Monthly Archives: July 2016

The Sounds of (NON)Silence

Politics

The late Sam Kinison, reflecting on his own failed marriages, once included the following line in his act, “I don’t condone wife beating, but I understand it.”

I was reminded of Kinison’s attempt at shock humor as the discussion unfolded concerning Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about Donald Trump’s fitness to be president.  Even if you agree with her sentiments, it was both inappropriate and unnecessary.  Not only must justice be blind, it must be apolitical.  I am no Pollyanna and know this is not the case, otherwise Merrick Garland would be a sitting justice.  But it is the ideal to which the Court should strive.

To their credit, several Hillary Clinton supporters and Democratic officials such as Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy chastised Ginsburg for her inital comments to the Associated Press and later in a CNN interview.

Those who chose to defend Ginsburg made the following arguments.  The politicization of the Court began with Gore v. Bush.  And where was the outrage when the late Antonin Scalia would go hunting with Vice President Cheney when the court was deliberating over the process by which Cheney had developed the Bush Administration energy policy?  Even if these events raise legitimate concerns about the impartiality of the Court, they do not justify Ginsburg’s actions.  The last time I checked, “Two wrongs STILL do not make a right.”

Which brings me back to Kinison.  While I do not condone what Justice Ginsberg did, I’m trying to understand it.  And then I remembered this is not the first time Ginsberg has seemed out of character.  Many of her staunchest fans were shocked to learn of her close personal and professional relationship with Justice Scalia.  Polar opposites in terms of ideological bent, both appreciated each others’ knowledge of history and the law and their respective ability to craft legal arguments based on fact and reason.

The second factor may have been the negative synchronicity associated with the decision by Donald Trump to re-tweet the now infamous Hillary/Jewish Star/Money image on July 2nd, the day Elie Wiesel died.  Was Justice Ginsburg driven by Wiesel’s admonition that silence, intentional or complicit, was largely responsible for the rise of the Third Reich?  As a student of history, was she concerned that Trump’s action empowered and legitimized white supremacists and neo-Nazis who see him as their “glorious leader?” (Source: The Daily Stormer)  Was she even more disgusted when the neo-Nazi chat room (Chan8.net/pol/) which originally posted the Clinton image on June 22, included an anonymous post referencing Wiesel’s death which stated, “Ding Dong the Wicked Kike is Dead?”

If that is case, I still do not condone what Justice Ginsburg did, but I certainly understand it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A Lesson in Political Sportsmanship from Two Sportswomen

Politics, Sports

I would never suggest there is an equivalency between playing in the Wimbledon  finals and running for president of the United States.  But I am fairly positive the desire and drive to raise the championship trophy is the same.  Unfortunately, that is where the similarity ends.

Yesterday, the women’s Wimbledon final between Serena Williams and Angelique Kerber was as hard fought as any political campaign.  For an hour and a half the opponents dished out everything they had in them.  Both brought their “A” game to Centre Court.  The winner was the better of two pretty damn great tennis players.

At the conclusion, no one who watched the matched considered the slightest possibility Kerber handed the contest to the other as a result of poor execution or major mistakes.  The consensus was Williams’ superior play, especially the speed and accuracy of her first serves, was the difference.  ESPN announcer Mary Carillo suggested viewers could live a hundred years and not see anything like this again.

So how did Kerber react to being outplayed?  In the post-match interview, she said, “It’s always a great honor to play (Serena) in a finals.”  On Facebook, Kerber added, “Big congrats to Serena Williams.  Your support makes this so special.”  Williams returned the compliment in her post-match interview.  She talked about how a great player like Kerber lifts her game, forces her to be her best.

That’s not to say both players were flawless in their strategies and execution.  On occasion, Serena lost points on drop shots instead of sticking to strong ground strokes which had been her bread and butter throughout the match.  Kerber seemed unable to adjust to Williams first serves or take advantage of second serves.  Pointing out these glitches was unnecessary.  Tennis aficionados did not need someone else to identify these weaknesses or the impact on the eventual outcome.

Now, consider the current race for president.  Most Americans are unhappy with their choice between major party candidates.  Both are flawed, but that is true of most human beings, much less presidential contenders.  Perhaps this dissatisfaction is due to the fact the candidates “lower their game,” believing it is necessary to constantly point out their opponents negatives.  I do not need Donald Trump to constantly tell me Hillary Clinton lies.  James Comey’s testimony before the House Government Oversight Committee was good enough for me.  And I do not need Hillary Clinton to remind me Trump is not as successful as he claims to be or that he panders to hate groups which represent the worst of America.  I can make that judgment on my own based on the facts.

I would much prefer if each candidate tried to secure my vote as follows. “My opponent has laid out (his/her) plan for (choose any issue).  I’m sure (he/she) honestly believes it is good for America. That’s OK.  But I have a better plan. Let me share it with you.”  And sometime during the campaign, wouldn’t it be nice if a candidate said, “I want to thank my opponent for forcing me to better articulate my vision for America and how we get there.”

I am not holding my breath, waiting for this to happen.  But one can dream.  How good would it feel as an American to have the same reaction about an election I had at the end of the Williams/Kerber match?

WOW! That was great.  Too bad someone had to lose.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Where Have You Gone “Joe” de Tocqueville?

Culture, Politics

In 1831, the French Government commissioned Alexis de  Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaument to study the United States prison system.  Their journey resulted in de Tocqueville’s much broader treatise Democracy in American, an analysis of the religious, political and economic nature of American society.  The American experience became much clearer through the eyes of a foreigner.

Last night, Trevor Noah, the South African-born host of The Daily Show, opened his program with an analysis of the shooting by police of black citizens in Louisiana and Minnesota.  (NOTE: His commentary was taped prior to the police ambush in Dallas, Texas but could just as easily been delivered unchanged except to reference the most recent incident.)

“You know, the hardest part of having a conversation surrounding police shootings in America, it always feels like in America, it’s like if you take a stand for something, you automatically are against something else.”

“But with police shootings, it shouldn’t have to work that way. For instance, if you’re pro Black Lives Matter you’re assumed to be anti-police, and if you’re pro-police, then you surely hate black people.”

“When in reality, you can be pro-cop and pro-black, which is what we should all be!”

Sometimes it takes an “outsider” to look within the soul of America.  As I watched Noah, I realized he was debunking a myth which may be the cause of many of our social and economic conflicts: the zero-sum game.

I personally experienced this phenomenon during my time as  policy director for economic development and commerce at the National Governors Association.  Several governors asked us to address the latest “war between the states,” instances where one state would offer incentives to lure companies from another state.  This happens only if you believe the American economic pie is of finite size.  Your energies are then focused on getting a bigger slice.  We learned from that effort all states could benefit if our goal became increasing the overall size of the pie.  The result was a shift in public policy which promoted entrepreneurship, the start-up and growth of more businesses, rather than incentives which only shifted the location of already existing economic activity.

The zero sum mindset plays out around other topics which dominate our national dialogue.  One example is immigration reform.  One  can only assume that immigrants are taking American jobs if you believe the number of jobs remains constant.  Another example is LGBT rights.  Opposition to marriage equality requires an assumption the right of gay individuals to marry somehow lessens traditional marriage for those who choose that path.  However, since the Supreme Court ruling, there does not seem to be a decline in heterosexual wedding or engagement announcements in our local newspaper.

I am not ready to declare Trevor Noah is the new de Toqueville.  But I applaud him for reminding us we sometimes need to see ourselves as others see us.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP