Disclaimer:  Today’s post includes a discussion of two writers.  Myself and Salman Rushdie.  Therefore, let me remind everyone, I know Dr. ESP.  I collaborate with Dr. ESP.  Dr. ESP, you are no Salman Rushdie.

Anyone who writes historical fiction knows, by labeling it “fiction,” writers give themselves license to create situations and dialogue to which no one except the principals have first-hand knowledge.  In many cases, the non-documented passages are needed to address unanswered questions.  As I drafted In the National Interest, there were two issues for which the public record provided no definitive explanation.  What was Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive for killing John F. Kennedy?  And was Oswald’s employment at the Texas School Book Depository, weeks before the motorcade route became public, coincidence or due to manipulation?

I was reminded of this aspect of my book while watching Jon Stewart’s interview of Salman Rushdie last night on “The Daily Show.”  In his book Knife, an account of being attacked during an August 2022 lecture at the Chautauqua Institute and the aftermath, Rushdie admits he still knows nothing about his attacker Hadi Matar’s motive other than his support for the Islamic Revolution on social media.  And despite standing outside the Chautauqua prison where Matar is being held pending trial when, while writing his book, Rushdie returned to “the scene of the crime,” he chose not to confront his attacker.  Instead, he created a Socratic dialogue which included his idea of what Matar’s legal counsel might provide as a defense in his forthcoming trial.

Again, I felt a personal kinship with Rushdie as this was the same technique I used to create both sides of the moot court arguments as my protagonist Jonathan Sheppard explores the decision to release or withhold the journal he inherited.  My self pat on the back was, however, short lived as Rushdie explained his purpose in forging this imaginary conversation with this young man who “came out of the crowd” 34 years after an Irani Ayatollah ordered a fatwa against Rushdie, following the 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses, a satirical account of the alienation and eventual assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Britain.

I had used my creative process at best to tie up loose ends in my narrative, but mostly for its entertainment value.  Rushdie had used his to try and understand why someone who was not even born at the time of the fatwa would commit a crime that would likely incarcerate him for the rest of his life.  His was a far more noble endeavor, looking for some rationale for the irrational.  Which made me rethink the value of a fictional Socratic dialogue as a means of exploring options in complex situations, especially when the actual response, in hindsight, proved unproductive.

And, being the first night of Passover, my thoughts centered on the current status of the Israel/Hamas conflict and its impact on college campuses in the United States.  On the day after the terrorist attack, international sympathy, for the most part, was clearly with the Israelis despite lingering concerns about policies affecting Palestinians promoted by the Netanyahu government. 

History tells us any nation subject to a terrorist attack has options, including, but not limited to:

• Diplomacy
• A targeted military response.
• An unlimited military response.
• Focus on internal security to prevent future attacks.
• Establishing an anti-terror alliance to universally condemn such attacks.
• Some combination of the above.

Only one of these six options had the potential of inverting post-October 7 sentiment towards Israel from victim to villain.  Likewise, it was Muslim students, not their Jewish classmates, who felt unsafe on college campuses in the immediate days after the vicious and inhumane Hamas attack.    As was also the case for almost unanimous Congressional support for military assistance to Israel.  Again, only one choice could dramatically change those dynamics. And yet that is the one Netanyahu and his war cabinet chose.

When Jon Stewart asked Rushdie, “How are you doing,” he told his host he feels better now than he did before the attack.  And when queried if he was apprehensive about Matar’s forthcoming trial and the possibility of being called to testify, Rushdie replied he is only a fact witness and feels no need to confront his attacker.  He then referred back to standing in the “car park” (British for parking lot) outside the Chautauqua prison.  “I am a free man outside; he is locked up inside.”

I cannot help but wonder if the Israeli government had conducted a similar Socratic process before launching their version of “shock and awe” on Gaza, would they have avoided a situation where both sides are hopelessly and indefinitely “locked up inside” prisons of their own making.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

This century has not been kind to the American system of justice.  It has been accused of being two-tiered.  At times, it defies logic, as in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Yesterday, we learned that “law and order” is not the only American value which is applied depending on who you are, not what you do.

