Musings …

Category: Political Philosophy

  • The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. A Film For Our Time!

    Fun to watch! A lot to think about, especially in light of 1/6. The film became contemporary, more than a historical movie from 1962. Not sure how its message related to its time. Not the same thesis as High Noon, but likewise relevant to a time of social, political and existential jeopardy. As of today – indeed, yesterday in the news – spot on. Specifically, voter intimidation:

    A lawless movement seeking hegemony by any means! Like now!

    It’s obvious that, as High Noon was for 1952, this was a message film for its 1962 audience. A Black man and Hispanics can attend school together with whites, but the Black can’t drink, and since he stays outside during the voting, presumably he can’t vote. I wonder why the story didn’t let Pompey take the drink? Did the film want him to take it. Did the film want the audience to want him to? I hope they did. I sure did!

    Interesting political choice by the newspaper editor: The legend would put a stop to Stewart’s ambition – his disappointment was palpable – but, the truth would set him free.

    Great supporting cast. No way to not love Andy Devine. Took a long time to recognize Edmund O’Brien. Thought of White Heat, “See ma, top of the world!”

    I had been hoping that Pompey shot Valance.

    Wonderful film!

  • We Were Like Frogs Dying in Water Boiling – That’s How Trump Won!

    When I learned that long ago as a young man, Trump racially profiled prospective tenants, it was enough for me to disqualify him for the Presidency, let alone [intending no insult to dog-catchers] dog-catcher.

    And it should have been enough for everyone else! I italicized “young” because it will be asked, “He was young then, why should that matter now? I italicized “long ago” because it will be asked, “That was so long ago, why should that still matter now?”

    It matters now because, even if he has never done that again, he is still the same person who did that. The issue is not what particular thing or things he did or even does, but the kind of person he is now, the kind of person he is!

    It matters now because he has not redeemed himself from that, or anything else that he has done since. He is not just the same person he was then, but exponentially worse!

    Our contemporary context begins with the “birther” issue. Sound familiar? The racial profiling back then, when we became aware of it, should have been enough for us to eliminate him. Since then, we have been subjected to an unending flow of escalating bad behavior, each action more disqualifying than the last, and continuing even now. Threatening a renewed nuclear arms race should suffice for a discussion of the present. Why isn’t even that enough? Why hasn’t any one thing along the way been enough? Why hasn’t the accumulated total of all the individually sufficient reprehensible behaviors been enough?

    The answer is the same for each sufficient thing taken one at a time and likewise for the astonishing astronomical sum of all of them taken together.

    The program has been from the beginning, whether just to change the subject or by plan, to replace the last outrageous thing with an even more outrageous thing. Although each individual action was, on its own, more powerful to disqualify him – and of course the ever expanding sum – and for the people to respond by rejecting him, each action was co-opted by the next one, and the next one, and then the next one, and then …. So we were captured by each distraction in succession, unable to focus on the one in hand, sufficient on its own, or all of them together, being thereby neutered!

    The frog in hotter and hotter water, may or may not realize that it is being killed! Our tragic irony, different in kind from the benign early water for the frog, is that each individual incident, beginning with unconscionable racial profiling, was sufficient in itself to do us in! And that, without us realizing that we were being killed!

    And we are still like frogs dying in water boiling!

  • The Current Crisis and the Electoral College

    Yesterday, published in The Jewish Pluralist was my response to an article posted there by Peter Eisenstadt: The Current Crisis and the Electoral College.

    My Response to The Current Crisis and the Electoral College available with this link, and below, takes issue with Mr. Eisenstadt’s fine article on mainly two essential points:

    • I clarify that the Electoral College is the intention of the Framers.
    • I take issue with Mr.Eisenstadt over his evaluation of the possible consequences of the Electoral College selecting whomever they might choose.

    My text, showing italics and bolds, and very slightly edited except for one silly typo in the last paragraph, is as follows:

    _____

    Response to The Current Crisis and the Electoral College

    In The Current Crisis and the Electoral College, The Jewish Pluralist, December 16, 2016, the author, Peter Eisenstadt asks:

    “What would be worse? Allowing Trump to become president, and then watching him violate the rules, principles, and foundations of America’s democracy, or trying, democratically if possible, but extra-democratically [italics mine] if necessary, to prevent him from becoming president?”

    His answer, yes:

    “But in the end, if you ask me, am I willing to do anything, including putting American democracy in peril now [my bold], to prevent a potentially greater peril to American democracy later, I reluctantly must conclude, yes.”

    I don’t know what he means by “extra-democratically” because if the College was the Framers intended way of selecting a President, abiding by its choice could not logically be “extra-democratic.”

    At first, his stance on the the Electoral College was, for me, unclear.

    He says, “The electors should not select Trump as the next president…People have tolerated the electoral college … since the winner of the popular vote has generally won the electoral vote… It is time for this pernicious anomaly to be eliminated, and there’s no time like the present.”

    What is the anomaly? Is he advocating for reconciling the difference by endorsing the popular vote, abolishing the College, or, as the Framers intended, isolating the popular vote from the selection of the President?

    What has become clear to me after several readings is that he indeed favors the College:

    “And talk of something further, going beyond the electoral college to ensure [a] the winner [by] of the popular vote[,] becomes[ing] the next president[,] is just crazy talk.” YES!

    In the Federalist #68, an essential reason given for the Electoral College, was to make sure that the selection [not sic] of a President

    “…should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [bold mine].”

    I think that makes clear that the Framers wanted to isolate the selection of the President from a popular vote.

    When considering our present plight, one could think that the Framers had a Crystal Ball!

    Federalist #68: HAMILTON: To the People of the State of New York:

    “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity [bold mine], may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State.”

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils [bold mine].” [Looks to me like an impeachable offense.]

    The Mode of Electing the President
    From the New York Packet.
    Friday, March 14, 1788

    Hard to imagine that they didn’t really have a Crystal Ball!

    Therefore, if the Electoral College is the Constitutional means to save us, there is no “extra-democratic” solution presented in Mr. Eisenstadt’s fine article. The Electoral College is the Democratic solution intended by the Framers!

    (The unconscionable disingenuous use of the “Intent of the Framers” is another subject.)

    Furthermore, I conclude that for the College to now choose another President would NOT be “… putting American democracy in peril now, to prevent a potentially greater peril to American democracy later…”

    On the contrary, it would be living up to our Democratic Principles. If, in trying to live up to our Democratic Principles, we failed, it would not be the failure of Democratic Principles, but of the strength of out society to live by those principles.

    And if we are too weak now, imagine how impotent we will be after this man takes office, destroys our society, and makes it impossible to redeem!