Until 2005, there was a joke called “The Aristocrats” which was only shared among comedians at private parties and while waiting to go on stage at comedy clubs.  Why?  Because it was thought too off-color and crude to perform in public.  Wikipedia describes the content as follows.

The joke involves a person pitching an act to a talent agent. Typically the first line is, “A man walks into a talent agent’s office.” The man then describes the act. From this point, up to (but not including) the punchline, the teller of the joke is expected to ad-lib the most shocking act they can possibly imagine. This often involves elements of incest, group sex, graphic violence, defecation, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, child sexual abuse, and various other taboo behaviors.

The joke ends with the agent, shocked but often impressed, asking “And what do you call the act?” The punchline of the joke is then given: “‘The Aristocrats'”.

Then in August 2005, Mighty Cheese Productions released an 88 minute documentary during which 75+ comedians share their version of the gag or comment on why they consider it a classic.  The film was directed by Penn Jillete and Paul Provenza.  It is dedicated to Johnny Carson, who often said it was his favorite joke.

Many consider the ultimate version to be the one delivered by Gilbert Gottfried at the Friar Club’s roast of Hugh Hefner.  It lasted nine and a half minutes and pushed the envelope of political incorrectness and tasteless detail.

“The Aristocrats” reminds me of another inside joke told only in the back rooms of Washington, DC and many state capitals.  I believe the time has come to share this private humor with a broader audience.

A man and his entourage walk into the offices of a national political consultant to audition a new act.

• The star of the act begins by falsely claiming the newly elected president of the United States is not born in America and therefore is not legally qualified to be chief executive.
• The entourage responds with discredited allegations of rampant voter fraud.  To address their concern, they gut the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and adopt new voting procedures which suppress turnout, primarily against already underrepresented demographic groups.
• Specific members of the entourage try and block the president’s healthcare initiative even though it is based on a similar program championed by another member of their elite cadre.
• The entourage next spends four years and $6.8 million investigating the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans died.  They seem unconcerned this is more than was spent by the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks in which 2,977 Americans perished.
• Displeased with the entourage’s inability to de-legitimatize the sitting president, the star announces his own campaign for the oval office.
• He opens his campaign by calling most undocumented immigrants murderers and rapists, contrary to available crime data.
• He calls for a ban on all Muslims entering the country in violation of the Bill of Rights.
• He suggests women who seek abortions should be punished, but quickly recants when the most right-wing, religious members of his entourage question his judgment.
• He states an honored veteran who was held as a prisoner of war should not be considered a hero.
• He accepts an unearned Purple Heart and jokes about how  this is much easier than the traditional method of obtaining the medal.
• He criticizes a Gold Star family who suggests he does not understand the contributions and sacrifices Muslim-Americans make.
• After 18 months of charging his opponent with conflicts of interests, the star refuses to disclose information which might present his own questionable financial entanglements.  The entourage refuses to press the issue or investigate.
• Claiming his opponent misused her family foundation for personal gain, the star pays penalties for self-dealing by his own foundation.
• While referring to his opponent as “corrupt,” the star refuses to  acknowledge any guilt in defrauding “students” at his unsanctioned “university.”  He later settles the class action law suit with a $25 million payment to the plaintiffs.
• Despite calling for his opponent’s incarceration for use of a private email server, the star adds General David Petraeus as a potential nominee for secretary of state, despite the General’s resignation as CIA director and misdemeanor conviction for mishandling classified information
• The entourage, which swears it is the guardian of the Constitution, remains silent as their star proposes penalties directed at the press and political activists contrary to protections in the First Amendment.
• In a final act of political cowardice, members of the entourage who called the star unfit for the presidency and a con-man, curry his favor in hopes of appointments to key positions in his administration.

At the end of their performance, the star and entourage take a bow.  The consultant, shocked but impressed, says, “That’s AMAZING! And what do you call the act?”  In unison the star and his entourage respond, “The Republicans.”

It is the dark humor and despicable nature of “The Aristocrats” which captured audiences who viewed the documentary.  Sadly, the same could be said of this sequel.  If only it were just a politically incorrect and tasteless joke.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Much is being made about the lack of government experience among several of  Donald Trump’s cabinet selections and White House staff.  Ironically, I believe that should be the least of the president-elect’s concerns. In “Donald Trump’s Cabinet Is On Track To Be the Least Experienced in Modern History” (Huffington Post, November 24, 2016),  former Bill Clinton policy advisor William Galston states:

My assumption is that unless people are really stupid, if they want to move an agenda, then they will pick senior deputies who know how to move agendas through the machinery of government.

Galston compares the situation to that of the CEO of a company hiring a chief operating officer and a chief financial officer who are familiar with the “nuts and bolts” of the operation.

What Trump should find more disquieting is their lack of experience with him personally.  Compare the current situation with the past two administrations.  Regardless of what you think of their presidencies, both George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s inner circles included individuals with whom they had long-term relationships. For example, Karl Rove became part of Bush’s “entourage” during the 43rd president’s unsuccessful campaign for congressman in 1973.  In other words, by the time Rove joined the Bush White House as senior adviser, he and the president had known each other for 27 years. Likewise, David Axelrod first met Obama in 1992 and served as an unofficial adviser to the future president when he served in the Illinois legislature and as U.S. Senator.  They had a friendship which spanned two decades before Axelrod moved into his West Wing office.

Why is this important?  Think about people you turn to for advice and counsel on critical issues in your life and work.  While there may be dozens of individuals with knowledge and experience, I know my first choice is someone with whom I also have a personal relationship.  Why?  Because that individual is interested in more than just the technical aspects of the issue or problem.  They also take into account the impact of any decision on me.  I know I’m getting great advice when someone says, “There may be a legal justification for this option, but can you live with it?  You need to think about your reputation and values.”

In contrast, Steve Bannon, who will hold the same White House position as Rove and Axelrod, joined the Trump campaign on August 17, 2016.  To wit, by the time Bannon officially becomes a West Wing occupant, he and the president will have had a personal and professional relationship spanning less than six months.  Similarly, Trump and his new chief of staff Reince Prebus lack any previous personal or professional rapport.  Go down the list of appointments to date.  What is the common thread?  Most, if not all, are known, not for their past friendship or association with Trump, but for their position on specific policy issues (e.g., education secretary Betsy DeVos and school choice).

Therefore, if I were the incoming president, here’s what would keep me up at night.  Are my appointees more interested in their own agendas than they are in my success?  Something you don’t have to even consider if your associates are long-time friends as well.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

It should come as no surprise Donald Trump’s favorite movie is the 1941 Orson Wells classic Citizen Kane. In a 1998 review, critic Roger Ebert opens with the following.

“I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life,” says one of the searchers through the warehouse of treasures left behind by Charles Foster Kane. Then we get the famous series of shots leading to the closeup of the word “Rosebud” on a sled that has been tossed into a furnace, its paint curling in the flames. We remember that this was Kane’s childhood sled, taken from him as he was torn from his family and sent east to boarding school.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the president-elect’s final words are, “Cornwall-on-Hudson,”the site of the military boarding school where his parents sent him at the age of thirteen.

However, 1941 gives us an alternative cinematic analogy of Donald Trump’s rise to power.  In his March 1941 review of Frank Capra’s Meet John Doe, then New York Times movie critic Bosley Crowther describes the title character as:

…a young fellow, a genial and aimless tramp, who is hoaxed into playing the role of a cynical social firebrand for the sake of a newspaper stunt. At first he lolls in luxury while articles ag’in this and that are ghost-written for him and printed in the aggressive, unscrupulous sheet. Then, under the pleasantly romantic influence of his beautiful “ghost,” he goes on the radio with a stirring and encouraging appeal to the “little man.”

If only life was as black and white as these two cinema classics.  Donald Trump is hardly a one-dimensional personality.  Like Charles Foster Kane, he has parlayed his standing as the head of a business empire into a political career.  And a la John Willoughby (Gary Cooper’s character in Meet John Doe), Trump is, to some extent, the creation of ghostwriters such as Tony Schwartz (The Art of the Deal).  Add a pinch of Willie Stark (All the King’s Men) and you’ve got an very mottled concoction.