Case in point, Senator Tom Cotton (MAGA-Arkansas).  On May 10, 2023, Cotton introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act, which according to his accompanying press release, “protects the First Amendment rights of students at public universities from unconstitutional speech codes and so-called free speech zones.”  Among the provisions of the proposed legislation are (again from his press release):

• Prohibit public colleges from restricting free speech and expression on campus.
• Create a cause of action in federal court for the Attorney General or other parties to challenge restrictions on speech and expression on campus.
• Make sure the requirements of the Act do not apply to colleges and universities controlled by religious institutions.

Okay, the First Amendment promotes free expression.  And anyone violating another’s right to free expression should be subject to due process for alleged violations.  But seriously Senator, if a student at Notre Dame University accuses the head football coach of being an overpaid incompetent, you’re okay if the Board of Trustees determines such blasphemy is punishable by suspension or expulsion.  But religious exemptions for rules that apply to everyone else is a matter for a different day.

Why?  Because yesterday the distinguished gentleman* from Arkansas took a quite different approach when it came to protesters in four U.S. cities who blocked highways to express their disapproval of what they believe is a disproportionate Israeli response to October 7 and support for a Palestinian State.

You have to get to these criminals early.  If something like this happened in Arkansas on a bridge there, let’s say there would be an awful lot of wet criminals tossed overboard, not by law enforcement, but by people whose road they were blocking.  If they glued their hands to car or pavement, well, pretty painful to have their skin ripped off, but I think that’s the way we would handle it in Arkansas.  And I’d encourage people anywhere, who get stuck behind criminals like this who are trying to block traffic, to take matters into their own hands.  It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.

Now I understand people might get upset when a protest inconveniences them.  But in the MAGA universe, peaceful protesters are “criminals,” and violent protesters on January 6th are “patriots” and “hostages.”  And where was Tom Cotton when New Jersey authorities shut down the George Washington Bridge to punish Fort Lee mayor Mike Sokolich for not supporting Governor Chris Christie’s bid for reelection?  Or when neo-Nazis blocked downtown streets in Nashville?  Or when “The People’s Convoy” blocked access to Washington, D.C. to protest COVID-19 restrictions? In other words, when Tom Cotton encourages people to attack protesters, he makes a clear distinction between “my people” and “you people.”

And so much for due process.  Cotton might as well have been one of the faux federales in John Huston’s  1927 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “We don’t need no stinking charges.  Or stinking trials. Or stinking judges and juries.”  Just imagine if pro-Israel Christian nationalists were blocking a roadway in Dearborn, Michigan preventing the city’s large Muslim population from access to their mosque.  Does anyone believe Cotton would approve of Muslim vigilantes tossing them over the Miller-Rotunda Bridge?

All of this aside, I once again was struck by an observation by Joe Scarborough.  He prefaced his comment by acknowledging his personal friendship with Tom Cotton’s parents before adding, “I know they did not raise him to be like this.”  Based on that information, it is highly unlikely the senator’s warped perspective on American justice is attributable to familial DNA.  Which brings me back to the title of today’s post.  How many Americans, who 10 years ago would be appalled by Cotton’s call for vigilante violence, now support his message and might even participate in the equivalent of modern day lynchings?

This November was already a choice between clear alternatives.  Democracy v. Autocracy.  Allegiance to the Constitution v. Personality Cult.  National Security through Global Alliances v. Isolationism.  As someone who believes in the adage, “Children are not born with hate; someone teaches us to hate,” I now attribute a propensity toward political violence as largely a question of environment, an environment normalized by the MAGA Party.  So add one more item to the list of choices.  Due Process v. Vigilantism.  One presidential candidate calls for retribution and beating the hell out of people.  The other tells us, “We can be better than that.”

Given the choice between “Rip their skin off” or “That’s not who we are,”  I trust most Americans will eventually opt to be members of Team Better Than That.

*”Distinguished gentleman” is Congressional parlance for “son of a bitch.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP