the health care system, boost wages, and create great new jobs revitalizing our infrastructure. The things that affect everyday Americans are what Democrats would most like to accomplish. Democrats are with you on that as well. I agree there are “millions who voted for him who believe he truly loves this country.” But millions of people throughout history have believed nationalistic leaders they voted for loved their countries, only to decide, with hindsight and amidst the rubble, they were conned. Benghazi? Those four Americans knew they were serving in a dangerous part of the world and that 9/11 was a particularly dangerous day to visit Benghazi. Democrats celebrate their bravery and mourn their loss. But there is so much disturbing video these days (Parkland?) — yet none of the rest of it got eight Congressional hearings (none of which, though Republican-controlled, found any wrongdoing) — or even one. So I’m not with you on that piece, Carl. Finally, according to most psychiatrists, there are sociopaths in America. Perhaps as many as 3% of us. In what respects would you say Trump is not one of them? In what respects does the definition quoted yesterday . . . “The lack of conscience and an inability to feel remorse are the underlying factors [of sociopathy]. [Sociopaths] do not have the ability to make and keep friends. The sociopathic personality is initially viewed as charming until the casual deception shines through their skillful masterful manipulation. They have the skillful aptitude for lying and cheating. They have no capacity to feel guilt.” . . . not fit Trump? As this article warns, “Beware the narcissistic sociopath.” Are we wrong to be concerned? Brad Roth: “I have two points-of-view that I hold simultaneously, but I have not been able to reconcile them. 1) Democrats and Republicans need to stop fighting and work together for the good of the country. There is too much vitriol. We shouldn’t view each other as evil, but must find common ground. We are not enemies. 2) President Trump is the most vile, disgusting person ever, a true sociopath. I despise him. How can both of these statements be true? I believe both, but they seem inconsistent, which has me in a logical quandary.” ☞ Easy! Very few Republicans are sociopaths. Fewer still who have been elected to high office. And it is they — like Congressman-elect Dan Crenshaw (or Marco Rubio back in the days he was calling Trump “a dangerous con man” or Lindsey Graham back in the days when he was calling Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot . . . undercutting everything we stand for”) — with whom we need to work.