Though the most obvious comparisons are between the president-elect and the title characters in each of these films, what I find more intriguing is the extent to which  the Trump electoral coalition responded to the populist themes embedded in the three screenplays.  Consider the following .  In Citizen Kane, the protagonist lays out his “declaration of principles.”

I will provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings.

In Meet John Doe, John Willoughby includes the following to explain his emergence as a champion of the people.

If anybody should ask you what the average John Doe is like, you couldn’t tell him because he’s a million and one things. He’s Mr. Big and Mr. Small. He’s simple and he’s wise. He’s inherently honest, but he’s got a streak of larceny in his heart. He seldom walks up to a public telephone without shoving his finger into the slot to see if somebody left a nickel there.

And finally, Willie Stark explains how tragic events triggered his evolution from a self-interested lawyer to the voice of the common person.

Now I’m not gonna lie to ya. He (referring to himself) didn’t start off thinkin’ about the hicks and all the wonderful things he was gonna do for ’em. Naw, naw, he started off thinkin’ of number one. But something came to him on the way. How he could do nothin’ for himself without the help of the people. That’s what came to him. And it also came to him with the powerful force of God’s own lightning back in his home county when the school building collapsed ’cause it was built of politics’ rotten brick. It killed and mangled a dozen kids. But you know that story. The people were his friends because he’d fought that rotten brick. And some of the politicians down in the city, they knew that, so they rode up to his house in a big, fine, shiny car and said as how they wanted him to run for Governor.

Two of these stories end in tragedy.  Willie Stark is assassinated by the brother of the Governor’s mistress.  Charles Foster Kane dies a broken man, morally and spiritually, who is said to have been loved by millions and hated by millions more.  Only John Willoughby emerges unscathed when he acknowledges he has deceived his followers and atones by exposing those who have used him for their own political purposes.

I wish I knew which ending best fits the real-life drama of 2016 and the forthcoming Trump administration. They say life imitates art.  I guess the course of history depends on which masterpieces hang on your walls or which Netflix videos you save to “My List.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The late George Carlin once questioned whether the opening to the TV series The Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves was redundant or contradictory.  Each week, the narrator would remind us:

Yes, it’s Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands. And who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way. And now another exciting episode in the adventures of Superman.

Carlin satirically wondered why the phrase “and the American way” was necessary.  He argued there is no need to include it unless the American way is different from truth and justice.  “Wouldn’t it be more correct to say ‘truth, justice or the American way’.”

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, the most disappointing aspect for me is not the fact my favored candidate did not win, but the extent to which candidates up and down the ballot, their surrogates and the parties that supported them have become what I would call the “wizards of ORs.” In a previous post, I applauded Trevor Noah, host of The Daily Show, for pointing out you can be pro-police and empathize with the Black Lives Matter movement.  I would like to believe individuals can be atheists/agnostics AND still support freedom of religion.  Or one can honor the Second Amendment AND still question the wisdom of making semi-automatic weapon systems available to the general public.

Policy discussions in the United States used to be about compromise and accommodation.  Ronald Reagan once said, “If I can’t get 100 percent of what I want, I’ll settle for 80 percent.”  Today, those who don’t get 100 percent, take their ball and go home.  Imagine what sports would be like if owners, coaches and players shared that attitude.  Any time an official’s call went the wrong way, teams would retreat to the locker room.  Game over. And who suffers the most.  Not the owners, coaches and players, as they likely will still get paid regardless (just as public officials do even when they do not do their jobs).  The real victims are the fans who no longer get the value they thought the paid for.

In my opinion, the response to Tuesday’s outcome by many public officials on both sides of the aisle has been disheartening.  Instead of becoming the ‘wizards of ANDs” and providing the leadership needed to re-unite a divided country, they are still hiding behind the curtain, manipulating the smoke and mirrors to demonstrate the false power they wield in lieu of genuine leadership.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP